Prog and (how much) Music Theory?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=50723
Printed Date: February 22 2025 at 02:43
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Prog and (how much) Music Theory?
Posted By: Thunder
Subject: Prog and (how much) Music Theory?
Date Posted: August 04 2008 at 17:03
My Question is:
How well does a Rrogressive Rock musician have to know music theory? Does he have to study it? Just have to know basic musical knowledge? No conception of music theory?
Maybe you have a few examples as well.
BTW: This thread must not be taken all too seriously, I'd just like to hear a few statements. 
P.S. My postings may contain a lot of mistakes. I'm not a native speaker, but an Austrian student.
-------------
"The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is." - Oscar Wilde
|
Replies:
Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: August 04 2008 at 22:11
|
Theory is very important but sometimes pushing boundaries and defying
theory is equally important , there are some bands around with limited
knowledge of theory that are cutting edge because they take what they
know and throw away the rule book .. ultimately feel and vision is the
guts to it, the theory is like extra colors on the pallet it doesn't
really mean the artist can paint just because he knows the theory.
|
Posted By: Luke. J
Date Posted: August 05 2008 at 01:24
Knowledge about music theory is not essential, but sure can help. Unless you do not play very avant-garde music (do not take this too serious  ), it is helpful to add harmonies or polyrythms to the music, to be able to write coherent chord progressions. In conclusion I would say that it all is about what comes out in the end..
|
Posted By: song_of_copper
Date Posted: August 05 2008 at 05:51
Lots of progressive music people have been highly influenced by classical music - and a lot of them are 'conservatory rebels', it seems to me. People who have studied music theory, but use what they've learned to do something original, unconventional and 'polluted' with all kinds of other influences...
I agree with what others have said above - it's useful for a progressive music composer/performer to have that orthodox knowledge, but it's how they use it that counts! Also, no-one can teach you to 'be musical', or how to have a good musical idea. Some people just sort of know without knowing, I think... 
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: August 05 2008 at 06:26
Indeed, you can barely know anything about music theory and still be a
prog musician. I would guess that David Gilmour for eg, had a very
primitive knowledge of theory in the earlier days of Pink Floyd, but
despite that he was an amazing musician.
On the opposite end of the spectrum would be many of the tech/extreme
prog metal, jazz rock fusion guys (not just limited to those genres,
but just examples) who may have studied theory intensely.
 song_of_copper wrote:
Lots of progressive music people have been highly influenced by classical music - and a lot of them are 'conservatory rebels', it seems to me. People who have studied music theory, but use what they've learned to do something original, unconventional and 'polluted' with all kinds of other influences...
I agree with what others have said above - it's useful for a progressive music composer/performer to have that orthodox knowledge, but it's how they use it that counts! Also, no-one can teach you to 'be musical', or how to have a good musical idea. Some people just sort of know without knowing, I think...
|
That is a very misinformed statement (no offense ).
Of course you can teach someone to be musical. If a guitar teacher were to teach his students the value of how to make good phrases, that would be lesson in musicality. If a piano teacher were to teach their student the value of properly placed dynamics, that would be a lesson in being musical.
-------------
|
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: August 05 2008 at 06:29
I find theory helps alot but to remain indivual and true to yourself play from the heart and dont let theory control you otherwise you might sound like Steve Vai.I guess in prog its quite important, you can see the differences in bands say Frank Zappa (theory) then then the mars volta (no theory).
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: song_of_copper
Date Posted: August 05 2008 at 06:45
HughesJB4 wrote:
song_of_copper wrote:
Also, no-one can teach you to 'be musical', or how to have a good musical idea. Some people just sort of know without knowing, I think...
|
That is a very misinformed statement (no offense).
Of course you can teach someone to be musical. If a guitar teacher were to teach his students the value of how to make good phrases, that would be lesson in musicality. If a piano teacher were to teach their student the value of properly placed dynamics, that would be a lesson in being musical.
|
No offense taken! 
I just mean that some people have more of an instinct for those things than others - sure, anyone could benefit from a good teacher, but not everyone 'gets it'... as in, being able to take that instruction, feel the sense of it, go off and do something original. Some people will just reproduce what they've been taught, practically verbatim, whilst others will expand on it in their own way.
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: August 05 2008 at 06:56
song_of_copper wrote:
HughesJB4 wrote:
song_of_copper wrote:
Also, no-one can teach you to 'be musical', or how to have a good musical idea. Some people just sort of know without knowing, I think...
|
That is a very misinformed statement (no offense).
Of course you can teach someone to be musical. If a guitar teacher were to teach his students the value of how to make good phrases, that would be lesson in musicality. If a piano teacher were to teach their student the value of properly placed dynamics, that would be a lesson in being musical.
|
No offense taken!
I just mean that some people have more of an instinct for those things than others - sure, anyone could benefit from a good teacher, but not everyone 'gets it'... as in, being able to take that instruction, feel the sense of it, go off and do something original. Some people will just reproduce what they've been taught, practically verbatim, whilst others will expand on it in their own way.
|
Ah I see what you mean know, just it wasn't that obviously implied in your first post Hmm, I don't originality is necessarily what separates those that "get it" from those that don't.
Take for eg this hypothetical situation. A dude that can't play anything original, but can nail Liszt pieces note for note, every dynamic etc to a tee. Another guy that has figured out how to make some weird new sounds from his guitar, but it sounds like crap. You can be as original as you want, but it's gotta sound good.
I listen to the Liszt note for note guy over the bumbling idiot that can conjure up weird sounds any day of the week.
But of course, the serious genius, is the 3rd one of the bunch, the musical one that creates new ideas, as you said
-------------
|
Posted By: song_of_copper
Date Posted: August 05 2008 at 07:14
HughesJB4 wrote:
Ah I see what you mean know, just it wasn't that obviously implied in your first post Hmm, I don't originality is necessarily what separates those that "get it" from those that don't.
Take
for eg this hypothetical situation. A dude that can't play anything
original, but can nail Liszt pieces note for note, every dynamic etc to
a tee. Another guy that has figured out how to make some weird new
sounds from his guitar, but it sounds like crap. You can be as original
as you want, but it's gotta sound good.
I listen to the Liszt note for note guy over the bumbling idiot that can conjure up weird sounds any day of the week.
But of course, the serious genius, is the 3rd one of the bunch, the musical one that creates new ideas, as you said
|
Aargh, my brain's not working very well today. Language skills somewhat diminished... 
Anyway, I'm not sure that 'originality' is what I meant either, at
least, not in terms of doing something completely off the wall or
unheard of. You're right that a pianist faking Liszt is probably a
better listening experience than someone's completely unique concerto
for garbage bin and kazoo.
I suppose it's like... art class. Some people will spend the rest of
their days painting landscapes, in exactly the same style as their
teacher. Others will also paint landscapes, but with their own
recognisable style. They've taken the theory but added something of
their own to it, which couldn't have been taught.
Alright, I'm outta here! No more rambling from me... 
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: August 05 2008 at 07:18
song_of_copper wrote:
HughesJB4 wrote:
Ah I see what you mean know, just it wasn't that obviously implied in your first post Hmm, I don't originality is necessarily what separates those that "get it" from those that don't.
Take
for eg this hypothetical situation. A dude that can't play anything
original, but can nail Liszt pieces note for note, every dynamic etc to
a tee. Another guy that has figured out how to make some weird new
sounds from his guitar, but it sounds like crap. You can be as original
as you want, but it's gotta sound good.
I listen to the Liszt note for note guy over the bumbling idiot that can conjure up weird sounds any day of the week.
But of course, the serious genius, is the 3rd one of the bunch, the musical one that creates new ideas, as you said
|
Aargh, my brain's not working very well today. Language skills somewhat diminished...
Anyway, I'm not sure that 'originality' is what I meant either, at
least, not in terms of doing something completely off the wall or
unheard of. You're right that a pianist faking Liszt is probably a
better listening experience than someone's completely unique concerto
for garbage bin and kazoo.
I suppose it's like... art class. Some people will spend the rest of
their days painting landscapes, in exactly the same style as their
teacher. Others will also paint landscapes, but with their own
recognisable style. They've taken the theory but added something of
their own to it, which couldn't have been taught.
Alright, I'm outta here! No more rambling from me... |
Ahhm, that made my day
-------------
|
Posted By: dzx
Date Posted: August 05 2008 at 15:33
Not whatsover. Im a classical trained pianist and knowledge of music theory can be an achilles heel. You really need to let your gut instinct lead you in music. Its always right! Knowledge of music is good but if your not careful it can spoil your passion as you are consistently analyzing rather than enjoying the music for what it is.
-------------
was that just an Am augmented minor 9th i heard? nice!
|
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: August 05 2008 at 18:09
Why does a prog fan have to know music at all to enjoy it?
In my case I know how the play the guitar, but I cant read music... not particulary proud of it either...
-------------
"You want me to play what, Robert?"
|
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: August 06 2008 at 04:59
mrcozdude wrote:
I find theory helps alot but to remain indivual and true to yourself play from the heart and dont let theory control you otherwise you might sound like Steve Vai.I guess in prog its quite important, you can see the differences in bands say Frank Zappa (theory) then then the mars volta (no theory). |
I'm pretty sure Omar of The Mars Volta has a pretty deep knowledge of musical theory; there's a lot of stuff going on in that music that's way beyond me!
I can't think of any form of music that doesn't require at least SOME rudimentary knowledge of theory to create. The more complex or intricate the music is, the more knowledge is needed.
EDIT: Except rap.. that can probably be done without theory
|
Posted By: Draith
Date Posted: August 06 2008 at 05:40
Depends on what your going for. I've heard some prog(ish) bands that don't really do anything with music theory, just riffs, melodies, solos, and such. Having just the basic knowledge will certainly get you by, if your talking about writing music. My pianist friend and I have been composing some stuff lately, and we found he as great music theory knowledge but doesn't have much of a sense of what just sounds right to one's ears, while music theory (mainly in the sense of chord structures) is my greatest weakness, but I have a great ear for what just sounds write. So combined we write some pretty impressive music (for our ages). My suggestion is get at least someone, even if it's just one person, in your band that knows music theory, and have him help out with the song writing process. Or you could just wing it and write a melody over a riff, a bass that just supports the riff or root tone, and let the drummer run (or... bang) wild. That's kinda what my high school band did last year.
|
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: August 06 2008 at 10:10
el böthy wrote:
Why does a prog fan have to know music at all to enjoy it?
In my case I know how the play the guitar, but I cant read music... not particulary proud of it either...
|
i almost have my degree in Violin but i stopped my music scholarship to attend to the Law college. I wish i had the time to graduate at both on the same time.
-------------
  
|
Posted By: Nil Recurring
Date Posted: August 06 2008 at 17:15
I think knowledge of music is important, but not as important as creativity. There are loads of incredible musicians who don't play prog, on the other hand there are musicians who haven't too much musical knowledge and do play prog.. It all comes down on the creative mind
-------------
Music is no entertainment.. music is art! thread it that way
|
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: August 06 2008 at 19:14
Posted By: pianomandust
Date Posted: August 06 2008 at 23:48
There is a little saying that goes around in classical musicians' circles: "You can't break the rules unless you know the rules." Therefore, knowing music theory is a great thing, although perhaps not entirely necessary for prog music. But unless you know which rules you are breaking, it isn't worth anything to break them. Get my drift? It makes writing music a lot more fun in my opinion to break every rule in the book, so long as you know what the rules are. There are prog musicians out there that have insane knowledge of theory - Michael Romeo anyone? So it can really work either way. I personally just think it is a lot more fun to be knowledgeable about what is being thrown out the window in some prog music instead of just thinking, "whoa, that sounds pretty wild."
-------------
and then there was music...
|
Posted By: popeyethecat
Date Posted: August 07 2008 at 10:22
pianomandust wrote:
"You can't break the rules unless you know the rules." |
-------------
|
Posted By: tokenrove
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 12:24
I'm reminded of an Andre Malraux quote, something like, "an artist doesn't paint a picture of a tree because he saw a tree, but because he saw a painting of a tree." It's my feeling that even if one doesn't know theory in depth, one must be at least aware of it, which is probably where Omar from the Mars Volta is coming from. Stravinsky claims to have written the Rite of Spring in a pretty similar frame -- obviously he knew the theory that accounted for his prior music, but he followed his ear when creating that work... which doesn't mean that his knowledge of harmony and form didn't heavily influence it. Later theory came to encompass what Stravinsky was doing in Le Sacre, but the funny thing is, when a lot of people say they "know theory" these days, they're talking about a purely tonal theory that lacks a lot of what happened since 1900; I wonder if they wouldn't find it more useful if they had more modern theory at their disposal.
So, what am I trying to say? I guess it's that when I enjoy another musician's work, especially in prog, I often later discover that they were aware of some of the things that music theory encompasses -- harmony, texture, form. Often enough not by studying it formally, but from encounters playing and listening to music like that.
|
Posted By: cobb2
Date Posted: August 11 2008 at 01:24
|
There may be a link between formal music training and accomplished musos, but it may only be because these are the type of people who feel the need to live and breath music. What I mean is that a musician who practices his instrument as if it was the only thing there was to do in life would also be more inclined to take it a step further and learn the theory and history behind it all. But I think the important thing to realise is that these people live to be able to play the instrument and it is more likely the hours of practice time they spend, than the theory they learn, that makes them what they.
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: August 11 2008 at 11:36
pianomandust wrote:
There is a little saying that goes around in classical musicians' circles: "You can't break the rules unless you know the rules." |
But it's a mistake to consider music theory as a set of rules--it's a descriptive rather than prescriptive theory, i.e. it's simply a collection of guidelines on what generally works or is sonorous to the occidental ear, not a body of regulations as to how or what to compose.
|
Posted By: progbaby
Date Posted: August 12 2008 at 10:15
|
A good knowledge of theory cannot hurt but I don't believe it's essential for survival.
The basics would suffice which would include:
- Time signatures and tempos
- Keys and key changes
- Which chords sound good in which keys (and then notes can be derived from there)
I'm an old fart who picked up the guitar about 8 years ago and have learned the most important thing is being able to "hear" the music. If one can "hear" the music and play along with it, no theory can make up for it. If one applies too much theory, their music loses artistic creativity and starts to sounds like a mechanical machine.
As a guitar player (who is not playing classical guitar), it's not important to be able to read standard notation. Chord charts are enough and one can improvise over them using either appregios or scales (although http://www.thatllteachyou.com - www.thatllteachyou.com does not recommend using scales and after doing that for 3 years now, I wholeheartedly with him that "thinking in scales sound too mechanical and uninspired").
To be able to sing/hum a line and immediately be able to play the notes by ear is (IHMO) the most important gift/skill for me to work for. If one can do that, theory is just a compliment. If you can hum something and immediately play it, the opportunities for expression are endless.
Forgive me if I offend anyone but I have had people with MS degrees in music tell me that they use their thoery knowledge mostly at cocktail parties when they're having conversations with other people about how good they are at musical knowledge. It's fun to hear two people with MS degrees in music try and "out theory each other" in their conversations. But once they get on stage and start performing, they leave a lot of that theory behind them and rely on their ear and fingers to go to the right fret/string.
I'd like to feel that art rock comes from within the heart of the musician and that they were humming melodies and pieces rather than reaching for their theory books to stamp out a solo. I'd like to feel that theory knowledge is another tool in their toolchest but that the majority of the compositions come from the heart and there's no theory in that.
How many people without theory or musical knowledge are able to hum nice melodies? I hope almost 100%  If you can hear a note and immediately go there on the guitar or keyboards, etc.., then that's worth more than any theory.
I love the fact that many of the singer/songwritter greats out there (Dylan, Donovan, Baez, etc..) were able to do most of their stuff without a lick of thoery 
|
Posted By: dzx
Date Posted: August 12 2008 at 10:35
progbaby wrote:
A good knowledge of theory cannot hurt but I don't believe it's essential for survival.
The basics would suffice which would include:
- Time signatures and tempos
- Keys and key changes
- Which chords sound good in which keys (and then notes can be derived from there)
I'm an old fart who picked up the guitar about 8 years ago and have learned the most important thing is being able to "hear" the music. If one can "hear" the music and play along with it, no theory can make up for it. If one applies too much theory, their music loses artistic creativity and starts to sounds like a mechanical machine.
As a guitar player (who is not playing classical guitar), it's not important to be able to read standard notation. Chord charts are enough and one can improvise over them using either appregios or scales (although http://www.thatllteachyou.com - www.thatllteachyou.com does not recommend using scales and after doing that for 3 years now, I wholeheartedly with him that "thinking in scales sound too mechanical and uninspired").
To be able to sing/hum a line and immediately be able to play the notes by ear is (IHMO) the most important gift/skill for me to work for. If one can do that, theory is just a compliment. If you can hum something and immediately play it, the opportunities for expression are endless.
Forgive me if I offend anyone but I have had people with MS degrees in music tell me that they use their thoery knowledge mostly at cocktail parties when they're having conversations with other people about how good they are at musical knowledge. It's fun to hear two people with MS degrees in music try and "out theory each other" in their conversations. But once they get on stage and start performing, they leave a lot of that theory behind them and rely on their ear and fingers to go to the right fret/string.
I'd like to feel that art rock comes from within the heart of the musician and that they were humming melodies and pieces rather than reaching for their theory books to stamp out a solo. I'd like to feel that theory knowledge is another tool in their toolchest but that the majority of the compositions come from the heart and there's no theory in that.
How many people without theory or musical knowledge are able to hum nice melodies? I hope almost 100% If you can hear a note and immediately go there on the guitar or keyboards, etc.., then that's worth more than any theory.
I love the fact that many of the singer/songwritter greats out there (Dylan, Donovan, Baez, etc..) were able to do most of their stuff without a lick of thoery
|
Most important for me is the I IV V chords in a key commonly called the 3 chord trick and their use in cadences. Status Quo made a living out of it but it is really the root of music. for example in, E the favourite key of guitarists because it sits very easily with the strings, the key chords are E B and A, I V IV respectively and most pieces end with V-I called a perfect cadence which in E is B(7)-E. Also to know that a chord is based on the 1st 3rd and 5th note of the scale is very useful. In my example the B7 has the 7th added as well
-------------
was that just an Am augmented minor 9th i heard? nice!
|
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: August 12 2008 at 11:57
CCVP wrote:
el böthy wrote:
Why does a prog fan have to know music at all to enjoy it?
In my case I know how the play the guitar, but I cant read music... not particulary proud of it either...
|
i almost have my degree in Violin but i stopped my music scholarship to attend to the Law college. I wish i had the time to graduate at both on the same time.
|
I will be attending the conservatory next year so I can finally have some good and strict music teaching, but not with the guitar as my main instrument, but with the viola
-------------
"You want me to play what, Robert?"
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 12 2008 at 12:41
WinterLight wrote:
pianomandust wrote:
There is a little saying that goes around in classical musicians' circles: "You can't break the rules unless you know the rules." |
But it's a mistake to consider music theory as a set of rules--it's a descriptive rather than prescriptive theory, i.e. it's simply a collection of guidelines on what generally works or is sonorous to the occidental ear, not a body of regulations as to how or what to compose.
|
It's also a typical beginner's mistake to think that music has no rules.
It has - and by studying theory, you begin to learn what they are.
By practising composition, you learn what they are.
Hopefully there will never be a day when anyone understands them all. 
-------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: August 12 2008 at 13:42
Certif1ed wrote:
WinterLight wrote:
pianomandust wrote:
There is a little saying that goes around in classical musicians' circles: "You can't break the rules unless you know the rules."
|
But it's a mistake to consider music theory as a set of rules--it's a descriptive rather than prescriptive theory, i.e. it's simply a collection of guidelines on what generally works or is sonorous to the occidental ear, not a body of regulations as to how or what to compose.
|
It's also a typical beginner's mistake to think that music has no rules.
In a strict sense, music does not operate according to rules as does say physics (and even this is a somewhat misleading vulgarism). However, there are, as I said previously, guidelines as to what "works." This should be obvious to anyone not interested in protecting a facade of prestige or sophistication.
It has - and by studying theory, you begin to learn what they are.
If it is a "beginner's mistake" to assert that music is without rules, then it is a sophomore's mistake to think that music is premised upon rules. More generally it is a fallacy to regard one's limited experience and training as representative of the totality of knowledge in a particular field.
By practising composition, you learn what they are.
There is one rule to composition: make it sound good to your ear. If you choose to wring your hands over keys, time signatures, etc., then indulge in your obsession, but don't expect to ever be great.
Hopefully there will never be a day when anyone understands them all.
To be frank, music theory is not a particularly demanding field: it is basically like studying a very regular grammar. Creativity, on the other hand, does not come so easily.
|
|
Posted By: dzx
Date Posted: August 12 2008 at 14:03
WinterLight wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
WinterLight wrote:
pianomandust wrote:
There is a little saying that goes around in classical musicians' circles: "You can't break the rules unless you know the rules."
|
But it's a mistake to consider music theory as a set of rules--it's a descriptive rather than prescriptive theory, i.e. it's simply a collection of guidelines on what generally works or is sonorous to the occidental ear, not a body of regulations as to how or what to compose.
|
It's also a typical beginner's mistake to think that music has no rules.
In a strict sense, music does not operate according to rules as does say physics (and even this is a somewhat misleading vulgarism). However, there are, as I said previously, guidelines as to what "works." This should be obvious to anyone not interested in protecting a facade of prestige or sophistication.
It has - and by studying theory, you begin to learn what they are.
If it is a "beginner's mistake" to assert that music is without rules, then it is a sophomore's mistake to think that music is premised upon rules. More generally it is a fallacy to regard one's limited experience and training as representative of the totality of knowledge in a particular field.
By practising composition, you learn what they are.
There is one rule to composition: make it sound good to your ear. If you choose to wring your hands over keys, time signatures, etc., then indulge in your obsession, but don't expect to ever be great.
Hopefully there will never be a day when anyone understands them all.
To be frank, music theory is not a particularly demanding field: it is basically like studying a very regular grammar. Creativity, on the other hand, does not come so easily.
|
|
I think music composition brings subconciously all your influences together and you are trying to create your ideal type of music thru your influences
-------------
was that just an Am augmented minor 9th i heard? nice!
|
Posted By: tokenrove
Date Posted: August 12 2008 at 14:35
No, I have to back up WinterLight here. It's a sophmore mistake to assume music is bound by the "rules" of music theory -- they're purely descriptive, and any study of the history of analysis will reveal how music theory always advances _behind_ composition. Again, look at my earlier Stravinsky example. It's not like there's even one music "theory". People might try to analyze modern works with Schenkerian techniques, for example, but the results are laughably unsatisfactory, just as an analysis of Bach using Babbit's analytical tools would be bizarre (interesting, but unnecessary).
(Side note about scales: I always encourage people to think of scales as being generated from a harmony, rather than the constructive element at play; this becomes clear as soon as you try and scale your way around a Bach piece or anything else with a lot of tonicization and chromaticism.)
|
Posted By: Real Paradox
Date Posted: August 12 2008 at 17:04
I am not affirming that studying and having at least a basic knowledge of music theory is not mainly necessary to perform music, it is in fact highly recommendable for people that need to play some compositions without having, previously, heard the compositions. However, if we take a look at people who are rather insensible about music itself, they tend to be like mere robot. For instance, a person who was not particularly fond of music, and was obligated to follow a path he did not liked, because his parents wanted him to, he would eventually hate music itself.
I love music long before I have even did touch a guitar, and personally, I utterly hate theory in music.
I KNOW that an artist DOES NOT need a discipline to begin with.
When you are producing art, you are subsequently creating it by heart, soul and mind. You try to be diverse, and (as far as prog and avant-garde goes) unorthodox, yet sometimes you seem to be in touch with a pattern (therefore leading your horizons more into the use of a more scientific method, hence music theory). And finally when you compose, the song, you get to listen to it, and if it comes from you, you will like it, if its the contrary, you will hate it (and sometimes, music theory restricts you at that point).
So, all I'm saying it that, if you find within yourself that you need to produce YOUR art, even if the totally scientific music theory does not let you to do that, you must do it. CREATING Art is, GENERALLY a work WITHOUT discipline, but there are people who put RULES on it, just to PERFORM the art of OTHERS. And to call something "fine arts" is COMPLETELY STUPID, but that is my point of view.
-------------
What is This?
It is what keeps us going...
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 12 2008 at 17:34
Personally I find music fact more important. I'd suspect if you took someone who had never heard any music before in their life and just taught them theory that nothing particularly interesting would be created. While it can certainly be an aid in the creative process, I believe that listening to a lot of music can teach your brain a lot of things. This, mind you, coming from a guy who hasn't ever taken much in the way of formal lessons and mainly improvs.
-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Trademark
Date Posted: August 12 2008 at 18:15
Winterlight's Grammar analogy is quite possibly the closest we'll get to an accurate view of music theory. Yes, theory is mostly descriptive. It is a way of understanding what others have done and a general sort of language has resulted from this study. No one is obligated to follow any rules, but there are physical properties to sound and pitch that have proven useful and are therefore taught and studied. Everyone who ever picks up an instrument and learns a song or two, no matter the method he uses to learn, is gaining knowledge of these extremely basic theoretical principles whether by formal study or by osmosis, they are learning music theory.
But like grammar, there has to be some common syntax or intelligible communication is rendered impossible. Just go and read some Gertrude Stein (or to a lesser degree ee cummings or James Joyce) if you doubt this. This need for communication is a major part of why music theory is taught as a set of "rules", in much the same way that grammar is taught as rules. Anyone who reads knows that no author uses grammar exclusively according to those rules, just as virtually no composer would ever consider using music theory as a set of rules. (classroom exercises are an exception, of course). We use just enough "grammar" to make sure our audience knows what we're trying to communicate, and then let our imaginations fill in the spaces with new and unusual sounds that we (the composers) find pleasing.
The idea that one can create intelligible music that others will understand and enjoy by "creating straight from the heart and soul" is, however, completely ludicrous. Put someone who has never played any instrument in front of a piano (or any other instrument) and tell them to "create from the heart" and you'll get garbage. Learning to play is learning theory. Learning to copy (interpret) others is learning theory. Learning to compose is learning theory. Listening to and reading about music can be learning theory, because music always is (and at the same time never is) music theory.
It is not about learning the rules and then breaking them. That is an incredibly juvenile attitude. Learning to play, to interpret, to compose is learning about how music works. Formal study can be tedious, but it is faster than waiting for inspiration and experience to teach you what you need to know. Formal training is a jump-start into the wider world of music. Once you know the basics of how sounds and tones are assembled into music your inspiration and experience can take you much much further. But however you approach it, if you know you're playing in 4/4 time and in the key of E you already know some theory.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 13 2008 at 06:47
Trademark wrote:
It is not about learning the rules and then breaking them. That is an incredibly juvenile attitude. |
It's not about that, but I disagree that it's at all juvenile - it's exactly what I did at college... 
I also enjoy reading Joyce a great deal, even though I admit I haven't a clue what he's talking about half the time. I really like the stream of consciousness style, and find that by switching off my logical side, I just dig the flow whether it makes sense or not - there's an almost indefinable lyrical quality to it which is quite amazing considering how much "theory" Joyce must have studied. I won't deny it's tough going, but so are many 20th Century composers, and the same approach works for their music.
As you say, communications systems (like grammar) are built on protocols - rules.
With a computer, the rules must be adhered to, but with inter-human communication, breaking the rules becomes an art - that is how jokes are created and how politicians use spin.
-------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 13 2008 at 06:55
WinterLight wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
WinterLight wrote:
pianomandust wrote:
There is a little saying that goes around in classical musicians' circles: "You can't break the rules unless you know the rules."
|
But it's a mistake to consider music theory as a set of rules--it's a descriptive rather than prescriptive theory, i.e. it's simply a collection of guidelines on what generally works or is sonorous to the occidental ear, not a body of regulations as to how or what to compose.
|
It's also a typical beginner's mistake to think that music has no rules.
In a strict sense, music does not operate according to rules as does say physics (and even this is a somewhat misleading vulgarism). However, there are, as I said previously, guidelines as to what "works." This should be obvious to anyone not interested in protecting a facade of prestige or sophistication.
Actually, it does, as I said. If you took quantuum mechanics as the branch of physics you were considering, then you'd see this. I have not said that these are not equivalent to guidelines, just that there are also rules or cultural protocols. I wasn't disagreeing with your statement, just adding to it.
It has - and by studying theory, you begin to learn what they are.
If it is a "beginner's mistake" to assert that music is without rules, then it is a sophomore's mistake to think that music is premised upon rules. More generally it is a fallacy to regard one's limited experience and training as representative of the totality of knowledge in a particular field.
That's kinda what I said, but with more words, making the one mistake of trying to convince anyone that music is not premised upon rules. It is.
The subsequent generality makes no sense in context, even though it's true in and of itself. 
By practising composition, you learn what they are.
There is one rule to composition: make it sound good to your ear. If you choose to wring your hands over keys, time signatures, etc., then indulge in your obsession, but don't expect to ever be great.
I disagree - why should it sound good?
NB "Wringing hands" over key signatures worked for Bach.
Hopefully there will never be a day when anyone understands them all.
To be frank, music theory is not a particularly demanding field: it is basically like studying a very regular grammar.
Blimey - Mr expert!
You've clearly only studied a very narrow area of musical theory - try some of the complicated stuff, which IS demanding and highly irregular.
Creativity, on the other hand, does not come so easily.
Creativity comes absolutely easily to those blessed with a natural talent for it.
For the rest of us wannabe artists, it's a slog, I agree.
|
|
-------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
Posted By: Real Paradox
Date Posted: August 14 2008 at 07:30
Trademark wrote:
Winterlight's Grammar analogy is quite possibly the closest we'll get to an accurate view of music theory. Yes, theory is mostly descriptive. It is a way of understanding what others have done and a general sort of language has resulted from this study. No one is obligated to follow any rules, but there are physical properties to sound and pitch that have proven useful and are therefore taught and studied. Everyone who ever picks up an instrument and learns a song or two, no matter the method he uses to learn, is gaining knowledge of these extremely basic theoretical principles whether by formal study or by osmosis, they are learning music theory.
But like grammar, there has to be some common syntax or intelligible communication is rendered impossible. Just go and read some Gertrude Stein (or to a lesser degree ee cummings or James Joyce) if you doubt this. This need for communication is a major part of why music theory is taught as a set of "rules", in much the same way that grammar is taught as rules. Anyone who reads knows that no author uses grammar exclusively according to those rules, just as virtually no composer would ever consider using music theory as a set of rules. (classroom exercises are an exception, of course). We use just enough "grammar" to make sure our audience knows what we're trying to communicate, and then let our imaginations fill in the spaces with new and unusual sounds that we (the composers) find pleasing.
The idea that one can create intelligible music that others will understand and enjoy by "creating straight from the heart and soul" is, however, completely ludicrous. Put someone who has never played any instrument in front of a piano (or any other instrument) and tell them to "create from the heart" and you'll get garbage. Learning to play is learning theory. Learning to copy (interpret) others is learning theory. Learning to compose is learning theory. Listening to and reading about music can be learning theory, because music always is (and at the same time never is) music theory.
It is not about learning the rules and then breaking them. That is an incredibly juvenile attitude. Learning to play, to interpret, to compose is learning about how music works. Formal study can be tedious, but it is faster than waiting for inspiration and experience to teach you what you need to know. Formal training is a jump-start into the wider world of music. Once you know the basics of how sounds and tones are assembled into music your inspiration and experience can take you much much further. But however you approach it, if you know you're playing in 4/4 time and in the key of E you already know some theory. |
I understand your point of view, but we could affirm that music is in fact art... its true that it has rules, and I'm not saying it will not give you an advantage, it will give you tons of it. However, the idea to JUST relay on that path of order and science is... empty. I'm just 14 years old, and I comprehend what everyone says about rules, order, pragmatism, I really do, that is why I'm trying to study music. BUT, my art will not be subsequently influenced by it, because despite my technical ability or theoretic knowledge of music, my artistic ideals will continuously change and be what I want. Furthermore, a logic can be distorted, if you create a logic within your own mind, and then your own art... (that is why I say one needs to know the rules and then break them), but it would become utter rubbish if you make that composition without sense, that is what I always realized all along, but it does NOT make an artists world. (Please respect my inexperience in music and my age).
-------------
What is This?
It is what keeps us going...
|
Posted By: Trademark
Date Posted: August 14 2008 at 09:34
I didn't mean my comments to be a personal attack and I'm truly sorry if it came across that way. Part of what I was driving at is that many who claim no knowledge or interest in understanding music theory already have a fairly solid background with it in the first place and simply don't realize it. If you don't understand basic harmony you can't recognize a deviation from it. if you aren't familiar with basic forms you can't recognize and appreciate the deviations from them that are present in the best Prog. Since most folks at this site see, hear, recognize and appreciate these aspects of prog rock, they already have some rudimentary level of familiarity with music theory. Without some level of music theory knowledge you couldn't tell prog rock apart from Turkey In The Straw. All you'd be able to say is "I like this song better than that one". People may not have gained this knowledge of music theory from formal study, but they have it all the same, and saying that they don't have it or don't need it is facetious reasoning. They are using it every time they listen and every time they play.
"I KNOW that an artist DOES NOT need a discipline to begin with.", " my art will not be subsequently influenced by it", and "CREATING Art is, GENERALLY a work WITHOUT discipline".
These are statements that I can say with relative certainty that you will change you mind about in the next 6-8 years If you continue your study, get over the hurdle of "hating" your theory courses, and allow yourself to see how having this knowledge "opens" and "expands" your musical horizons. No one likes studying it ( I know, I've done it nearly to death ), but the benefits are so amazing that you'll eventually be unable to imagine working without them. A true artist (in music at least) is probably the MOST disciplined person you'll ever meet.
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: August 14 2008 at 12:35
Certif1ed wrote:
Actually, it does, as I said. If you took quantuum mechanics as the branch of physics you were considering, then you'd see this.
Not sure what you mean by this. In any case, I think that you mean "quantum physics" rather than "quantum mechanics" as the former involves the study of quantum phenomena whereas the latter deals with the mathematical techniques used in the development of quantum theory--a subtle distinction, but important nonetheless.
That's kinda what I said, but with more words, making the one mistake of trying to convince anyone that music is not premised upon rules. It is.
What, precisely, are these rules? It shouldn't be difficult to give an explicit delineation of those alleged rules.
I disagree - why should it sound good?
Well, what would be the point? You may as well set yourself to making visually unappealing paintings and unpalatable food, all while arrayed in a hairshirt. Of course, the concept of "good" is a relative one: a composer need not make music pleasing to everyone's ear, his own is sufficient although in this case he should wax indignant over the smallness of his audience.
NB "Wringing hands" over key signatures worked for Bach.
Not so much key signatures: one finds many incidentals (or to use your earlier patois, "wrong notes") in the compositions, especially in the case of canons (like the inverted or mirror, for example), of JS Bach. It seems credible to suggest that for Bach, at least, composition was an exercise in complexity. Although not unusual for the Baroque era, one does not find this quality quite so common in other periods.
You've clearly only studied a very narrow area of musical theory - try some of the complicated stuff, which IS demanding and highly irregular.
Always be wary of the use of "clearly." I'm sorry, but it's laughable when the arts and humanities intelligentsia boast about the complexity of their fields--it really isn't that complex, but for the sake of the ego indeed it is. In any case, give examples of the "complicated stuff" and show in what sense it is "demanding and highly irregular"--it shouldn't be a difficult task to fulfill if there is any substance to your claim.
Creativity comes absolutely easily to those blessed with a natural talent for it.
One acquires creativity in the same sense one acquires intuition. I have little reason to believe that one is simply "blessed with a natural talent."
For the rest of us wannabe artists, it's a slog, I agree.
That's only because the "wannabe artists" have mired themselves with "theory."
|
|
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: August 14 2008 at 15:36
|
This is a classic debate which does not have a simple answer.
As a musician, I find that knowing a little more theory than average rock players has made my life easier in certain situations. There are other people that have a natural ear and that is equally useful, but unfortunately for me not my blessing.
Personally, I can remember learning to play the bridge of "Villa Stangiato" that's in 7. At first, you're trying to count it, but eventually, you learn to "feel" the groove of 7 in that song and you're no longer banging your head trying to force it. Theory opened the door, but in the end you're just playing. Complicated chord changes are similar. Theory helps to make sense of what's going on, but once the song sinks in, you just play.
So that's an unequivical "maybe sometimes."
-------------
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
Posted By: tokenrove
Date Posted: August 14 2008 at 17:28
I dunno, for me, it's worth clarifying here that I'm not talking about the poseur guitar players who refuse to learn the basics of tonal harmony for arbitrary bogus reasons. If we're talking about playing popular, tonal music, then yes, there are a set of well-defined rules that everyone should know that describe historical music.
If we're talking about playing existing music, then there's already likely to be some theory that describes it, although in many cases it's unlikely to be common knowledge. (Sure, everyone learns chords, time signatures, harmonic progressions, voice leading, et cetera, but how many people learn about timbral analysis, for example? Yet, the experienced musician still has intuitive ways to sense ideas about tone and production. Digression: Copland dedicated a section of "How to Listen to Music" to tone color, and yet most people taking a conservative conservatory approach to music theory never learn much in the way of theory about it, even though it's clearly a crucial aspect of popular music.)
Earlier I was trying to point out that there are points where one reaches the limits of what a given theory describes (e.g., you learned common practice, but those pesky parallel, unresolving sevenths just sound so good) and must escape it. The most consistent way of doing so is to trust your (well-trained through decades of playing music) ear. I think that's very relevent to the original topic of this thread.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 02:34
|
WinterLight wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Actually, it does, as I said. If you took quantuum mechanics as the branch of physics you were considering, then you'd see this.
Not sure what you mean by this. In any case, I think that you mean "quantum physics" rather than "quantum mechanics" as the former involves the study of quantum phenomena whereas the latter deals with the mathematical techniques used in the development of quantum theory--a subtle distinction, but important nonetheless.
So what you're saying is that understanding the theory - and the finer points of it - is important?
Quantum Mechanics is a kind of framework, so my choice of terms is accurate enough for the purpose.
While the study of the physics of music is fascinating, and a vital addition to any theoretical studies, there is more to it than "simple" waveforms.
The 18th-Century violinist Tartini made copious studies of the acoustic properties of his instrument and the sounds it produced, and wrote some amazing pieces of music and changed forever the way that other violinists would play as a result. Understanding and applying theory is essential to progressing music, otherwise you're simply aping. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the latter approach - but we're considering Prog and (how much) music theory here.
I'm sorry you're not sure what I meant - I know that music can be really complex and demanding. Hopefully the links I've just hinted at should give more than a clue to a quantum physics student!
That's kinda what I said, but with more words, making the one mistake of trying to convince anyone that music is not premised upon rules. It is.
What, precisely, are these rules? It shouldn't be difficult to give an explicit delineation of those alleged rules.
You said earlier that the rules of music aren't hard; "To be frank, music theory is not a particularly demanding field: it is basically like studying a very regular grammar." - now you're asking me what they are?
I said that the rules of music are complex - why would you think that it's not difficult to explain them?
I don't know all the rules of music so can't tell you all of them - that was one of the points I was making.
You seemed to suggest that you do, therefore isn't it you that should be listing the rules to me, not the other way around?
I disagree - why should it sound good?
Well, what would be the point? You may as well set yourself to making visually unappealing paintings and unpalatable food, all while arrayed in a hairshirt. Of course, the concept of "good" is a relative one: a composer need not make music pleasing to everyone's ear, his own is sufficient although in this case he should wax indignant over the smallness of his audience.
The point is that it's art, and the point that "good" is relative is exactly what I was getting at.
Consider Tracy Emin or Damien Hirst.
NB "Wringing hands" over key signatures worked for Bach.
Not so much key signatures: one finds many incidentals (or to use your earlier patois, "wrong notes") in the compositions, especially in the case of canons (like the inverted or mirror, for example), of JS Bach. It seems credible to suggest that for Bach, at least, composition was an exercise in complexity. Although not unusual for the Baroque era, one does not find this quality quite so common in other periods.
Incidentals aren't the same as wrong notes!
You've taken my point about one piece of music entirely out of context - do I detect some sour grapes at work?
I only stated key signatures, because that was what you said - now it seems you're disagreeing with yourself!
Personally, I do not believe that Bach composed purely for excercises in complexity - he loved to improvise.
There are most certainly compositions which appear to be "mere" excercises in complexity in other periods - why would you say that it's not common? Aren't the compositions of Mozart, Debussy, Wagner, Liszt, Schoenberg or Birtwhistle complex? What about Palestrina, Tallis or even Leonin?
Or did you mean something else by "this quality"?
You've clearly only studied a very narrow area of musical theory - try some of the complicated stuff, which IS demanding and highly irregular.
Always be wary of the use of "clearly." I'm sorry, but it's laughable when the arts and humanities intelligentsia boast about the complexity of their fields--it really isn't that complex, but for the sake of the ego indeed it is. In any case, give examples of the "complicated stuff" and show in what sense it is "demanding and highly irregular"--it shouldn't be a difficult task to fulfill if there is any substance to your claim.
I choose most of my words carefully, and from your statements and questions in this thread, it becomes ever clearer. You seem to dismiss music and the arts as "light" subjects, yet show little knowledge of them whilst appearing to suggest that you can understand all music just by listening to a tiny portion of the canon. If that were true, why are you not a mega-platinum-selling megastar?
Clearly, if you haven't studied something you can't possibly have a grasp of it . Creativity comes absolutely easily to those blessed with a natural talent for it.
One acquires creativity in the same sense one acquires intuition. I have little reason to believe that one is simply "blessed with a natural talent."
Oh dear oh dear oh dear... I'm not even going there.
For the rest of us wannabe artists, it's a slog, I agree.
That's only because the "wannabe artists" have mired themselves with "theory."
If you hadn't studied the theory of grammar, you would not have been able to elucidate your thoughts.
If you had studied the theory of music, your thoughts would be different.
Personally, I don't feel "mired" by theory at all - quite the opposite - presumably you have evidence to support your hard assertion, which I feel is quite ridiculous and at odds with reality.
It's hard to see any truth in the statement; "wannabe artists" (clearly you have something in mind by adding the quotes - aren't we all wannabes until we're recognised? Are you actually a megastar in disguise so you exclude yourself from the category of wannabe, or are you just not artistically inclined?) have mired themselves with "theory" (again, you use quotes, as if theory is somehow a debatable concept when applied to music).
|
|
-------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 12:42
Certif1ed wrote:
So what you're saying is that understanding the theory - and the finer points of it - is important?
No, that's not what I said (although incidentally I do agree with it); rather I merely intended to point out that you don't really mean to use "quantum mechanics" as an analogue.
Quantum Mechanics is a kind of framework, so my choice of terms is accurate enough for the purpose.
Yes, it is a framework, but you haven't specified how this selection is "accurate enough for the purpose." All you've done is given a vague assertion that " If you took quantuum mechanics as the branch of physics you were considering, then you'd see this." I simply have no idea what meaning you intend this statement to have.
Understanding and applying theory is essential to progressing music, otherwise you're simply aping.
Why? Defend this point rather than declare it. What reason do we have to believe it?
I'm sorry you're not sure what I meant - I know that music can be really complex and demanding. Hopefully the links I've just hinted at should give more than a clue to a quantum physics student!
See my above remark. (By the way, I'm not a student of physics.)
You said earlier that the rules of music aren't hard; "To be frank, music theory is not a particularly demanding field: it is basically like studying a very regular grammar." - now you're asking me what they are?
There's nothing inconsistent in this. I've made the uncontroversial claim that music theory is descriptive rather than prescriptive--this is not a concession that the theory contains any rules. You've claimed otherwise, and so now I'm asking "Well, what are those rules?"
I said that the rules of music are complex - why would you think that it's not difficult to explain them? Do you mean to say that music theory itself is complex? Or rather that the rules of music theory are complex? Or still perhaps that the relations between these rules are complex? In the first possibility, a complex theory may be generated from comparatively simple rules (e.g., axiomatic set theory generating mathematics). For the third case, we observe that despite relational complexity the rules themselves may be (or may not be) straightforward. The second case (which might be what you mean, but even so it would require some substantive support) allows for the possibility that the rules may be articulated easily yet their content is complex (again we can look to definitions of mathematical objects as ready examples).
In any case, there is a distinction between the concept that "the rules of music are complex" and that "it is difficult to explain them." Hopefully, my above discussion illustrates that distinction. Moreover, this is also distasteful from a pedagogical perspective in that the inability to articulate knowledge implies lack of thorough understanding of that knowledge.
I don't know all the rules of music so can't tell you all of them - that was one of the points I was making.
Then, perhaps, you shouldn't make claims that you can't support.
You seemed to suggest that you do, therefore isn't it you that should be listing the rules to me, not the other way around?
Again, see my above discussion.
You've taken my point about one piece of music entirely out of context - do I detect some sour grapes at work?
Not sure what you mean here.
I only stated key signatures, because that was what you said - now it seems you're disagreeing with yourself!
Not really. I don't debate, as I think it misses the point to take one side of an argument and stick with it no matter what arises in the process. In any case, I wrote "keys, time signatures, etc."--more or less a randomly chosen list of examples.
Personally, I do not believe that Bach composed purely for excercises in complexity - he loved to improvise.
Sure. But improvisation, by definition, is not the same as composition, and composition is after all what
we are discussing at present.
There are most certainly compositions which appear to be "mere" excercises in complexity in other periods - why would you say that it's not common? Aren't the compositions of Mozart, Debussy, Wagner, Liszt, Schoenberg or Birtwhistle complex? What about Palestrina, Tallis or even Leonin?
Not saying that you can't find such pieces in other periods, but merely that complexity for its own sake was pursued mainly during the Baroque era. This is uncontroversial.
I choose most of my words carefully, and from your statements and questions in this thread, it becomes ever clearer.
Not carefully enough as it turns out as at least one person (me, in particular) disagrees that your point is "clear." Use of words like "clear" or "obvious" should be used sparingly if at all. Too often their use is intended to conceal the ignorance of the author, and even if not it's just bad writing--see Orwell's famous essay on the English language.
You seem to dismiss music and the arts as "light" subjects...
I don't think that the arts have much intellectual content, but by that I don't intend to denigrate those fields at all; on the contrary, I greatly value their emotional content, something lacking in the most intellectually substantive fields (like mathematics, for example), and through my participation in the arts I obtain fulfillment that elsewhere I can't find.
...yet show little knowledge
of them whilst appearing to suggest that you can understand all
music just by listening to a tiny portion of the canon.
In the context of music there is little to understand. Do you know anything about the concept of universal grammar? I think that an accurate analogue can be constructed between music theory and universal grammar. In any case, since this is a metamusical discussion, appeals to musical knowledge are largely irrelevant.
If that were true, why are you not a mega-platinum-selling megastar?
Not sure if this question is worth comment.
Clearly, if you haven't studied something you can't possibly have a grasp of it.
Yes, I do concede that it is "clear" in so far that the statement is trivially true. If you hadn't studied the theory of grammar, you would not have been able to elucidate your thoughts. Sure I could. Illiterate people can speak, correct? Anyhow, the point is that grammar also is a descriptive rather than prescriptive theory (a point often missed by grammarians).
If you had studied the theory of music, your thoughts would be different.
It reeks of arrogance for you to think that because I disagree with your views I must have lesser breadth of knowledge. In fact, it may be otherwise.
Personally, I don't feel "mired" by theory at all - quite the opposite - presumably you have evidence to support your hard assertion, which I feel is quite ridiculous and at odds with reality.
I admit that my statement was essentially rhetorical.
It's hard to see any truth in the statement; "wannabe artists" (clearly you have something in mind by adding the quotes - aren't we all wannabes until we're recognised? Are you actually a megastar in disguise so you exclude yourself from the category of wannabe, or are you just not artistically inclined?)
What I had in mind was quoting your words. There's no subtext here.
have mired themselves with "theory" (again, you use quotes, as if theory is somehow a debatable concept when applied to music).
On the other hand, there is subtext here. Whereas all theories are basically descriptive models, the "theory" of music cannot be construed, in even the most liberal treatment, as a scientific theory (neglecting, of course, physical models of sound, which are entirely irrelevant to what is generally subsumed under music theory): for music theory is purely descriptive. So, I suppose that the term "theory" is justified in this circumstance, I prefer to keep some distance from it as I don't feel that it's entirely accurate or at least exemplary of the technical use of the word theory.
|
|
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 16:28
WinterLight wrote:
I don't think that the arts have much intellectual content, but by that I don't intend to denigrate those fields at all; on the contrary, I greatly value their emotional content, something lacking in the most intellectually substantive fields (like mathematics, for example), and through my participation in the arts I obtain fulfillment that elsewhere I can't find.
|
If it's OK with you, WinterLight, this is one I'd love to share with my fellow arts academics. They'll be relieved to know their chosen fields of study don't have the intellectual content of more 'intellectually substantive' fields.
|
Posted By: jimidom
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 16:57
WinterLight wrote:
I don't think that the arts have much intellectual content, but by that I don't intend to denigrate those fields at all; on the contrary, I greatly value their emotional content, something lacking in the most intellectually substantive fields (like mathematics, for example), and through my participation in the arts I obtain fulfillment that elsewhere I can't find. |
I'm sure that Brian May and Tom Scholz can relate.
-------------
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - HST
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 22:43
russellk wrote:
If it's OK with you, WinterLight, this is one I'd love to share with my fellow arts academics. They'll be relieved to know their chosen fields of study don't have the intellectual content of more 'intellectually substantive' fields.
|
Although their mortgages probably hamper their honesty, they should be willing to concede this point. Observe that "researchers" of the arts and humanities tend to obfuscate essentially simple notions (thereby providing their raison d'etre) whereas the object of scientists and mathematicians is to simplify complex phenomena. The reasons are transparent, and to be sure, not a matter of coincidence.
jimidom wrote:
I'm sure that Brian May and Tom Scholz can relate.
|
These examples aren't meaningful examples: the academic background of a particular musician is irrelevant to the point. This isn't an obscure principle, but rather one that should be obvious to any person with even the most rudimentary association with logic.
|
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 23:23
Ah, WinterLight, you're a treat. Anyone who in essence argues that the humanities are less complex than the sciences is perhaps not as closely acquainted with either as s/he ought to be. The further assertion that those who are involved in researching the humanities are dishonest, somehow feathering their nests by perpetrating some kind of academic hoax, is risible.
For the record, the humanities and the arts are not fields comprised of "essentially simple notions". Indeed, many social scientists would argue that such thinking is socially constructed, the bitter legacy of centuries of veneration of the so-called 'natural' sciences. They might also argue that the arts/sciences binary and the intellectual/emotional binary are also socially constructed, serve particular hegemonic interests, and are taken as 'truth' by the gullible. For you, WinterLight, such concepts as poststructuralism and postmodernism are "essentially simple". If you genuinely believe that, you might want to reflect on your understanding of "essentially simple" philosophers such as Derrida and Foucault.
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: August 16 2008 at 00:01
russellk wrote:
Ah, WinterLight, you're a treat. Anyone who in essence argues that the humanities are less complex than the sciences is perhaps not as closely acquainted with either as s/he ought to be.
Talk about hedging one's bets: you just performed a misdirection that would make a Freudian proud.
The further assertion that those who are involved in researching the humanities are dishonest, somehow feathering their nests by perpetrating some kind of academic hoax, is risible.
The best way to ensure one doesn't understand something is to make his salary dependent on that ignorance.
For the record, the humanities and the arts are not fields comprised of "essentially simple notions".
Notice that I never said there's anything wrong with such simplicity: it's not a criticism, yet you ostensibly perceive the term "simple" as an epithet--I'll leave to others to decide what this indicates about your worldview. I well regard the humanities and the arts, as I believe these are essential expressions of humanity. But as such there's no need to shroud basic, straightforward principles in opaque cloaks.
Indeed, many social scientists would argue that such thinking is socially constructed, the bitter legacy of centuries of veneration of the so-called 'natural' sciences.
I'm sure that they would argue that point. But that doesn't imply that the argument has any support.
They might also argue that the arts/sciences binary and the intellectual/emotional binary are also socially constructed...
"Dichotomy" rather than "binary." But, otherwise, yes, I'd agree. Still I don't see how that concept rises above mere tautology.
...serve particular hegemonic interests...
No doubt. But such yeoman's work doesn't modify the actual content of any particular scientific model. I'm not interested in going tit-for-tat in a more-radical-than-thou contest, but I will say that you're preaching to the choir on this particular point.
...and are taken as 'truth' by the gullible.
I'd almost concede this. Not sure what "truth" means precisely, but I think it should coincide with "reality" (whatever that might mean). In any case, you're right in that it's naive to think of a scientific model as truth in the sense that it is the particular phenomena that it models. However, it's a fallacy to conclude from this that therefore there is no truth or that science cannot approximate truth.
For you, WinterLight, such concepts as poststructuralism and postmodernism are "essentially simple". If you genuinely believe that, you might want to reflect on your understanding of "essentially simple" philosophers such as Derrida and Foucault.
Haven't read either one of these; however, I've read Zizek and Lacan, and have found their work either tautologous or unintelligible (I have to agree completely with Chomsky's assessment http://www.cscs.umich.edu/%7Ecrshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html - here ). I doubt my view would change with exposure to the rest of the PoMo crowd. Maybe not. But I'm not persuaded that it's worth my time.
By the way, I recently heard a joke about a postmodernist professor grading a student's paper. The professor observes that the paper is well-reasoned and coherent, yet assigns to it a failing grade. Why? The egregious positivism, of course.
|
|
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: August 16 2008 at 01:11
|
^No, they're actually called 'binaries'. You really ought to have read some Derrida. Strange that something essentially simple is either tautologous or unintelligble: I congratulate you on your self-confidence.
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: August 16 2008 at 01:41
russellk wrote:
^No, they're actually called 'binaries'.
I'm sure that's the patois of the presently ordained Parisian intelligentsia, but I still think that "dichotomy" is a better choice. But this is a stylistic concern mainly (though I'm sure that a deconstruction of my diction could provide some filler for a PoMo dissertation).
You really ought to have read some Derrida.
Thank you, no. I prefer authors who have healthy respect for rationalism and whose work has impact on the world beyond the kaffeeklatsch (say, for example, Bertrand Russell or Noam Chomsky).
Strange that something essentially simple is either tautologous or unintelligble: I congratulate you on your self-confidence.
More misdirection. I claimed that what "theorists" write is either tautologous (essentially simple) or unintelligible (essentially meaningless). In the former case, and in the interest of acquiring credibility, these theorists transform basic truisms into obscure "profundities." In the latter case, no further obfuscation is necessary for obtaining cult status.
In any case, this has less to do with "self-confidence" than it does with aversion to self-delusion.
|
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 17 2008 at 09:42
|
Heh - a compulsive arguer for its own sake.
Winterlight - you've brought nothing new to the argument, save your own opinions based on limited knowledge. I can find nothing in your response worthy of a reply - you respond to my points with opinions stated baldly as if they're some kind of fact, or simple twists to attempt some kind of meaning change to put yourself in a stronger arguing position. This is not debate, it's just contradiction, and ultimetly, useless twaddle that assists nothing but your own self-glorification.
You even state that this is your approach, then challenge me to defend my position, while you do no such thing - is that reasonable?
Debate is the way to further knowledge. 
It's clear you have a bee in your bonnet about my Opeth review, but if you want to discuss music, then please learn about it first, or stop side-stepping and show some real thought. It's clear this discussion finished with your first response, which was also somewhat void of actual content.
-------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: August 17 2008 at 15:13
Certif1ed wrote:
Winterlight - you've brought nothing new to the argument, save your own opinions based on limited knowledge.
I never suggested that my approach is novel in any sense; in fact, I feel somewhat silly in emphasizing such obvious points. Not sure how you can assess the limitations of my musical knowledge through an exchange over a forum on the Internet: maybe it is limited in some way, but you really have no way of knowing this, especially since I haven't discussed music theory but rather its metatheory.
I can find nothing in your response worthy of a reply - you respond to my points with opinions stated baldly as if they're some kind of fact, or simple twists to attempt some kind of meaning change to put yourself in a stronger arguing position.
Incidentally, that's precisely what you've done. I've asked you repeatedly to substantiate your position, but you've refused. If I've written statements that you believe merit qualification, then ask me and I'll gladly comply.
This is not debate, it's just contradiction, and ultimetly, useless twaddle that assists nothing but your own self-glorification.
Again, I'm not interested in debate as I don't feel compelled to choose one side or the other. Although I readily admit that my comments are neither novel nor profound, I'm doubtful that it's "useless twaddle." But, then again, such categorization probably facilitates dismissal of my position.
You even state that this is your approach, then challenge me to defend my position, while you do no such thing - is that reasonable?
No, I did not state this: I wrote quite the opposite, viz. "I don't debate." On the other hand, I do think dialogues have potential to be constructive. Also: I believe that I've answered most questions or criticisms about my claims. If there's something that I've missed, then let me know.
Debate is the way to further knowledge.
See above.
It's clear you have a bee in your bonnet about my Opeth review...
Not "clear" exactly. I admit that I didn't care for your scandalization of the "wrong note." But, to be honest, I don't like Watershed either, but I don't feel the need to build for my opinion the facade of objectivity--I don't like the album, and that's my problem not Opeth's.
...but if you want to discuss music, then please learn about it first...
What, other than the difference of our opinions, provides the basis for your claim I know little about music theory. Of course, you could be correct, but there is no evidence to support that conclusion in this thread.
...or stop side-stepping and show some real thought.
Not side-stepping at all. Again, I've tried to reply to all serious criticisms or questions about my statements. If I've missed something, then please bring it to my attention. Furthermore, I think that I've given some "real thought" to the ideas raised in this thread. That you don't agree with these thoughts doesn't make them any less "real."
It's clear this discussion finished with your first response, which was also somewhat void of actual content.
My first response in this thread: "But it's a
mistake to consider music theory as a set of rules--it's a descriptive
rather than prescriptive theory, i.e. it's simply a collection of
guidelines on what generally works or is sonorous to the occidental
ear, not a body of regulations as to how or what to compose."
I don't see how that's "somewhat void of actual content." Of course, it may be entirely false that music theory is "descriptive rather than prescriptive." But the fact that it can be evaluated as true or false implies that it does indeed have "actual content." Again, I admit that there's nothing novel in this claim, but I do believe that this formulation approaches the truth of the matter. I honestly don't see how it could be otherwise: maybe you could articulate that possibility instead of casting aspersions?
|
|
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: August 17 2008 at 22:26
WinterLight wrote:
russellk wrote:
^No, they're actually called 'binaries'.
I'm sure that's the patois of the presently ordained Parisian intelligentsia, but I still think that "dichotomy" is a better choice. But this is a stylistic concern mainly (though I'm sure that a deconstruction of my diction could provide some filler for a PoMo dissertation).
|
|
I've emailed both Foucault and Derrida and they agree with you. Derrida said he didn't know what he was thinking, using the term 'binary' when clearly 'dichotomy' was a better choice. He's off now to rewrite his masterworks, and asked me to pass on his grateful thanks.
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: August 17 2008 at 22:45
russellk wrote:
^No, they're actually called 'binaries'.
I'm sure that's the patois of the presently ordained Parisian intelligentsia, but I still think that "dichotomy" is a better choice. But this is a stylistic concern mainly (though I'm sure that a deconstruction of my diction could provide some filler for a PoMo dissertation).
I've emailed both Foucault and Derrida and they agree with you. Derrida said he didn't know what he was thinking, using the term 'binary' when clearly 'dichotomy' was a better choice. He's off now to rewrite his masterworks, and asked me to pass on his grateful thanks.
This may come as a surprise, but not everyone grants papal infallibility to the secular priesthood.
|
|
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: August 17 2008 at 22:53
|
Really? You're right, I am surprised. Here's me thinking everyone worshipped French philosophers. Anyone want to buy a slightly stained Irigiray shrine?
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 02:33
Trademark wrote:
Winterlight's Grammar analogy is quite possibly the closest we'll get to an accurate view of music theory. Yes, theory is mostly descriptive. It is a way of understanding what others have done and a general sort of language has resulted from this study. No one is obligated to follow any rules, but there are physical properties to sound and pitch that have proven useful and are therefore taught and studied. Everyone who ever picks up an instrument and learns a song or two, no matter the method he uses to learn, is gaining knowledge of these extremely basic theoretical principles whether by formal study or by osmosis, they are learning music theory.
But like grammar, there has to be some common syntax or intelligible communication is rendered impossible. Just go and read some Gertrude Stein (or to a lesser degree ee cummings or James Joyce) if you doubt this. This need for communication is a major part of why music theory is taught as a set of "rules", in much the same way that grammar is taught as rules. Anyone who reads knows that no author uses grammar exclusively according to those rules, just as virtually no composer would ever consider using music theory as a set of rules. (classroom exercises are an exception, of course). We use just enough "grammar" to make sure our audience knows what we're trying to communicate, and then let our imaginations fill in the spaces with new and unusual sounds that we (the composers) find pleasing.
The idea that one can create intelligible music that others will understand and enjoy by "creating straight from the heart and soul" is, however, completely ludicrous. Put someone who has never played any instrument in front of a piano (or any other instrument) and tell them to "create from the heart" and you'll get garbage. Learning to play is learning theory. Learning to copy (interpret) others is learning theory. Learning to compose is learning theory. Listening to and reading about music can be learning theory, because music always is (and at the same time never is) music theory.
It is not about learning the rules and then breaking them. That is an incredibly juvenile attitude. Learning to play, to interpret, to compose is learning about how music works. Formal study can be tedious, but it is faster than waiting for inspiration and experience to teach you what you need to know. Formal training is a jump-start into the wider world of music. Once you know the basics of how sounds and tones are assembled into music your inspiration and experience can take you much much further. But however you approach it, if you know you're playing in 4/4 time and in the key of E you already know some theory. |
Indeed Trademark.
The amount of times I've come across people on forums and even more annoyingly in real life that believe it's "better to play from the heart and don't bother learning theory" is ridiculous. You would think more people would understand that knowing theory is only ever a benefit.
Your third paragraph sums that up rather nicely.
Now that I actually know a lot more theory than I used to say, 3 years ago, I can more confidently improvise without having to stumble around and hope my "ear" gets it right or not.
Being able to compose and actually understand what the hell I'm doing and be able to link ideas more effectively rather than just have to use way too much trail and error, is just a blessing.
Now that I have this knowledge, never do I look back.
If someone wants to just write blues songs and have a rudimentary knowledge of theory and have limited technique, fine for them.
But not for me, because there is only so much I believe I can express with limited knowledge and technique.
Having a more extensive knowledge of theory and having more technique is just a liberating feeling and always me to really put through my feelings and emotions through music in a much more expressive way.
Indeed, I noticed how off topic this topic was getting, had to bring it back into line me thinks.
-------------
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 02:34
Thunder wrote:
My Question is:
How well does a Rrogressive Rock musician have to know music theory? Does he have to study it? Just have to know basic musical knowledge? No conception of music theory?
Maybe you have a few examples as well.
BTW: This thread must not be taken all too seriously, I'd just like to hear a few statements
P.S. My postings may contain a lot of mistakes. I'm not a native speaker, but an Austrian student.
|
Hehe, I think some people forgot about that in his starting post
-------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 03:24
|
WinterLight wrote:
Incidentally, that's precisely what you've done. I've asked you repeatedly to substantiate your position, but you've refused. |
Yes, because that's what you've done (except neglected rather than refused in most cases), so I've responded in kind to see how you like it - and you don't, so my point is well made and this particular pointless diatribe is over.
-------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 06:28
russellk wrote:
WinterLight wrote:
russellk wrote:
^No, they're actually called 'binaries'.
I'm sure that's the patois of the presently ordained Parisian intelligentsia, but I still think that "dichotomy" is a better choice. But this is a stylistic concern mainly (though I'm sure that a deconstruction of my diction could provide some filler for a PoMo dissertation).
|
|
I've emailed both Foucault and Derrida
|
So you have an email account at Ouija.nz ?
|
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 11:23
Damn, caught out
Sometimes humour is the only appropriate response ...
|
Posted By: Kid-A
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 20:06
Sckxyss wrote:
mrcozdude wrote:
I find theory helps alot but to remain indivual and true to yourself play from the heart and dont let theory control you otherwise you might sound like Steve Vai.I guess in prog its quite important, you can see the differences in bands say Frank Zappa (theory) then then the mars volta (no theory). |
I'm pretty sure Omar of The Mars Volta has a pretty deep knowledge of musical theory; there's a lot of stuff going on in that music that's way beyond me!
I can't think of any form of music that doesn't require at least SOME rudimentary knowledge of theory to create. The more complex or intricate the music is, the more knowledge is needed.
EDIT: Except rap.. that can probably be done without theory |
Apparently Omar didn't know any music theory at all. John Frusciante tried to teach him some.
-------------
|
Posted By: Q6
Date Posted: November 20 2008 at 13:35
Music theory? Does that help you put soul into your music? Probably not. Being comfortable with your instrument is more important. You got to let your heart find its voice in your playing then another person will be able to truly hear what you're playing. I sound like yoda 
There are several bands out there who play what I call "prog by numbers". You can tell that they know scales and modes and harmonies and blah blah but it's so bland.
-------------
http://www.paulcusick.co.uk - www.paulcusick.co.uk
|
Posted By: popeyethecat
Date Posted: November 21 2008 at 11:39
Q6 wrote:
Music theory? Does that help you put soul into your music? Probably not. Being comfortable with your instrument is more important. You got to let your heart find its voice in your playing then another person will be able to truly hear what you're playing. I sound like yoda
There are several bands out there who play what I call "prog by numbers". You can tell that they know scales and modes and harmonies and blah blah but it's so bland.
|
BUT surely you would need to know enough theory to successfully put soul into music? It's like expressing yourself with words - you need to know a language first.
-------------
|
Posted By: Q6
Date Posted: November 21 2008 at 12:03
popeyethecat wrote:
Q6 wrote:
Music theory? Does that help you put soul into your music? Probably not. Being comfortable with your instrument is more important. You got to let your heart find its voice in your playing then another person will be able to truly hear what you're playing. I sound like yoda
There are several bands out there who play what I call "prog by numbers". You can tell that they know scales and modes and harmonies and blah blah but it's so bland.
|
BUT surely you would need to know enough theory to successfully put soul into music? It's like expressing yourself with words - you need to know a language first.
|
Chanting can be expressive and needs no words. A child's nursery rhyme can be expressive but requires little vocabulary. I could read a book on quantum physics but it would not move me.
Most music (western) is based on a few simple scales. You can whistle them or hum them. Does that mean you know music theory? Or is it a cultural thing. Eastern / middle eastern cultures also have their own scales that give their music a distinctive sound. Sometimes it sounds unfamiliar to those in the western world but to those who are brought up in that culture it is as familiar as DOH-REH-ME-FAR-SO-LA-TE-DO is to westerners.
It is this instinctive knowledge of music that give a musician the skill to communicate the essence of a song, the hook, the melody line, the riff, the bit you whistle. The the next trick is to communicate that essence.
Musical theory helps to add depth or colours to that initial essence. The more theory you know the easier it is to add those musical textures and dynamics.
But the question was specifically about progressive rock musicians? And I think the same holds true. Some are instinctively good at playing. They convey magic in the single notes or even the spaces between the notes... "Gilmour". If you are a natural and have that gift then a basic knowledge is all that is required. If you don't you can flower it up with theory so it "works", as I said prog by numbers.
Now add great musical knowledge to someone who is also a natural then boom!! Light blue touch paper and stand well back. But musical theory by itself... is just theory.
-------------
http://www.paulcusick.co.uk - www.paulcusick.co.uk
|
Posted By: popeyethecat
Date Posted: November 21 2008 at 12:23
Q6 wrote:
Chanting can be expressive and needs no words. A child's nursery rhyme can be expressive but requires little vocabulary. I could read a book on quantum physics but it would not move me.
Most music (western) is based on a few simple scales. You can whistle them or hum them. Does that mean you know music theory? Or is it a cultural thing. Eastern / middle eastern cultures also have their own scales that give their music a distinctive sound. Sometimes it sounds unfamiliar to those in the western world but to those who are brought up in that culture it is as familiar as DOH-REH-ME-FAR-SO-LA-TE-DO is to westerners.
It is this instinctive knowledge of music that give a musician the skill to communicate the essence of a song, the hook, the melody line, the riff, the bit you whistle. The the next trick is to communicate that essence.
Musical theory helps to add depth or colours to that initial essence. The more theory you know the easier it is to add those musical textures and dynamics.
But the question was specifically about progressive rock musicians? And I think the same holds true. Some are instinctively good at playing. They convey magic in the single notes or even the spaces between the notes... "Gilmour". If you are a natural and have that gift then a basic knowledge is all that is required. If you don't you can flower it up with theory so it "works", as I said prog by numbers.
Now add great musical knowledge to someone who is also a natural then boom!! Light blue touch paper and stand well back. But musical theory by itself... is just theory.
|
Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you, to an extent! Someone with no natural musicality or feel can read all they want, that won't produce expressive music. What I meant was that music theory helps you express yourself better and more fluently. It is something that can be learned through reading, but also through experience! You may not know the names for things, but you can work things out. After all, theory is just things people in the past have worked out, is it not?
-------------
|
Posted By: Q6
Date Posted: November 21 2008 at 12:27
popeyethecat wrote:
Q6 wrote:
Chanting can be expressive and needs no words. A child's nursery rhyme can be expressive but requires little vocabulary. I could read a book on quantum physics but it would not move me.
Most music (western) is based on a few simple scales. You can whistle them or hum them. Does that mean you know music theory? Or is it a cultural thing. Eastern / middle eastern cultures also have their own scales that give their music a distinctive sound. Sometimes it sounds unfamiliar to those in the western world but to those who are brought up in that culture it is as familiar as DOH-REH-ME-FAR-SO-LA-TE-DO is to westerners.
It is this instinctive knowledge of music that give a musician the skill to communicate the essence of a song, the hook, the melody line, the riff, the bit you whistle. The the next trick is to communicate that essence.
Musical theory helps to add depth or colours to that initial essence. The more theory you know the easier it is to add those musical textures and dynamics.
But the question was specifically about progressive rock musicians? And I think the same holds true. Some are instinctively good at playing. They convey magic in the single notes or even the spaces between the notes... "Gilmour". If you are a natural and have that gift then a basic knowledge is all that is required. If you don't you can flower it up with theory so it "works", as I said prog by numbers.
Now add great musical knowledge to someone who is also a natural then boom!! Light blue touch paper and stand well back. But musical theory by itself... is just theory.
|
Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you, to an extent! Someone with no natural musicality or feel can read all they want, that won't produce expressive music. What I meant was that music theory helps you express yourself better and more fluently. It is something that can be learned through reading, but also through experience! You may not know the names for things, but you can work things out. After all, theory is just things people in the past have worked out, is it not?
|
Yep I would agree with that.
-------------
http://www.paulcusick.co.uk - www.paulcusick.co.uk
|
Posted By: DatM
Date Posted: November 21 2008 at 13:50
The thing about theory is that, more than a set of rules, it's a catalogue of "what's been done". Once you get past knowing what the note are, how scales and chords are built, etc., it's all about knowing the common practices of the past...and the ultimate goal is to HEAR the theory. So in that sense a guy who hasn't studied formal theory, but has listened, studied and played a lot of music, probably has an advantage over a guy who's played little, studied theory, and has had little ear training.
The most important thing is just to play and listen to a lot of music. Music theory is only meant to compliment that and to understand how it all works together. JMHO
BTW I've always had an issue with the "you gotta know the rules before you break them" thing. To me it's more like,"You gotta know the rules before you can know if you broke them or not..." But that doesn't sound as catchy
|
Posted By: crimson87
Date Posted: November 21 2008 at 20:36
|
I think that is advisable to know something about music theory if you are into prog. I mean when they start talking about time signaatures and chord progressions all I can say is : " This band Rocks!!" and I feel like an idiot.
I feel incomplete without knowing how to play an instrument but someday I will. Probably after university.
|
|