>"hey want to read some French poetry I wrote?"

>>70845635
Except you can write a song without actually knowing music theory.

>>70845635
No, that's the equivalent of saying "I wrote this song on guitar, but I can't play guitar." Not knowing about conventional grammatical structures, tenses etc. is more in line with not knowing music theory.

>>70845672

/thread

awful analogy, hope this is bait

I wrote a French haiku once.

>Their language is shit.
>The French are fucking faggots.
>T'res Bien, you assholes.

>>70845672
You can read French words aloud as well. In fact, you can even string together random words from a French dictionary and say "voila! It's poetry"

But it's probably shit since it's blind in the dark.

>>70845672
Why can't you write a French poem the same way? Just pick up any French book and take words that "sound nice" and put them in any random order you like right?

>>70845743
>>70845635

the art can be good even if the artist is untrained

>>70845723
that's 5, 7, 6

>>70845743
>But it's probably shit
Show me any tenets of Music Theory that says if something is shot or not

>>70845760
>Why can't you write a French poem the same way?
How would you know it's french if you don't speak it in the first place?
>Just pick up any French book and take words that "sound nice" and put them in any random order you like right?
Oh you mean collage art?

>>70845785
You can't recognize French when you see it written?

>>70845807
>You can't recognize French when you see it written?
Vaguely recognizing something =/= actual artistic creation

The analogy doesn't work. Just move on

Judging by your analogy, it literally has ruined your creativity.

You know, if you think any attempt to make music outside of the teachings of what can be defined in music theory isn't valid as music. That's your creativity having been limited by what you've learnt. Which is incredible. This happens to no one that learns theory. It's meant to expand your mind. But no, you're a fucking moron apparently.

>>70845859
So let's say I open up a French dictionary and close my eyes and point and random words and then copy them down. Then I print it off and call it a poem. How is it not?

People following musical theory like mathematic slaves is what kills music, and produces nothing but generic and uninspired shit

>>70845885
Well, what was your intent?

>>70845911
To write a French poem

>>70845935
No the intent of the poem itself. What does it mean?

>>70845885
Because musical notation can't be compared to language in that way you fucking autist. A sentence drawn from randomly taking words from a French dictionary might be considered "bad" on the basis that it conveys nothing as it is gibberish, and as language is about communication it has not fulfilled its purpose in that instance.

If someone writes a piece of music by "randomly" selecting notes and chords, (even though the process of taste is not random at all and actually draws on previously established unconsciously conditioned music theory) the notes themselves need not communicate any specific meanings and therefore can't be held to the same standards as language.

More accurate version:

>"hey what's your favorite French poem?"
>I like Les Colchiques a lot...
>"haha Les Colchiques is complete shit you idiot!"
>Oh I didn't know you knew French
>"IMPLYING I HAVE TO UNDERSTAND FRENCH TO KNOW WHETHER A POEM IS GOOD OR NOT!!!!!!!!"

>>70845885
>random words and then copy them down. Then I print it off and call it a poem. How is it not?
Oh like musique concrete, an established and intellectual musical genre?

>>70845945
It's meant to express beauty

>>70846006
How would it express beauty if it means nothing and is random? It would be the opposite of that.

>>70845984
Music theory is one way, not the only way to discuss or understand music.

>>70845951
>considered "bad" on the basis that it conveys nothing as it is gibberish, and as language is about communication it has not fulfilled its purpose in that instance.
Are you saying that gibberish can't communicate something? Aren't there plenty of critically acclaimed poems that, when taken literally, are basically gibberish?

>>70846019
if you can't find beauty in the chaos you have no artistic merit and shouldn't be criticizing his poem

>>70846021
Sadly this is true, all higher academics know this. However, they are people who have gone to school and actually know music theory, so their opinion isn't worthless garbage coming from talentless losers.

>>70846019
nuh uh it's subjective you dummy. I put so much emotion and soul into those random words why should their meaning matter?

>>70846041
>if you
It's not my example, it's his. he should be able to show us.
>>70846057
>I put so much emotion and soul
How so? How is this measured?

If you are having trouble elaborating this, maybe you choose a poor analogy in the first place.

>>70846056
I know plenty of theory. I was classically trained on piano, classical guitar and learnt jazz later on through saxophone. There are plenty of musicians far more talented than me who don't know a bit of academic music theory. They understand music in their own ways.

God knows why learning theory makes people think they're hot shit.

>>70846089
>How so? How is this measured?
>subjective
>can be measured
ok big guy

>>70846089
cool off, your head is getting hot

>>70846110
If it's all subjective, then OP's scenario can exist and is OK

>>70845898
Nah, that's pop music.

>>70846140
Except language isn't subjective. That would defeat the purpose. At most people can argue about connotative meaning and subtext.

>>70846183
>At most people can argue about connotative meaning and subtext.
People can argue those same things about music

>>70846183
>Except language isn't subjective.
It isn't?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_change

>>70846205
>hey everyone look I'm a pedantic asshole

>>70846224
Ooops you mean to quote >>70846183
Sorry about that!

>>70846240
nah, I really didn't

>>70845723
>2 french words
>2 mistakes

dont write french haiku mate

>>70846252
OK

Reminder that Paul McCartney didn't know music theory, and he did fine.

>>70846205
The meaning of words changes over time, yes. That doesn't change the fact that in day to day life we wouldn't be able to communicate with one another if the meanings of words were subjective and up to the whims of the individual using them.

>>70846317
>if the meanings of words were subjective and up to the whims of the individual using them.
Do you think a social group all agrees in a democratic vote what an idiom means? No, they start from an individual.

Let's also point out the basic flaw in your argument: the characters in OP's seem to have a basic understanding of English in the first place. They are already speaking and understand the grammar of a certain language already.