Re: Why learn music theory?
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:24 pm
Knowledge of solfege also makes talking about music in general or specifically a song a lot easier...
Beeing musician and beeing composer is different thing.jonetsu wrote:Or even worse, of not willing to do the studying to be a better musician ? One that can play in an orchestra but can never come up with anything original ?
Many things you say are 'me too', but that relation to theory is just opposite. Learning theory gives me possibility to get results I want much faster. I do not have too much time for my music hobby, and without studying theory, all my music would be something much less than it is now.jonetsu wrote:I never got any interest in playing others' songs. I played the first chords to "Stairway to Heaven" and got bored. My interest was in making new notes ring together. Not to be able to show off to others that I could play that or that tune and that hence I'm a good guitar player because of that.
Up to this day I do not know much about music theory. You can hear some results in the soundcloud pieces found in the signature below. I do know what major, minor, seventh chords are but moreover I can move the fingers in such a way as to come up with a creative expression I find.
I do not feel limited at all regarding music theory. I feel limited in my willingness to express more, to go further, to be more creative with the material I create. And this has nothing to do with music theory. I would not want to use music theory as a prop, as an illusion for me and for the listeners, instead of facing the limitation within oneself and within the soul. As such music becomes an expression of something more than 'mathematics'.
I'm wondering about that actually. So far intuitively, to take an example to try to illustrate, I know that playing a F# in a D minor chord is asking for trouble. But if one tries to sneak a Ab it might work if there's some flexibility in the D minor to support it. And this is where the 'game' is at, flexing here and there to go along other notes and chords, as the inspiration leads.tavasti wrote: Many things you say are 'me too', but that relation to theory is just opposite. Learning theory gives me possibility to get results I want much faster. I do not have too much time for my music hobby, and without studying theory, all my music would be something much less than it is now.
I think there could be quite a difference between European and American mentalities regarding this. As an "American" I put accent on groove. Getting a groove going is very important. Chords and solfege and theory does not matter as much.tavasti wrote: I've studied some course from udemy, and right now studying more, to get my composition skills to next level.
I still remember when I first time learned what scale means, and how it enabled me to play 'elevator rock' with my guitar.
I don't think there is such thing as European or American mentality. I suppose Finnish and Canadian have more common than Canadian and Brazilian or Finn and Romanian. Most likely things are more about your musical taste.jonetsu wrote: I think there could be quite a difference between European and American mentalities regarding this. As an "American" I put accent on groove. Getting a groove going is very important. Chords and solfege and theory does not matter as much.
I know, there are American classical composers. Although I use a broad range.
The question remains. Can I really get my composition skills at a higher level by studying or can I instead face to hard work of feeling it all ?
Not entirely. There's the cultural background, what you are growing into. Europeans did not have a cut in their cultural backgrounds. It all seamlessly progressed, with the church, classical music, everything just going on their own pace. In American there was a cut. 450+ years of fiddle and guitar songs completely removed from classical music have forged a mentality and an approach regarding music. This is why I say that in America (including Canada) the accent is on the groove. What makes people move. Hundreds of years for the common people (not the rich ones) to dance to fiddle and guitar tunestavasti wrote: I don't think there is such thing as European or American mentality. I suppose Finnish and Canadian have more common than Canadian and Brazilian or Finn and Romanian. Most likely things are more about your musical taste.
450 years ago definitely Finland did not have any classical music, first signs of it are 1790. Sure some church music, but not as a art. Folk has been singing or some fiddle music, https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... i4fjc_6M-a and https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... z_K0HKB1nGjonetsu wrote:Not entirely. There's the cultural background, what you are growing into. Europeans did not have a cut in their cultural backgrounds. It all seamlessly progressed, with the church, classical music, everything just going on their own pace. In American there was a cut. 450+ years of fiddle and guitar songs completely removed from classical music have forged a mentality and an approach regarding music.tavasti wrote: I don't think there is such thing as European or American mentality. I suppose Finnish and Canadian have more common than Canadian and Brazilian or Finn and Romanian. Most likely things are more about your musical taste.
Well, every country has folk music. Although in European countries culture an classical music made its way. Not so in the 'new world'. Maybe Finland is a special case since after all written language in historic terms, is rather new.tavasti wrote: 450 years ago definitely Finland did not have any classical music, first signs of it are 1790. Sure some church music, but not as a art. Folk has been singing or some fiddle music ...
Indeed. I never listen them (I know Värttinä, and hate it), and then you start talking about cultural influence of your origin. No, hardrock has influenced me much more than any traditional music from any part of the world.jonetsu wrote: I listen for years now to Värttinä. To Hedningarna (Sweden) with the two Finnish singers (inspired from Sami culture). I know Loituma. I know the nature of the Kalevala. I also know of Gjallarhorn. Since quite a long time.
Most likely, for folk music theory is pretty simple. I think in some page there was theory summarized and simplified:jonetsu wrote: To go back to music theory, this simple approach does not need so much theory. A little bit, but certainly not complete theory courses. And this is what is driving my musical approach so far and my comments on 'why learn music theory ?'
It will depend perhaps on the density of population. In the USA there are more differences eg. between Texas and Vermont for instance. In Canada not so much, but there are some. Certainly nowhere near (many) European countries.tavasti wrote:And making 'European' one group is really far off. East and west, north and south are culturally far away from each other. Maybe in northern America there isn't so much regional differences, beacause all over there has been people coming from all over the globe, bringing own influences.
I have stopped tuning my guitars the standard way a long time ago. I do not like it when the open strings are strummed and it shows bad. I like it when the open strings sounds good together. So that means it's a long time I have not done any standard chords on a guitar which in turns means that I have forgotten about the chords. And since the tuning can vary at anytime there's no point in learning the positions for 100 chords for each different tuning, so I play mostly by ear.tavasti wrote: And indeed, for guitar tuned to AEAEAE, knowing pentatonic minor will give lots of great rock stuff. However, I prefer to get further, and faster than with trial and error. That's why I study theory.
Oh really, what about https://www.gtdb.org/dadfad and https://www.gtdb.org/dadfsad42low wrote:OMG i also don't like those open X tuning. Eventually those are NOT the tricks used by famous guitarists in famous hit songs.tavasti wrote:And indeed, for guitar tuned to AEAEAE, knowing pentatonic minor will give lots of great rock stuff.
No, at least I am not studying anything like 1:1 code how to write music. More ideas what sounds ok, and what not, and many times also what not so nice sounding things can be usefull to create tension, etc.42low wrote:But does music theory cover that all? I doubt that.tavasti wrote:However, I prefer to get further, and faster than with trial and error. That's why I study theory.
Look, I've been playing guitar for 25 years. I had enough tricks with regular tuning. As I mentioned, I like it when the open strings sounds nice together. That's how I view guitar.42low wrote: If you learn the right tricks for EADGBE you won't have that.
Not at all. If one is playing flat, then flatness is in the mind42low wrote: This all is impossible with open tuning which will eventually limit and restrict you play and keep it flat.
What Findeisen describes is found in a lot of different music. To escape from this one must go maybe to Phillip Glass and such uniform, universitarian music. Everybody else has some form of passion expressed and where there's passion there's modulation of passion, of intensity. Many music like to create drama, to make people looking forward with expectation. Others will intuitively remove some instruments in a first pass to a verse and add more intensity for a 2nd chorus.tavasti wrote:For direct 'do this' instructions for pop music Holistic Songwriting might be best place to go, but that does not intrest me.
A note at the right time beats a lot of theory.42low wrote: Btw. Fun anecdote i told before.
It's also easy with MIDI notes. Simply drag them off. Or play them off in the first place. This said music theory has a lot of mecanisms to write down notes that are not played right on the beat since it tries to capture human expression. After all classical players will only play what they are told and if the composer felt that certain notes were much better when not flush on the beat then he has to be able to write it down for the players to play it right off the beat. At a higher level classical players can put 'their own' in what they play but it comes after years and years and years of playing by the book.42low wrote: (that is for analogue instruments off course, not for digital music styles although there possible too)
It is totally different thing to be artist and composer. Some people are both. For artist playing someone elses music, there is no need for music theory, and in fact, there is no any help from music theory for that. And it is possible to be also creative without knowing theory, you can learn everything by trial and error, or by mimiciking what other musicians are doing.42low wrote: Btw. Fun anecdote i told before.
I once saw a band of all university schooled musician playing famous songs. Each tone and hit was indeed exactly right. The songs they played sounded exactly like the albums.
But it didn't live. It had no charm in it. Boring to be honest. And eventually they didn't catch or grab the audience at all.
There you go with all that huge amount off music theory.