Academically Qualified?

JLocke wrote: I still don't buy it. Even if I am learning music theory subconsciously, I am not aware of it, and therefore do not recognize it in my composition or playing. So it's still an adventure for me every time I pick up an instrument. My point is still valid as a result. I could care less if I'm implementing theory without knowing it. What matters is how I choose to look at music, and I view it as an art; not a science.

Are you saying you play 100% by ear and don't know any music theory at all?

Dean wrote: The Pessimist wrote: In other words, I was saying that music theory isn't necessarily a necessity in writing good music. as far as I see it, all you need is passion (take a look at Stevie Wonder, who I know for a fact had no training whatsoever). However, I was wrong about Beethoven a little. Classical music is a different kettle of fish and you do need formal training to know how chords work, how to make an orchestra sound good and not cluttered, etc... But with that alone, he couldn't have written the masterpieces he did. It's a bit like having the car as music theory and the driver as the composer's own passion and vision. Neither are going to get anywhere without each other. Unless you have a robot driving the car, in which case the end product will sound like Yngwie Malmsteen (it's a joke people, treat it like a joke and don't get all defensive). This topic always gets me into trouble   Everyone who learns an instrument picks up Music Theory - it's not a magic black art. For example the Circle of 5ths is something most players know by one means or another and they use it either consciously or subconsciously to develop harmony, chord progressions and modulation - it's an academic fact and an intuitive reality. How that knowledge comes about is immaterial to me, what interests me is how they use that knowledge - in the world of mainstream pop and rock it is rigidly adhered to (usually), in Prog, Jazz (and Classical) it is not - Prog musicians break the rules - how and why they break the rules is something that appeals to me as much as the broken rule itself.

It's like the saying "you have to know the rules before you break them" I suppose. Even if you "know" them subconciously and only go by what sounds good to your ears.

The Pessimist wrote: In other words, I was saying that music theory isn't necessarily a necessity in writing good music. as far as I see it, all you need is passion (take a look at Stevie Wonder, who I know for a fact had no training whatsoever). However, I was wrong about Beethoven a little. Classical music is a different kettle of fish and you do need formal training to know how chords work, how to make an orchestra sound good and not cluttered, etc... But with that alone, he couldn't have written the masterpieces he did. It's a bit like having the car as music theory and the driver as the composer's own passion and vision. Neither are going to get anywhere without each other. Unless you have a robot driving the car, in which case the end product will sound like Yngwie Malmsteen (it's a joke people, treat it like a joke and don't get all defensive).

This topic always gets me into trouble

The Pessimist wrote: Dean wrote: JLocke wrote: The Pessimist wrote: J-Man wrote: The Pessimist wrote: JLocke wrote: Who cares? This. Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school. Booyah, high five *SNAP* Exactly. Think about Chuck Schuldiner for example (who I know you're a fan of, Alex). He didn't know sh*t about music theory, let alone formal education, and I consider him to be a genius musician. Formal education doesn't "teach" you how to be a great musician. It only teaches you the "correct" ways of being a great musician. Formal education always helps, but natural talent rules in the end. -Jeff Yeah man, Chuck wrote things beyond ANYONE'S imagination, let alone musician's imagination. He really was a Philosopher. But my true feelings are summed up with this: too much knowledge of music theory destroys the meaning of music for most. There's no element of "how the f**k did he do that???" when you know exactly how everything is done. It's better for me sometimes to leave the unknown unknown, because only then can you actually appreciate what you are hearing, not what it looks like written down. VERY well put, Aleks.  That's all well and good for the listening to music, but doesn't say much for the creation of music.   There is a huge gulf between being a great musician and being a great composer- the two disciplines are related but it does not follow that a great player will write great music.   While intuition, gut-feel and a damn good ear counts for a lot, understanding, music theory and composition cannot be dismissed.   oh, yeah, Beethoven's father was a music teacher - he got his early music education at home - he then studied under Neefe and then Haydn, who taught him the finer points of counter-point. Lugwig was far from uneducated. In other words, I was saying that music theory isn't necessarily a necessity in writing good music. as far as I see it, all you need is passion (take a look at Stevie Wonder, who I know for a fact had no training whatsoever). However, I was wrong about Beethoven a little. Classical music is a different kettle of fish and you do need formal training to know how chords work, how to make an orchestra sound good and not cluttered, etc... But with that alone, he couldn't have written the masterpieces he did. It's a bit like having the car as music theory and the driver as the composer's own passion and vision. Neither are going to get anywhere without each other. Unless you have a robot driving the car, in which case the end product will sound like Yngwie Malmsteen (it's a joke people, treat it like a joke and don't get all defensive).

Dean wrote: JLocke wrote: The Pessimist wrote: J-Man wrote: The Pessimist wrote: JLocke wrote: Who cares? This. Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school. Booyah, high five *SNAP* Exactly. Think about Chuck Schuldiner for example (who I know you're a fan of, Alex). He didn't know sh*t about music theory, let alone formal education, and I consider him to be a genius musician. Formal education doesn't "teach" you how to be a great musician. It only teaches you the "correct" ways of being a great musician. Formal education always helps, but natural talent rules in the end. -Jeff Yeah man, Chuck wrote things beyond ANYONE'S imagination, let alone musician's imagination. He really was a Philosopher. But my true feelings are summed up with this: too much knowledge of music theory destroys the meaning of music for most. There's no element of "how the f**k did he do that???" when you know exactly how everything is done. It's better for me sometimes to leave the unknown unknown, because only then can you actually appreciate what you are hearing, not what it looks like written down. VERY well put, Aleks.  That's all well and good for the listening to music, but doesn't say much for the creation of music.   There is a huge gulf between being a great musician and being a great composer- the two disciplines are related but it does not follow that a great player will write great music.   While intuition, gut-feel and a damn good ear counts for a lot, understanding, music theory and composition cannot be dismissed.   oh, yeah, Beethoven's father was a music teacher - he got his early music education at home - he then studied under Neefe and then Haydn, who taught him the finer points of counter-point. Lugwig was far from uneducated.

In other words, I was saying that music theory isn't necessarily a necessity in writing good music. as far as I see it, all you need is passion (take a look at Stevie Wonder, who I know for a fact had no training whatsoever). However, I was wrong about Beethoven a little. Classical music is a different kettle of fish and you do need formal training to know how chords work, how to make an orchestra sound good and not cluttered, etc... But with that alone, he couldn't have written the masterpieces he did. It's a bit like having the car as music theory and the driver as the composer's own passion and vision. Neither are going to get anywhere without each other. Unless you have a robot driving the car, in which case the end product will sound like Yngwie Malmsteen (it's a joke people, treat it like a joke and don't get all defensive).

Dean wrote: JLocke wrote: The Pessimist wrote: J-Man wrote: The Pessimist wrote: JLocke wrote: Who cares? This.Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school.Booyah, high five *SNAP* Exactly. Think about Chuck Schuldiner for example (who I know you're a fan of, Alex).He didn't know sh*t about music theory, let alone formal education, and I consider him to be a genius musician. Formal education doesn't "teach" you how to be a great musician. It only teaches you the "correct" ways of being a great musician.Formal education always helps, but natural talent rules in the end.-Jeff Yeah man, Chuck wrote things beyond ANYONE'S imagination, let alone musician's imagination. He really was a Philosopher.But my true feelings are summed up with this: too much knowledge of music theory destroys the meaning of music for most. There's no element of "how the f**k did he do that???" when you know exactly how everything is done. It's better for me sometimes to leave the unknown unknown, because only then can you actually appreciate what you are hearing, not what it looks like written down. VERY well put, Aleks.  That's all well and good for the listening to music, but doesn't say much for the creation of music.   There is a huge gulf between being a great musician and being a great composer- the two disciplines are related but it does not follow that a great player will write great music.   While intuition, gut-feel and a damn good ear counts for a lot, understanding, music theory and composition cannot be dismissed.   oh, yeah, Beethoven's father was a music teacher - he got his early music education at home - he then studied under Neefe and then Haydn, who taught him the finer points of counter-point. Lugwig was far from uneducated.

Gustav Holst is a good example of what you're saying, re; composers/musicians. He was learning the violin from a very early age, but hated it, and found it very hard, and gave up before the age of ten. He took to the piano, but as far as I'm aware never considered himself good enough to be an actual performer.

His compositions, on the other hand were superb.

These discussions can be overly pedantic, and not being someone who fully understands the technicalities of music theory, I tend to have more affection (rightly or wrongly) for musicians who just 'feel it'...man

Dean wrote: JLocke wrote: The Pessimist wrote: J-Man wrote: The Pessimist wrote: JLocke wrote: Who cares? This. Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school. Booyah, high five *SNAP* Exactly. Think about Chuck Schuldiner for example (who I know you're a fan of, Alex). He didn't know sh*t about music theory, let alone formal education, and I consider him to be a genius musician. Formal education doesn't "teach" you how to be a great musician. It only teaches you the "correct" ways of being a great musician. Formal education always helps, but natural talent rules in the end. -Jeff Yeah man, Chuck wrote things beyond ANYONE'S imagination, let alone musician's imagination. He really was a Philosopher. But my true feelings are summed up with this: too much knowledge of music theory destroys the meaning of music for most. There's no element of "how the f**k did he do that???" when you know exactly how everything is done. It's better for me sometimes to leave the unknown unknown, because only then can you actually appreciate what you are hearing, not what it looks like written down. VERY well put, Aleks.  That's all well and good for the listening to music, but doesn't say much for the creation of music.   There is a huge gulf between being a great musician and being a great composer- the two disciplines are related but it does not follow that a great player will write great music.   While intuition, gut-feel and a damn good ear counts for a lot, understanding, music theory and composition cannot be dismissed.   oh, yeah, Beethoven's father was a music teacher - he got his early music education at home - he then studied under Neefe and then Haydn, who taught him the finer points of counter-point. Lugwig was far from uneducated.

Edited by JLocke - February 18 2010 at 13:17

The Pessimist wrote: J-Man wrote: The Pessimist wrote: JLocke wrote: Who cares? This. Beethoven wrote more advanced music than ANY prog band, and he didn't even go to school. Booyah, high five *SNAP* Exactly. Think about Chuck Schuldiner for example (who I know you're a fan of, Alex). He didn't know sh*t about music theory, let alone formal education, and I consider him to be a genius musician. Formal education doesn't "teach" you how to be a great musician. It only teaches you the "correct" ways of being a great musician. Formal education always helps, but natural talent rules in the end. -Jeff Yeah man, Chuck wrote things beyond ANYONE'S imagination, let alone musician's imagination. He really was a Philosopher. But my true feelings are summed up with this: too much knowledge of music theory destroys the meaning of music for most. There's no element of "how the f**k did he do that???" when you know exactly how everything is done. It's better for me sometimes to leave the unknown unknown, because only then can you actually appreciate what you are hearing, not what it looks like written down.

dwill123 wrote:

Now that's one cool picture!
I seem to remember Van Morrison has at least one honorary doctorate.
And isn't Steve Hillage a philosophy graduate from the University of Kent?
"Oh me oh my there's a LIGHT in the sky!"

ABC wrote: Yes, in physics. hehe. I meant musicly of course. It is amazing that some of these bands made such complicated music with no in depth academic knowledge.

Not really. What may sound very complicated to the relatively untrained ear, will come to any have decent musican, with plenty of practice. When Genesis and Yes started out, they were nowhere near the musicians they were just four years later. Same can be said for Rush, or any band for that matter.

I think the stamp of a good musican, is not whether he/she can read, write and fully understand musical theory, it's whether they are able to effectively translate the ideas in their mind, into music..through whatever means.

Bear in mind, also that the mindset of classical musicans, is very different from that of jazz and rock musicians. Firstly, classical is about composition. Improvisation is sneered at in classical circles. Classical music is played as dictated by the sheet music, that the composer composed. It actually doen't follow that a classically trained pianist - for example - could immediately and effectively turn his/her hand to jazz improv.