>I'm a musician >What theory do you use? >Ah nah

>>69344922
>implying im gonna tell some faggot what theory I use
jokes on u m8

how many people honestly say theory limits writing tho

>asking for the secret forumla

I mean, it doesnt limit anything, but you can make good music without having a totally firm understanding of theory, not an excuse to not learn it but still. Theory can make a song better but it cant prove a song to be bad, unless its within a genre that is so focused on theory like jazz, classical, or to a lesser extent prog rock

>>69344922
Whatever works. Aphex Twin doesn't use theory, he sounds great. Bach used theory, he sounds great.

>>69344922
Both are important though.

Knowing theory and knowing when to rely on something that just sounds great is important as opposed to what the rules are is what makes a great musician.

Going just by what should work creates derivative music generally speaking. Theory is a guide for how to express yourself effectively, not a strict limit of what you must do.


Also, who the fuck asks "What theory do you use?" That doesn't even make any sense.

>>69344922
Yeah, agreed! We should all follow in classic composer's footsteps!
You know, the same people that got sexually aroused by feces, committed incest, and many, many more awful things!

>>69345051
>aroused by feces
leave mozart alone

>>69345078

Yeah, how dare he insult the dead like that. If I were still alive then his ass would get a kicking.

reminder that music theory is descriptive and not prescriptive

>>69344922
>>I'm a musician
lol thats gay
>>What theory do you use?
i know scales, intervals, how to build chords, basically the necessary shit
>>Ah nah brah, music theory limits creativity - you gotta only write what sounds good dude!
these people are fuckin dummies, but in a way theyre right

>>69345118
STILL alive?
nigga, how old are you?

All you need is string theory

>>69344922
mate do you even know what the 10th octave in the key of d# tonic minor is?

one time i tried to not use theory and invent new notes
i didn't
i just used theory with different ratios of frequencies. it was fun

>>69345363
>But in a way they're right
No they're not, at all

They think learning about music theory will cause them to write music in a strict way like they're writing a fucking 4 part counterpoint for a music mid-term and they'll lose a "creative" edge

When in fact, you can write anything you want, and music theory will simply tell you why your piece sounds the way it does. Nothing more, nothing less.

>>69345602
yeah but what im saying is all you have to do is make cool shit. you dont necessarily need theory to do that but it helps

>>69345666
Yeah of course, and writing based on our own creative and artistic impulses should be our means to a musical outlet...you don't need to know theory for that

But those people who parrot the "music theory is limiting and kills creativity" meme think that theory (if you were to learn it) replaces our creative impulses with a rigid framework of musical ideals that we must adhere to.

But this is only applicable when writing score in music classes...not on your own. Bach isn't sitting on your MIDI keyboard yelling at you because you created an atonal piece with irregular instrumentation and timbre

>>69345602
That's true to a point, there's a level of musical academia that gets far too into the theory, and sounds derivative as a result.

Lots of musicians just do a lot of listening to music and figuring out sounds and are able to create cool sounds, and lots of people know a lot of theory and can't do shit with it, because they purely have theoretical talent.

It's much easier to compensate for lack of theoretical knowledge with practical knowledge than it is the other way around, which I think is the other guys point.

"you're writing music wrong"

>>69344922
I mean you don't need to delve yourself into theory to write good music. Plus, there is such a thing as going too far into theory, that's why garbage like Animal Collective exists.

>>69346742
>garbage
>Animal Collective
pick none

>>69346923
Good, I wouldn't pick Animal Collective if you paid me

>>69345036
>Aphex Twin doesn't use theory, he sounds great
to and idiot
>Bach used theory, he sounds great.
to everyone else

>>69346742
But AnCo isn't that complex when it comes to theory. Just some proggy time signatures here and there.

Relying to much on theory, without really utilizing it to it's potential results in shit like Dream Theater

>>69346975
>to and idiot
damn...

Theory is underrated and overrated. It just depends on who you are arguing with. Most people are too divided on the whole theory argument. If you are on either side, you basically don't get it.

File: Filosofem.jpg (256KB, 600x550px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 600x550px

theory fags are terrified of true inspiration

>>69346975
>to and idiot
what did he mean by this

>>69347722
i literally dont know 2bth

>>69345477
d#

>>69347876
M-Mozart?

>>69345012
Theory could introduce borders to a person's thinking that aren't really there, but ya it's probably only a good thing, especially if you're mindful of things like that.

>>69344922
who the fuck asks someone what theory they use. if some punk ass asked me that id be like uh well listen to it and figure it out.

>>69348633
I don't really think you understand how theory works

>>69348663
Not him, but explain, please.

In what world does "what theory do you use" make sense? Do you answer it with every single part of theory you're comfortable enough with to apply to songwriting?

>>What theory do you use?
that's more autistic than the new autechre album

>>69344922
>What theory do you use?
Who talks like that? What are you even asking? You know fuck all about music theory yourself, don't you? Now maybe actually learn an instrument and stop shitposting on a Taiwanese carpet trading forum.

File: 1437446058149.png (354KB, 479x485px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 479x485px

>What theory do you use?

>>69344922
I think the best thing about learning music theory for modern songwriting is that it allows you to quickly translate what you hear in your head to paper or a recording

>>69344922
>What theory do you use?

Did you just shit yourself?

If you think theory is restricting, try writing a song without using chords

>>69351633
Arp

File: Mature_Spongebob.jpg (54KB, 773x595px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 773x595px

>>69344922
>What theory do you use?
What did he mean by this?

>>69351648
Arps still folllow the notes of a chord while playing them in quick succession

Alternatively, try writing a song without using a time signature or tempo

>>69351680
Thats the most retarded idea ive ever heard because it does not exist.

>>69351798
That's my point
time signatures, tempo, chords etc all fall under "music theory". To not use them would be idiotic

>>69344922
>What theory do you use?
What sort of fucking question is this, anyway. this conversation never happens

If you want to have a discussion about music theory just be straightforward about it. Don't need to write shitty greentext

Oh you know i use d minor theory

>>69351823
You didnt make a point. You made an absolutely retarded statement.

Are you OP?

>>69344964
i've met a few

but who honestly asks "what theory do you use"? that's not really how theory is used

>>69351823
You can still write music with a time signature and chords without "using theory" by just writing what "sounds good". Music theory is a framework for describing musical ideas, they can still exist and be created by someone without knowing what they're called.

>>69351898
Using theory without knowing it is still using theory
it just means you know enough about good sounding music that the theory behind it is second nature

It's as if theory is just a set of tools made to help with the songwriting process, and not just to dictate it, wow!

>>69351908
We existential now.

>>69344922
>>What theory do you use?
Nobody uses this question.

>>69347876
Come to Brazil

>>69344964
That is a meme spread by retards that don't know any.

>>69347055
>>69347722
>Tfw to smart four Aphex Twin

Is there another school of music theory? I'm guessing what they use in stuff like Indian music?

File: MFW+I+find+out+a+friend+of+mines+a+brony_d887b5_3632461.jpg (18KB, 475x475px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 475x475px

>>69344922
>am singer/songwriter
>can't read sheet music
>don't know music theory
>just copies other peoples songs and stitch melodies and chords together based on what sounds good
>great success
>people give me money
>"jazz and classical sound gay"

YOU MAD??

>>69344922
>What theory do you use?

I'm pretty sure that's not what music theory means.

File: john_frusciante_wallpaper_4-other.jpg (427KB, 1693x1261px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1693x1261px

I def think theory can be limiting if you dont understand its purpose.

A while back i read a John Frusciante interview that kinda helped change how i was looking at theory at the time. He explains that he used to learn all these scales, and all this complex theory but he didnt really start developing as a musician until he started focusing on the sounds coming out of his guitar and what he could hear in his head.

For example its not about knowing what a Phrygian scale is or whatever, but knowing what its gonna sound like. So basically being able to hear the music in your head, so you can express your emotions at will.

Essentially, for theory to be useful and not creatively limiting I think you have to do it in conjunction with ear training. Ear training is much more important.

You dont really need theory to write your own music either, it just helps puts things in context

>>69345051
>aroused by feces
FURTHER

>>69352245
the purpose of music theory is not to mindlessly follow rules, but to understand concepts and WHY they are used. By knowing the effect of using a 'rule', you can therefore also understand the effect of NOT following the rule and use that to your advantage to evoke a certain feeling

>>69345325
I don't understand why ppl are unable to grasp this.

>>69352245
Theory is just nice to fool yourself into thinking you're merlin. Then, there you are, you're merlin, best get back to the spaceship. But, what? No science allowed on your magicspaceship! ! ! The point merlin makes here, is this : ''become' theory, don't become theory, or 'become theory''. Merlin is real in a way, btw. But you'll need more theory to realize it, yes. Xxxlove, not at all just your pali, merlin.

>>69346975
If anything AFX was too reliant on post-African repetitions.

>>69352266
>By knowing the effect of using a 'rule', you can therefore also understand the effect of NOT following the rule and use that to your advantage to evoke a certain feeling

I dont think we're too far off, but I tend to reject the idea that there are any "rules".
Theory comes after music is made, not before. It deciphers the patterns used and puts them in context; a lot of music uses the same patterns which is how these "rules" came to be.

I dont think the first people to play jazz were approaching it in a classical way and then deciding to go against it on purpose.

To me its more, you can do whatever the fuck you want to as long as there is a rhyme or reason to the madness.

>>69344922

What theory do you use, is a really odd question to ask. They're not schools of philosophy.

You could instead ask what his method of writing is, which is a far better way.

>>69351633
This is retarded. It's like saying that you must understand the mathematical theory behind gravitation to not float away.

>>69351619
That's pretty much all theory is good for, that and being able to have a general idea what key you're in and what scales or chords might work with it.

Knowing what actually sounds cool is far more important than knowing theory, running up and down scales over chords isn't ever going to sound good.

>>69352146
There's some differences in music theory internationally, but it's generally just the scales used and the names of notes, it's all the same general shit, under the same general school.

Otherwise you're just asking what genre you play.

>>69352459
>music theory is just scales and names of notes
you are in no position to say what theory is good for

>>69346975
>to and idiot
and beyond

>>69345036
>Aphex Twin doesn't use theory
>???

>>69352485
Are you retarded? I said the difference between music theory internationally tends to be mainly simple shit like that, there's not some huge completely different school of music going on, it's all the same notes they're using, same time signatures, they just have different names and the scales most commonly used are different.

Drop the elitism and pick up some reading comprehension you moron.

>>69353014
Music theory also covers rhythms, delivery (staccato, legato etc) and instrumentation. It's not just the pitch of notes

Learn what the fuck you're talking about before you talk shit about it

>>69353134
Staccato, legato and all of those are not theoretical in the slightest. Delivery is a practical skill, not a theoretical one, largely at least. It being able to be shown on paper doesn't make it theory.

And why the fuck are you ignoring the basis of my point to try to jerk yourself off over how smart you are? You realise you just look like an idiot when you do that, right? I'm not talking about what music theory is, I'm talking about the major differences between theory you'll learn here compared to in say, India. It's just the same shit applied differently, all in the same system.

I wasn't looking to describe every possible difference between common music here and there, just some basic examples of things that change in different countries.


Maybe focus less on reading music theory and more on being able to follow basic conversations, yeah?

>>69353213
Are you unironically suggesting that there is no theory involved in when to use staccato vs legato when composing music? Do you actually believe it's something purely up to the performer that the composer doesn't care about?

>>69353223
No, but I'm claiming that using them is largely a practical skill that doesn't really need any theory that dictates when to use which.

Otherwise you could argue that choosing to fret a note instead of use a slide is based in theory. They are technical skills, and knowing when they fit in a song is far, far better taught via experience at writing songs than by learning it from a textbook.

Also, I just realised, did you seriously fucking claim that instrumentation is music theory? Are you retarded? Sure, knowing theory lets you know how instruments work together, but you can just as easily figure that out by listening to songs, and there's no rules around it at all. Please, link me something that says the opposite.

Once again though, completely fucking irrelevant to the point I'm making, and I don't get why you keep bringing it back up.

Don't expect another reply if you're just going to continue to ignore what I was saying and try to convince yourself that every single thing in music is music theory, because I'm getting the impression you're the same moron who was saying that it's impossible to write music without knowing theory because chords are theory, as if you can't just pick up on what chords sound cool and work together by playing heaps.

>>69353305
Using them is not relevant to the discussion of music theory, which is about the composition

Are you implying that beethoven or any other classical composer put no thought into which instruments played what part? Of course they fucking did. That is part of music theory, as different instruments produce different sounds which evoke different feelings. It's all part of design

>every single thing in music is music theory
Are you actually suggesting that this isn't true? Do you honestly believe that there are parts of music that can't be analyzed or designed to produce an intentional effect?

>>69353345
>Are you actually suggesting that this isn't true? Do you honestly believe that there are parts of music that can't be analyzed or designed to produce an intentional effect?

Yeah, you're an idiot then. There being a name for something doesn't make it music theory.

I don't really have much else to say to you, you're a retard who isn't interested in discussion, just in trying to make yourself look smart.

Your sorts are one of the biggest cancer with this board.

>>69353417
>There being a name for something doesn't make it music theory.
is this advanced bait?
The fact that there's a name for it proves that it's part of the theory of music. Music theory encompasses everything regarding the composition of music

Music theory is just that - a theory

There is no proof for music

>>69352147
>great success
If that was true you wouldn't be posting on 4chan right now