How many here understand music theory?

Emp_Fab

goldtop said:

stratman3142 said:

Can I just check the question again, so I can answer YES or NO as you asked

The title says: How many here understand music music theory? To which I'd answer NO, because there are many things I don't know.

The text says: How many of you have any knowledge of music theory? I'd be happy to answer YES to that one.

They don't call me pedantic Pete for nothing

What he said.

And I'd add that when I try to study music theory beyond what I know, I always get something out of it... BUT... it feels like orthodoxy. And I think music is a lot more fun and interesting when you just trust our ears/gut feel.

Right... You two come up with a more accurate title and I'll rename the thread!

PolarityMan

Luminous said:

viz said:

PolarityMan said:
I don't think theory describes modern music adequately it's more or less just a measure of dissonance versus consonance.

For music that has been created after the invent of recording devices it's as important to be able to explain why it sounds good when you drop everything out for 2 beats and have some kind of hook playing, or why the bass should be doing straight eights over fast palm muted riffs and stuff like that.

Sounds like you should be creating the next branch of music theory! And I'm not joking, we do need that properly understood and written about. 

Thats just arrangement skills..people have been writing and analysing that for hundreds of years. just because we have more available recording technology doesn't change wether an arrangement works or fails.

Ok...so where do I learn about the arrangement skills (Im serious, this stuff would be more valuable to me that harmonising)? I think there are definitely things that are possible now that weren't 20 years ago so by necesity the state of arrangement has moved on though. There's quite a lot of material available but I havent seen any attempt to give it the same rigour of classification as melody based theory.

PolarityMan

octatonic said:

PolarityMan said:

Ok so here's my beef with theory. I get the idea that it's just language *but* it isn't a zero cost thing to learn it takes a bunch of effort and so if I was to invest in it I'd want to see a significant return. And that's the rub, I don't think theory describes modern music adequately it's more or less just a measure of dissonance versus consonance.
For music that has been created after the invent of recording devices it's as important to be able to explain why it sounds good when you drop everything out for 2 beats and have some kind of hook playing, or why the bass should be doing straight eights over fast palm muted riffs and stuff like that. Not to mention the contribution of the sound to the final composition, like use of delay, FX etc..  
Even if you restrict the idea that theory should describe an abstract version of music it is still woefully inadequate, you can just about talk about how to express "tension" or "sadness" versus "happiness" but there is no language for really fine grained emotional intent. 
1.If you can tell me that using theory I can understand how to make something sound "sci-fi" or "like barely concealed rage" or anything other than really broad strokes then I might have more incentive to put more effort in.
As it stands though I have enough to do what I need to do.

2. Oh I also dont think that transposition is a great argument either, only a certain type of song can be transposed and those are ones where the instrumental parts are fairly trivial. Once your working with riffs you basically need a retun to transpose any way at which point you dont need any theory to do that either.

1. Yeah, it doesn't do that either.
Music theory teaches you how to put things together but it does't teach artistry- you either have that or you don't in my opinion.

2. I don't think I could disagree with you more. Maybe if you are doing rock guitar music that relies on a lot of open notes for riffs then transposition is limited but having done loads of different covers bands over the years and a lot of jams I find we are always changing key to suit the singers. 
Even if you can't do it on the fly (which is a different type of challenge) then at least being able to chart it out and then play the chart is a necessary musical skill.
I've played a lot with horn players and they often have to transpose on the fly from C clef to Bb or Eb. That can be quite tricky.

"Maybe if you are doing rock guitar music that relies on a lot of open notes for riffs "

Sounds like the kind of music I play

stratman3142

Emp_Fab said:

goldtop said:

stratman3142 said:

Can I just check the question again, so I can answer YES or NO as you asked

The title says: How many here understand music music theory? To which I'd answer NO, because there are many things I don't know.

The text says: How many of you have any knowledge of music theory? I'd be happy to answer YES to that one.

They don't call me pedantic Pete for nothing

What he said.

And I'd add that when I try to study music theory beyond what I know, I always get something out of it... BUT... it feels like orthodoxy. And I think music is a lot more fun and interesting when you just trust our ears/gut feel.

Right... You two come up with a more accurate title and I'll rename the thread!

How about the same as in the text: "How many of you have any knowledge of music theory". Then I can say yes

Or you could just ignore me, because I'm being a picky sod and it's developed into an interesting discussion anyway.

Danny1969

PolarityMan said:

Luminous said:

viz said:

PolarityMan said:
I don't think theory describes modern music adequately it's more or less just a measure of dissonance versus consonance.

For music that has been created after the invent of recording devices it's as important to be able to explain why it sounds good when you drop everything out for 2 beats and have some kind of hook playing, or why the bass should be doing straight eights over fast palm muted riffs and stuff like that.

Sounds like you should be creating the next branch of music theory! And I'm not joking, we do need that properly understood and written about. 

Thats just arrangement skills..people have been writing and analysing that for hundreds of years. just because we have more available recording technology doesn't change wether an arrangement works or fails.

Ok...so where do I learn about the arrangement skills (Im serious, this stuff would be more valuable to me that harmonising)? I think there are definitely things that are possible now that weren't 20 years ago so by necesity the state of arrangement has moved on though. There's quite a lot of material available but I havent seen any attempt to give it the same rigour of classification as melody based theory.

What your talking about seems more producing skills than musical skills ... and I mean producing in the real terms not mixing very valid skill set and highly paid. The old equivalent or today's live equivalent  would be the conductor I guess

Luminous

PolarityMan said:

Luminous said:

viz said:

PolarityMan said:
I don't think theory describes modern music adequately it's more or less just a measure of dissonance versus consonance.

For music that has been created after the invent of recording devices it's as important to be able to explain why it sounds good when you drop everything out for 2 beats and have some kind of hook playing, or why the bass should be doing straight eights over fast palm muted riffs and stuff like that.

Sounds like you should be creating the next branch of music theory! And I'm not joking, we do need that properly understood and written about. 

Thats just arrangement skills..people have been writing and analysing that for hundreds of years. just because we have more available recording technology doesn't change wether an arrangement works or fails.

Ok...so where do I learn about the arrangement skills (Im serious, this stuff would be more valuable to me that harmonising)? I think there are definitely things that are possible now that weren't 20 years ago so by necesity the state of arrangement has moved on though. There's quite a lot of material available but I havent seen any attempt to give it the same rigour of classification as melody based theory.

https://www.garritan.com/principles-of-orchestration/


this is a classic...Rimsky Korsakov......The garritan site has audio examples of everything....take it superslow and  try apply it to what you do already.

Luminous

https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/instrumentation-and-orchestration/author/alfred-blatter/
another classic

Luminous

PolarityMan said:

Luminous said:

viz said:

PolarityMan said:
I don't think theory describes modern music adequately it's more or less just a measure of dissonance versus consonance.

For music that has been created after the invent of recording devices it's as important to be able to explain why it sounds good when you drop everything out for 2 beats and have some kind of hook playing, or why the bass should be doing straight eights over fast palm muted riffs and stuff like that.

Sounds like you should be creating the next branch of music theory! And I'm not joking, we do need that properly understood and written about. 

Thats just arrangement skills..people have been writing and analysing that for hundreds of years. just because we have more available recording technology doesn't change wether an arrangement works or fails.

Ok...so where do I learn about the arrangement skills (Im serious, this stuff would be more valuable to me that harmonising)? I think there are definitely things that are possible now that weren't 20 years ago so by necesity the state of arrangement has moved on though. There's quite a lot of material available but I havent seen any attempt to give it the same rigour of classification as melody based theory.

this is pretty dense but worthy
http://www.jonathandimond.com/downloadables/Theory of Music-Stravinsky.pdf

octatonic

PolarityMan said:

Luminous said:

viz said:

PolarityMan said:
I don't think theory describes modern music adequately it's more or less just a measure of dissonance versus consonance.

For music that has been created after the invent of recording devices it's as important to be able to explain why it sounds good when you drop everything out for 2 beats and have some kind of hook playing, or why the bass should be doing straight eights over fast palm muted riffs and stuff like that.

Sounds like you should be creating the next branch of music theory! And I'm not joking, we do need that properly understood and written about. 

Thats just arrangement skills..people have been writing and analysing that for hundreds of years. just because we have more available recording technology doesn't change wether an arrangement works or fails.

Ok...so where do I learn about the arrangement skills (Im serious, this stuff would be more valuable to me that harmonising)? I think there are definitely things that are possible now that weren't 20 years ago so by necesity the state of arrangement has moved on though. There's quite a lot of material available but I havent seen any attempt to give it the same rigour of classification as melody based theory.

Go and study composition and arranging at university.
Or buy this book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Arranged-Nelson-Riddle-Definitive-Arranging/dp/0897249542

frank1985

I know bits and bobs....I think what's most useful to me now is knowing the 'character' of each scale degree contained within the modes, i.e. major, minor, diminished etc. It's quite handy when trying to come up with unusual chord progressions. 

However, it is quite liberating in a way not to know your way around a guitar via theory, as you can unwittingly break the rules and come up with some unusual sounds that wouldn't have been possible if you had followed some musical formula. 

octatonic

PolarityMan said:

"Maybe if you are doing rock guitar music that relies on a lot of open notes for riffs "

Sounds like the kind of music I play

Me too, but in my experience that isn't the sort of thing that pays well unless you get lucky with a major label band (even then...)
Most working musicians need to know this stuff and most musicians who are not guitarists learn it.
For some reason guitarists seem to think they are exempt.

Snap

As a kid and into my teens, I was classically taught, and my mum was a music teacher. If you'd asked me aged 14 just about anything to do with mainstream theory, I'd have been OK. Fast forward thirty odd years and the stuff I don't need/haven't used etc, has fallen through the increasingly large holes in my sieve brain.

If it sounds good, its reet.

PolarityMan

octatonic said:

PolarityMan said:

"Maybe if you are doing rock guitar music that relies on a lot of open notes for riffs "

Sounds like the kind of music I play

Me too, but in my experience that isn't the sort of thing that pays well unless you get lucky with a major label band (even then...)
Most working musicians need to know this stuff and most musicians who are not guitarists learn it.
For some reason guitarists seem to think they are exempt.

thats alright, i get paid for doing other stuff

Sporky

frank1985 said:

However, it is quite liberating in a way not to know your way around a guitar via theory, as you can unwittingly break the rules and come up with some unusual sounds that wouldn't have been possible if you had followed some musical formula. 

It seems to be a common misconception that knowing theory somehow magically restricts what you can do.

Theory doesn't say whether or not you can use a particular note. It simply explains the use of that note in the context. If you don't like how that note sounds then theory may help you choose one you prefer. If you do like it then theory will help you understand why it works there.

Drew_TNBD

octatonic said:

PolarityMan said:

1.If you can tell me that using theory I can understand how to make something sound "sci-fi" or "like barely concealed rage" or anything other than really broad strokes then I might have more incentive to put more effort in.

1. Yeah, it doesn't do that either.
Music theory teaches you how to put things together but it does't teach artistry- you either have that or you don't in my opinion.

Hmmm... I'm going to slightly disagree Jim.

1. It does kind of do that. There is a reason that most Hollywood soundtracks are in certain keys and certain modes and certain rhythms and tempo structures. They impart certain characters. The most basic example is major key == happy and minor key == sadness.

But they're just general rules, not fixed hardcoded meanings and they change with culture and context.

Freebird

I learn music theory on a need to know basic, but I've got a few books laying around from the royal schools of music 

Freebird

goldtop said:

stratman3142 said:

Can I just check the question again, so I can answer YES or NO as you asked

The title says: How many here understand music music theory? To which I'd answer NO, because there are many things I don't know.

The text says: How many of you have any knowledge of music theory? I'd be happy to answer YES to that one.

They don't call me pedantic Pete for nothing

What he said.

And I'd add that when I try to study music theory beyond what I know, I always get something out of it... BUT... it feels like orthodoxy. And I think music is a lot more fun and interesting when you just trust our ears/gut feel.

You need to know the rules to break them 

octatonic

Drew_TNBD said:

octatonic said:

PolarityMan said:

1.If you can tell me that using theory I can understand how to make something sound "sci-fi" or "like barely concealed rage" or anything other than really broad strokes then I might have more incentive to put more effort in.

1. Yeah, it doesn't do that either.
Music theory teaches you how to put things together but it does't teach artistry- you either have that or you don't in my opinion.

Hmmm... I'm going to slightly disagree Jim.

1. It does kind of do that. There is a reason that most Hollywood soundtracks are in certain keys and certain modes and certain rhythms and tempo structures. They impart certain characters. The most basic example is major key == happy and minor key == sadness.

But they're just general rules, not fixed hardcoded meanings and they change with culture and context.

Here is something I throw out to people quite often to illustrate how malleable music can be.
This is a variation of 'Chariots of Fire' theme by the Bad Plus.



Chariots of Fire famously has a major tonality.
What the Bad Plus do is establish a brutally dissonant minor riff, with b9 and b5's all over the place.
Then they introduce the major key theme to CoF but bring back the familiar dissonant motif to sit under it.
It shouldn't work but it absolutely does- because of how they have established the dissonant motif.

It is a good illustration of how artistry and presentation trumps 'the rules'.

I'm not disagreeing with you though- yes there are certain norms that a composer can reference in order to get an established response- things like plagal or perfect cadences are well known by people who listen to music, even if they don't know what the terms are. 
I guess my point is that learning them doesn't necessarily mean that you can write good music and you could potentially get across musical ideas without learning them.
That said, I think people should learn music theory- it isn't hard and the paranoia about 'too much learning will affect may artistry' is just nonsense.

Conveying 'barely concealed rage' is so open to interpretation that there could literally be dozens of ways to get that across.
Learning music theory alone won't really give you ability to do this, but it is always good to have a few more musical tools in the toolbox.
That was essentially the point I was making.

Drew_TNBD

octatonic said:

it isn't hard and the paranoia about 'too much learning will affect may artistry' is just nonsense.

Oh yeah absolutely. In my experience it's basically the people who don't have talent who say that kind of thing. I mean... fear of knowledge? What a preposterous notion!

I don't buy that fake-as-fuck bohemian "I'm an artist man... I don't need to learn the rules..."

Total bs.

guitarfishbay

I have a basic understanding but am not sure of my grade level equivalent. Above 'no idea what I am doing' but way below 'I could explain everything I do fluently'.  I got an A* at GCSE.... lol

The singer in my band goes musical term first so I've found I'm a bit more fluent again but still extremely rusty and with plenty left to learn.  I've not needed to read music in a long time.

We have transposed songs during writing FWIW, not all our songs are in the same key as the open strings... it's all to do with the vocalist's range at the end of the day, no point in writing in keys where they can't sing the melodies they want to