Music theory is for plebs who dont have the creativity/ingrained

File: Laughing Girls.png (490KB, 449x401px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 449x401px

Hahahahahahahaha
Captcha
Lecciones ficatma

File: Patrick Baitman.png (128KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 308x308px

I'm sure you'll get a lot of replies.

>>48385201
The feel when youre being serious and everyone thinks youre baiting

If you're serious, then the fact that you clearly have never tried to read music and play an instrument is showing.
It's a tool of communication, complex pieces could never be replicated if not for music theory. It can't limit creativity either because it covers every sound you can make.
Take classical avant garde for example - you can't say that isn't creative. They created a whole new composition method.

>>48385152
you sound like an idiot

>>48385152
>learning to read and write is for plebs that can't just make up what they think words should mean. it teaches rigidity and takes away the beauty from the art

>>48385152
does music theory teach you anything about music tho?

>>48385152
i know this is b8 but maybe we can actually discuss about this.

I think theory really expands your writing skills and inspires you to write more complex and original compositions. Learning scales and rhythm for example opens whole new world about the instrument and expands your playing experience. You can hit your guitar strings with a drumstick without any knowledge about theory or you can learn theory and do the same with some idea of what you are doing. I'm not talking about thruston moore necessarily.

>>48385263
i always wondered how avant-garde pieces look on paper.
like really unorthodox ways of playing the violin for example, did they just create a symbol for that then and there or what?

>>48385304
it depends on how deep you go, doesn't it?

>>48385311
of course the vocabulary of chords, chord structures, interactions etc. are nothing to sneeze at either.

>>48385304
what exactly do you mean?
for example you can listen to music with complex rhythms without any knowledge of theory and you can enjoy it of course. But with knowledge of theory you can actually pick up the polyrhythms and triplets and whatnot

>>48385333
does it bro?

>>48385335
well obviously not

>>48385327
this

>>48385340
yes

music theory is codified abstraction representing what we innately experience

>>48385322
Avant garde pieces look kinda weird, I don't know that much about it but they have symbols that mean things, and those symbols would be widely used.
In the end though, if they're playing a note, then that's still gonna appear as a note.

File: 1336805516333.jpg (11KB, 289x285px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 289x285px

>>48385152
>Learning how to use a camera is for plebs who dont have the creativity/ingrained skill to create movies.

>>48385152

Music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive, you fucking nonce

>>48385362
>Music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive
this really has become a mantra on /mu/, hasn't it?

>>48385371
Yes because it's true, dumbass.

>>48385371

Do you have a problem with that statement?

>>48385383
obviously it is, but it's funny that you'll always see people post that, word for ford.

>>48385371
just like "music is subjective"

>>48385152
I think that goes without saying, but sadly in a pop industry this uncreative nowadays, it's easy to just learn the four-chord melodies and churn out a new beat for the new Rihanna single, so that the little swaglords can jizz all over it and forget about the days that good music ruled the charts

>>48385297
that analogy doesn't really work. you're confusing communication with art

>>48385152
aaay lmao

>>48385362
not really. it's also prescriptive as a discourse.
communication in general is both descriptive and prescriptive at the same time. discourses use certain concepts much more than others and these concepts become prescriptive in the similar way that meaning is defined by usage and context.
when musical discourse uses the concept of a melody all the time, it produces a way of seeing music, so it isn't just describing music from some sort of a neutral distance.

File: 02.-Ferneyhough-Unity-Capsule.jpg (133KB, 1000x725px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1000x725px

>>48385322
>i always wondered how avant-garde pieces look on paper.
something like this?

>>48385152
please be b8. Music theory is just physics. know which notes sound good together. The rest is craft. Theory not only allows you to write better and quicker, but lets you study the work of others in order to better your craft.

learning grammar is for plebs who dont have the creativity/ingrained skill to create prose and poetry. It teaches rigidity and takes away the beauty from the art.

>>48385840
>>48385688

>>48385152
>Grammar is for plebs who dont habe the creativity/ingrained skill to write literature. It teachs rigidity and takes away from the beauty of the art

okay

>>48385398
You seem to be lost. This isn't the youtube comments section.

>>48385840
oops, didn't see that

>>48385688
>implying literature isn't art
>implying art isn't inherently communicative
>being this fucking wrong

>>48385895
yes, the word usage was a bit wrong, but i think you could have understood my point

art is something different that just language in the general sense of the term - what we use to communicate in our everyday lives
i think what is different is the roles that art and language-in-the-general-sense play. art puts emphasis on creation, while language puts emphasis on using established modes of expression
that's why the analogy doesn't work. of course it's stupid to not learn the language, because it's main point is to get meaning across in precise way. with art precision of transferring meaning isn't that important, because this would block art - precisely because it would have to rely too much on established categories

>>48385941
just to clarify a bit - the point of art is creating new ways of expression not using established ones
and of course it is not possible for art to completely break from established categories, there's no creatio-ex-nihil and it would be incomprehensible anyway. but art still tries to push these established boundaries.

>>48385152
imagine you play a song.
imagine you play the middle key of the piano (that play a specific sound) for 3 seconds, then imagine that the next you want to play is the next piano key for 1 second (piano key that has a specific sound)....

Anyway the second piano key you played was played because you wanted to do it, in your opinion, this specific key sound was suitable at this situation.


Anyway, the sounds that each specific key have was not chosen by you.
The specific sound each piano key will have, was made based on certain rules.
Rules that maybe you dont agree with, the rules are
1-You will not just play one piano key at a time, so to each piano key we should have another key that is 2x its frequency. Because those 2 keys will sound good when played together
2-The frequency of the next key should be 1.5 the previous one, because of some reason I dont know.
3-A4 should be 439hz, but because its hard to create instruments with a4 being 439 (at least at the era they said this), A4 should now be 440hz
4-384 keys is alot of keys to piano have.

So, all this stuff was not selected by you (unless you know music theory and decided to continue with most famous tuning) but you still use it.

Using a analogy, this would be like if before you started to play some song, someone said "you can only play the black keys of the piano".

So by not knowing music theory you are limiting yourself

>>48386013
isn't this more like: the theory is limiting you "because of some reason I don't know" (to quote you) and you will be powerless if you don't learn how it is limiting you
i strongly agree with that btw.

>>48386013
>imagine you suck a dick.
>imagine you suck the middle of a dick (that tastes a specific way) for 3 seconds, then imagine that the next thing you want to suck is the next dick for 1 second (a dick that has a specific taste)....
>Anyway the second penis you sucked was sucked because you wanted to do it, in your opinion, this specific dick taste was suitable at this situation.
>Anyway, the tastes that each specific dick have was not chosen by you.
>The specific taste each dick will have, was made based on certain rules.
>Rules that maybe you dont agree with, the rules are
>1-You will not just suck one dick at a time, so to each dick we should have another dick that is 2x its length. Because those 2 dick will feel good when rubbed together
>2-The taste of the next dick be 1.5 the previous one, because of some reason I dont know.
>3-A dick should be 439mm, but because its hard, (at least at the era they said this), A dick should now be 440mm
>4-384 dicks is a lot of dicks to suck.
>So, all this stuff was not selected by you (unless you know your dicks and decided to continue with most famous dicking) but you still use it.
>Using an analogy, this would be like if before you started to suck a vagina, someone said "you can only suck the black vaginas of the whores".
>So by not knowing music theory you are limiting yourself

>>48386068
>isn't this more like: the theory is limiting you "because of some reason I don't know" (to quote you) and you will be powerless if you don't learn how it is limiting you

There is no way to have a piano that play every single frequency in the universe, this is obvious because there is a infinite amount of frequencies.
So selecting a tuning (what each piano key will play) is always needed.

UNLESS you play a Continuous pitch instrument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Continuous_pitch_instruments), like trombone that can play any pitches.

But some Continuous pitch instruments (trombone is one example) can only play any frequency between 2 frequencies X and Y. So as some example can only play all frequencies between 500 and 5000. I dont know if this counts as knowing music theory, but you would need to know that this instrument doenst all frequencies human can listen and that you must pick a specific version of the instrument based on what you like, since they dont conver the entire listening range.

So this "limiting theory" you say (so, the fact we need to tune instruments) is a needed thing, unless we create a rule that only Continuous pitch instruments that conver the entire 20hz to 20000hz range (frequencies human can listen), can be created and used

>>48385152
are you kidding? shit's as easy as reading (well at least basics, I don't even know what's going on in >>48385776)

>>48386095
>Anyway, the tastes that each specific dick have was not chosen by you.
What? Tastes of dick is not chosen, unlike sounds of musical instruments keys and etc...
Dick is not like food that you choose the specific spices and ingredients to use while creating, and so deciding the final taste of it

What im saying is that learning all music theory anyone could write a song that doesnt sound like shit but there could be someone who is just born with natural talent to be able to write songs without having any knowledge of music theory

>>48386188
i think you misunderstood me. i'm aware the "limiting" is kinda needed on a technical level (although i think your example simplified things a bit too much, but that's not relevant here). what i'm saying is that theory limits in one single specific way as in "why always limit me this way, why not the other way sometimes?"

File: image.jpg (26KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 300x225px

I THINK THIS MIGHT BE A TROLLE

File: p01bj8sw.jpg (10KB, 304x171px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 304x171px

>>48386210
Just some crazy brit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py5Vk90ZTak

>>48386252
>someone who is just born with natural talent to be able to write songs without having any knowledge of music theory

Of course. Plenty of people like that (my brother is one of them). And guess what? All of them would benefit tremendously from learning music theory.

>>48386517
that music is way cool. checking out where to get it right now. thanks m8

>>48385322
It depends on the composer. The score also comes with indications on how you're supposed to play it and explaining what each weird symbol means.

John Cage has a book that is a collection of sheet music written using experimental notations from various composers.
https://archive.org/details/JohnCageNotations1969

>>48385688
>implying that music theory and notation isn't a form of communication between musicians

>>48388441
>>48385941
>>48385968

>>48385322
You could go pick up a CD or record of an avant-garde piece. Most CD recordings of Stockhausen include partial scans of the sheet music. One of them that I remember (I forgot which of his pieces though) consisted of a musical staff drawn in a circle, and you would pin a strip of a transparency in the middle that has a few notes drawn on it and rotate it every so many bars.

>>48385355
sort of. it doesn't replicate the perception though.

>>48385355
i think the relationship between "innate experience" and music theory is reciprocal. music theory also shapes our experience. there is no original/authentic/natural experience of music. it is always cultural and contextual in general.

I personally have been playing guitar for 14 years. I have decided to go back to basics and learn theory. There's a lot of things I can't do and a lot of my creativity has stalled since I never learned this stuff.

I cchoose to think of music theory as vocabulary for music. If a poet or writer is writting and doesn't know more than a few words, then their composition will be dull and boring. Music is the same way, but theory is the equivalent of vocabulary.

Now. To the actual idea that musical theory can limit someone, I can slightly agree. There's many people I've met who have gone to school for music. They don't exactly think outside the box. At least the one's I've met. You can be taught theory and still not be a creative or gifted person musically.

So personally I think that there are people who want to play music, but simply aren't suited for it. Much like a person with a nervous tremor or shaky hands would be a terrible surgeon.

Talent goes a very long way with music even in the absence of theory. However to truly be able to expand creativity, theory should be learned at some point.

i remember a debate with crazyaga about this in which he thought following a chord progression was a bad thing

>>48388960
well it certainly isn't necessary, is it?

>>48385152
b8ing for days!
>>48385210
nah man nobody's this stupid
>>48385322
Yeah, they come up with different ways of notating as the ways of playing music evolve. Sometimes though, the composer will just write "bend the note extremely" or whatever into the part instead of having a symbol for it.
>>48388960
I would need more context to evaluate how stupid this is. I'm guessing you wouldn't have screenshots or anything?

Grammar is for plebs who dont have the creativity/ingrained skill to speak and/or write. It teaches rigidity and takes away the beauty from the art

>>48388960
crazyaga's crazyaga though.

>>48389335
I don't know why this analogy is being repeated because it's really shitty.

You don't need music theory to successfully enjoy or produce music. Music theory is not necessary here.
But you do need to know grammar to successfully communicate meaning to others on everyday level.
That's because the use of language and music is very different (yes, it does overlap in some ways). We don't use music to communicate on an everyday level because precision is required there. And music is arguably the most abstract form of expression, so it's not a practical way of communicating on everyday level (except for certain kinds of vague meanings like emotion). Some of the music hardly conveys any meaning at all compared to how specific you can get with language.

>>48389997
>But you do need to know grammar to successfully communicate meaning to others on everyday level.
Completely false.

everything else you said is laughable because your premise is so skewed.

>>48390037
Yes, there are many situations where grammar is not necessary. But you have to admit it's very very very hard to function in a society if you don't know any grammar. You know what that means right? You will be using only nouns, verbs, adjectives (etc) by themselves without combining them into statements.
Now compare that with knowledge of music theory.

>>48390285
>. But you have to admit it's very very very hard to function in a society if you don't know any grammar.
People who live in the ghetto or rural Southern hillbilly whites seem to do it fine
>Now compare that with knowledge of music theory.
Lennon and McCartney didn't know theory. Did they write any songs at all?

>>48390312
>People who live in the ghetto or rural Southern hillbilly whites seem to do it fine
Come on, they use grammar all the time, it's just more raw.
>Lennon and McCartney didn't know theory. Did they write any songs at all?
But that's my point.

>>48390344
Then we should be agreeing here--musicians use theory without knowing it, people use grammar without knowing it

Same thing. Both explain mechanisms behind usage.

>>48390312
You don't have to know theory to write a fucking song. I don't have to know how to make a table but I can fucking figure it out, it's a table. I'm sure a carpenter would kick my ass at knowing how to make a table though. Why do you think that is?
Don't be so posh. You're retarded if you think MUSIC theory does anything negative relating to fucking MUSIC.

>>48390370
OK yeah, I agree with you if you look at it that way.

>>48390427
Music theory has some conceptions that are not necessary to follow to produce music as an art piece. There are composers in history that have broken some such musical conceptions. Carpentry is a different story because the emphasis is on practicality (the table has to be stable, it has to last long, etc).

>>48390427
Are you retarded or just replying to the wrong person?

>>48390312
>grammar is necessarily prescriptive system
It's not.
Lennon and McCartney may not have known theory in a scholarly sense, but they knew how Western music sounds. Anyone that knows what they like and some time can figure out chords and scales that sound pretty to them.

>>48385297
Oh look it's James Joyce.

>>48390615
But in that sense we all now music theory.

>>48390508
>music theory has some conceptions that are not necessary to follow to produce music as an art piece
What conceptions? That fact that V - I has such a strong pull? That the leading tone generally wants to pull up to its tonic? These are not things music theory magically decided these were conventions that needed to be followed, it just so happened that many composers before modern theory was ever conceived had been writing music that can be analyzed under JP Rameau's theory of music (what is modern music history)

>>48390557
Nice shitpost bro.

>>48390671
In some limited form, yeah. Everyone who makes music does have a grasp on at least the most basic facets of music theory.

>>48390709
modern music theory*

>>48386095
ebin, simply ebin

>>48386213
You're sucking dick wrong, man.

>>48390709
But don't you think these conventions have some effect on how we perceive music? In the sense that without music theory you might not notice some stuff and might not make some distinctions but at the same time you might make some other connections that you would bypass otherwise. Of course this is easier to practice with music that is not that conventional because conventional music is so rigidly based on standard elements that it kind of pulls you into sensing it in a very specific way.
To use an analogy, a literary professor might interpret certain poetry work in such and such way, while someone else might interpret it another way. The more unconventional that poetry work is, the less wide the gap in quality of each interpretation is likely to be, because there will still be no clear theory for it. But for the author to move into that territory, he probably has to kinda bypass some theory stuff (or maybe not?).
I hope I'm making some sense here.

>>48385152
>being this summer

Most self taught musicians learn theory through proxy. They may not know how to explain it using technical terms but theory explains music. Music came first. You are severely hurting your playing if you think theory is worthless. The only people who really believe this are self taught guitarist. It's incredibly rare to find a sax player, pianist, trumpet player etc who doesn't know Amy music theory at all.
And sure, there are self taught musicians who don't know any theory. The most common example I see is Hendrix. What everyone fails to include about him is that he said he used to play guitar for 6 hours a day when he was a kid. So for the rest of us, if you want to add some efficiency to your learning, theory is important.

>>48391537
yup.

>>48390709
>Nice shitpost bro.
Thanks I learned it from you
>>48390615
Which is why it's like Grammar.

Please keep up.

>>48392058
You've got to be one of the dumbest niggas on this board. It's incredible.

>>48392115
Oh are you still the same guy who is either vastly retarded or replied to the wrong guy?