Is music theory essential for music production? Do you think

jimi hendrix

essential? no. but you are probably going to struggle for a long time and get frustrated very often. writing a song without any clue what chords or scales you're using is not easy. but it's possible. do yourself a favor and buy a clip-on tuner for your instrument so you can learn what notes you're playing, then find a website that lists chords and go from there.

You're probably going to need to understand a little unless you're one of those savants.

>almost
>if you cant play any instruments, no.

How is the alt scale the 7th mode/locrian mode of melodic minor? The alt scale has a major third, whereas both melodic minor and locrian have a b3, so where is this 3 coming from?

>>73944253
you can do the same thing with the 7th mode of the harmonic minor scale. it has a b3 and a 3.

Tame Impala is great

>>73943103
music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.
I'm pretty sure most active pop musicians have no clue what they're doing.

unless you want to get into some elitist group, such as jazz, it's not necessary.

>>73943103
Yes, they can, but there's a 99% chance you are not one of those people who are that talented. Stop being an arrogant little shit, and either dedicate yourself to something, or go wash dishes. There's no shame in either of those things but there absolutely is in trying to half-ass your way through life.

File: 51l2kFk6CnL.jpg (35KB, 500x498px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x498px

>>73943103
>Is music theory essential for music production?
No.

I just don't know where to start and I don't know how to apply it

>>73944253
shit I was totally confused, thanks

the 4 in 7th mode of melodic minor corresponds to the major third you'd typically find in the normal dominant 7 scale, no wonder this was so confusing to me

ie G7 has G A B C etc...

G7alt has 1 b2 b3 4 ...

but the 4 in G7alt is B, which is the major third of just a normal G7 (but slipping in the b2 and b3 pushes that major third to a fourth in the G7alt)

apologies if I'm butchering the notation or if this is incomprehensible

>>73943133
>>73944425
>>73944456
>>73944503
t. bad musicians

>>73944518
Dude read the thread some people are saying really practical things. If there was some magic trick, everyone would be doing it.

can one of you theory advocates post something you've written
seeing a lot of talk ITT but not much evidence

>>73944647
But not the people who are advocating for not learning it? Go fuck yourself.

>>73944681
i'm seeing hendrix, nirvana

>>73944603
Nirvana knew only basic music theory and they were excellent musicians mate

>>73944456
>implying be elitist is overrated
jazz is the superior genre

>>73944725
>>73944738

>One-trick-ponies who are dead because they were junkies

Set higher aspirations

>>73944738
>excellent

they were passable which is all you can hope for

>>73944518
musictheory.net

>>73944518
musictheory.net

The first thing you've got to do is understand how to construct scales. After that, you learn how to construct chords. From there, you learn how to construct diatonic chords (chords built from notes in a given scale). Now you're learning about chord progressions, why some work, why some don't, and why a lot of pop songs sound the same harmonically if you listen closely. On the flip side, you'll also realize why some pop songs sound amazing.

From here you're going to want to learn about modes (maybe the pentatonic scale, too), which will allow you to develop and understand more complicated chord progressions. From there, I'm not sure.

>>73944647
>>73944725
>>73944738

Music theory is supplemental to innate musicianship or whatever the hell you're talking about. There is no reason you should neglect music theory. Yes, a lot of bands sound good without any theory whatsoever (or at least minimal theory). But by not learning music theory they're seriously limiting themselves and restricting their own musicianship by not being more musically exploratory. Music theory is just another tool, and a powerful one at that.

Also, what are your reasons against learning music theory?

>inb4 they'd sound too jazzy

>>73944725
I didn't realize we had Hendrix/Cobain posting ITT
The people against theory only want to skip out on learning it and pretend they'll write good music anyway (they won't most of the time)

>>73944753
oh I agree.
and I enjoy studying and applying music theory.
it's just that you don't -really- need it unless you go for a spot within such groups.

>>73945092
writing music with chord progressions is a bit like composing with training wheels on

File: ayy lforce.jpg (18KB, 408x408px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 408x408px

>>73945160
>writing music with chord progressions

Cool, let's hear your composition that doesn't have chord progressions. So one chord only. Oh, and before you post some one-chord drone-fest, remember that we're talking about harmony and melody, not timbre or tone, so don't bother with examples that are just shoegaze pedalfests (no disrespect to the genre, though, love your tone). I'm not looking for innovation of tone and that's not what this discussion is about.

Its easy enough to learn key scales, as long as you can tune things right when you need to the rest is up to you.

>>73943103
You are never worse off for trying to learn and better yourself!
Musicians all "know" music theory, whether it's formal or not. Jimi Hendrix is usually used as an example of a guy who didn't know music theory, but he most certainly did. He knew the relationships between chords and notes even if he didn't know the labeling that music theory gives you.
Music theory is descriptive, and builds upon previous generations of musical ideas. If you don't want to use it you'll only be learning the same stuff in a different order on your own, instead of getting the cumulative insight and understanding of pretty much all the musicians that ever existed.

>>73945486
Pretty sure he's talking about preconceived progressions.

>>73943103
Music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. It was written by those who already understood music on a spiritual level. So those who have the innate musical ability obviously can do without theory - because it was people like them who invented the whole thing in the past!

Your favorite musicians compose music using their imagination.

Some of them use theory to "enhance" what they imagined, but the base is always inspiration that comes from within the heart of the artist

what's the best interval?

>>73945160
Did I say you couldn't experiment either?

>>73945610
>preconceived progressions
This term means absolutely nothing, preeeeettttyyyy much every base chord progression has been played or made before

Not studying music theory is like being an alchemist in a world full of peer reviewed science literature.
You build your own understanding of what sounds good. You might know which chords go well with which other chords. You learn a lot through the process and it definitely feels good, like you’re discovering the whole world for yourself.
But take a look at “music theory”and you’ll see each of your own discoveries have been analyzed and codified by generations. They’ve perfected this ancient art into a science. What could you do standing on the shoulders of giants?

>>73945741
>Not studying music theory is like being an alchemist in a world full of peer reviewed science literature.

This is a really dumb comparison.
Science studies the objective, art is about the subjective

>>73945610
Yeah, I know, but I just really wanted to nail him for that little bit of ambiguity. Theory-haters in this thread make it sound like people who know music theory just sit down and use prescribed formulas for music when that's far from the case.

It's pretty funny considering that most bands can't into interesting chord progressions and can only sound cool for the first chorus or verse of the song, and by the time they're due for another verse they can't even switch things up by the slightest bit.

>>73945661
>Your favorite musicians compose music using their imagination.
>Some of them use theory to "enhance" what they imagined, but the base is always inspiration that comes from within the heart of the artist

Nobody's arguing either of these things. However, if you're claiming that one should not learn music theory because inspiration "comes from within the heart of the artist," I think you're wrong precisely because you can

>use theory to "enhance" what they imagined

Do you know any music theory? Genuinely curious, this question is not meant as a slight.

>>73945804
Not him, but it's a pretty good comparison
Even though art and music is subjective you can still examine how and why parts work together the way they do

The way you state that art is subjective, you make it seem like there's absolutely no need to learn about any sort of theory that goes into any art.
I mean there's a reason music, film, paintings, literature, sculpture and all sort of other mediums have classes, theory, and teachers

>>73945661
>>73945804
Why do you have to rationalize your lack of talent this hard? Do you just think it's funny?

>>73945866
I was in a music class.
I learned music theory, but we did not go all the way down the rabbit hole

>>73945897
Its not a rabbit hole though. Just calling it that reveals that you don't get it.

>>73945893
It's a terrible comparison.

You can't make good science without knowing the scientific literature.

But you can make incredible albums without knowing music theory, as demonstrated by plenty famous artists

>>73945897
Well it's impossible for any one class to give you complete mastery over anything

Not him, but what level of music theory we're you working with

File: Qb9Keic.jpg (430KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1920x1080px

>>73943103
Only practical composer combinatorics.
Book theory is almost useless for making music.
For example, Mozart improvised from age of 4 whole days, by age of 16 his understanding of musical laws was at the level of a first-class professional, but if you count how many hours of practice it cost, there will be insane figures. You can learn all textbooks of music theory, but you can't even write a good song without practical experience.

>>73945921
You can make plenty of "good science" (whatever that means) without the use of scientific literature, but you'll be retreading stuff that's pretty much already been done.
Same goes for music

>>73945897
How far did you get? Because I've only gotten my toes wet and music theory has seriously opened my eyes as to making changes to my own little personal compositions. It helps tremendously if you're getting composer's block, and it also helps explain why other songs sound so good harmonically (and why other sound so bad).

I can understand where you're coming from--music shouldn't be formulaic and should fueled by imagination, no doubt. And while music theory allows for formulaic music, it also allows for greater musical exploration. But music theory is a tool and, in my opinion, is as much a tool as the instrument(s) used to make the composition.

File: 1433894022481.jpg (32KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x600px

>>73945919
I made this musical piece with zero consideration of the music theory i learned:
https://soundcloud.com/matanken/possession-take-2

Forgive my sloppy playing, judge the piece compositionaly.

It's actually a bit sophisticated if you analyzed the theory behind it, even though no theory was considered in the making of this song. it was created using my ears and my imagination

>>73945921
Also plenty of fresh innovative science comes from pushing the limits of what we know, same with music
It's pretty easy to see if you know the history of science and music

>>73945974
>You can make plenty of "good science" without the use of scientific literature,

No you literally cannot. science is inherently different from art.

In science things are objective, and you need to actually prove things experimentally, just "feeling" that something is right would not be enough.

But in music, its all subjective, and "feeling" that something is right is everything

>>73945996
It's just okay though. Modal shifting isn't as sophisticated as true, functional modulation. And I agree, it sounds cool and modern, but it just comes across as a highly ornate I-IV-I-V-I thing, or some permutation at least.

You have to make a choice. Do this thing and really learn what kind of counterpoint your using, and consider ALL of the possibilities or make something simple that you can play effectively. You're such a fence-sitter that you're just making yourself all confused.

And here, have some Ben Monder. I do believe he's mastered the style you're going for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bUYte3VPE4

>>73945996
getting sadder

>>73945974
No, because music uses only one system for several centuries.
The only question is the agility of possession, which is developed by practice. Therefore, many pop musicians compose more better than theorists with music education.

i think something that a lot of people are missing is that music theory is a tool for understanding, yes it can help compositions, but at it's most valuable it's used to analyze other people's works and then apply it to your own
im shit at playing by ear myself but using theory i can manage just fine.
also production techniques are just as important in creating music,dont go skimp out on it

>>73946037
When I was a kid I did a science experiment with teeth I got from my dentist, then let them soak in soda and periodically weighed them at my local pharmacy to see what happened.
Science doesn't require an intense understanding of everything that's going on to produce results, in the same way that music doesn't require an intense understanding of everything that's going on to make decent sounding stuff. Neither are as forumlaic as you think, and they both start with ideas and questions. All I'm trying to say is that knowing more about a given subject will only ever help your creativity and the options you have to make and experiment, in either science or music.
>>73945996
This sounds pretty, but would knowing this is pretty much just 2 or 3 arpeggiated chords take away from that? No not at all! The more you know, the more you options you have to take in songwriting.
Even though you don't know the label's that go to what in a formal sense, you used ideas that are throughly described with music theory.
Idk why you think understanding and imagination/creativity are so mutually exclusive

lol I drop by after years and still this same fucking thread

>>73946148
Actually most of my compositions are much more minimalistic than the one i shared here, and i feel like the more minimal stuff are the things i enjoy the most.
(Of course im biased judging my own music though.....)

I never shared this particular piece online, but one of my favorite pieces of mine is a piece that is so minimal, every chord transition happens only once in the entire song, and each chord is played very slowly for a really long while. very few people ever heard me playing that piece. i find that piece to be magical and highly hypnotic. one day i will hopefully release an album and it will be included there

Thanks for sharing Ben Monader btw, never heard about him before. sounds interesting

>>73946187
>music uses only one system for several centuries
This is just wrong, there are so many nonwestern systems of music theory. And it's not as if music theory has remained static this whole time, it only builds apon itself.
And I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with the second half of your post, since I'm not trying to argue that only trained theorists with musical education can make good music

File: galss.jpg (483KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 1200x1600px

>>73943103

Only if you are a genius and making music comes naturally to you. Chances are that this is not your case, so yeah, go learn some fucking theory.

Saying learning music theory will make you a worse musician is like saying learning grammar will make you a worse writer. It's what stupid people tell themselves to justify their ignorance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49alQj7c5ps

>>73946371
They are not mutually exclusive. you can absolutely know music theory and still be a creative, imaginative composer.

I'm just saying music theory is not essential for the creation of good music

>>73946501
Music theory will make you a worse musician ONLY if you will follow it blindly as blueprints instead of following your artistic vision.

If you don't do that, there is no reason knowing music theory would make you worse as a musician. you just need to realize that the core of your compositions should come from your own imagination and insparation

>>73946508
What the hell are we arguing about then? I never once said that music theory is essential to make good music. I only said that knowing more will broaden your ideas, creativity, and give you a deeper understanding of what you're actually doing

>>73946534
It's okay if you're too stupid to learn theory. Just stick to camp fire songs and people will still think you are talented.

>>73946534
You don't know anything about making music.

>>73946471
>>73946534
>>73946563
>>73946618

The problem is that this discussion on this particular forum is going to devolve into a shitfest because everybody wants an answer right here, right now. Even when it's a subject where even the littlest improvement is experienced over such a gradual period.

Reading over it one more time, I can say that the best starting point is to learn to identify melodic and harmonic intervals, do that for like an hour a day, but after that, just forget it and go back to what you're doing.

There's a kind of arrogance in "I don't need no theory, mane" that's really annoying, but even that first step takes more than a day to really grasp, so it's not surprising that people react to it this way.

>>73946618
I already know enough music theory anon. i don't want to proceed further because i want to concentrate on the emotional and imaginative aspect of music, and i find delving into theory to be a bit disruptive for my creative process.


>>73946730
Objectively wrong but i don't feel like arguing with you when you make such silly arguments.

>>73946768
Post something. I know you won't. It's obvious from your posts that you have a pedestrian understanding of music.

>>73946764
I don't mean to sound arrogant.

I think not everyone must create music through the same process, you know? if you feel like you need music theory, go for it. and if i feel like it's disruptive to my own process, im not going to delve into it further

>>73946768
lol

whatever makes you feel better

>>73946781
>Post something. I know you won't.

I already did, see >>73945996

>>73946789

learning is disruptive I am le true artiste xD

>>73946768
>this is your brain on ignorance

>>73946809
Wow a couple arpeggiated chords, real impressive

>>73946814
I will explain to you why it's disruptive for me.

I like to think about my music as locations or feelings - i like to think about my music as an atmosphere.

Music theory disrupts my atmospheric line of thinking and it makes me think about things as math and chord progression. i feel like thinking about my own music as theory can really disrupt my creative process.

>>73946789
No offense but your reasoning doesn't make any sense.

>>73946850
you have no real understanding of what music theory even is if you think this.

>>73946809
I had low expectations and you still managed to disappoint me.

>>73946851
I posted a clearer explanation one post above you.

I will summarize it:
I like to think about my music as an atmosphere, not as math. thinking about my music as math and chord progressions disrupts the technique i use for my creative process

>>73943103
Depends what kind of shit you wanna make.

You don't have to know anything about theory as long as you have an ear for what sounds good. Whatever chord you throw down on the piano roll might have a technical name, but it doesn't really matter as long as you can finish the progression.

>>73946850
your brain is garbage manifest

>>73946618
^ I am not this rude little shit
>>73946768
>i don't want to proceed further because i want to concentrate on the emotional and imaginative aspect of music
I get where you're coming from but
>you can absolutely know music theory and still be a creative, imaginative composer.
You yourself admit that using theory properly will not detract from those things

Just curious now, how does learning disrupt your creative process? I don't know a lot of music theory, but whenever I learn something new I'm always excited to see how I can apply it to my own music , which leads me to a bunch of ideas.
The worst issue I have is what ideas I want to flesh out first

>>73946879
You're typecasting these various sounds and sonorities into "feelings". Instead of calling it like Cma7+11, you're saying something like "nostalgic" or whatever. It's a statute of limitation you're putting on it, and learning the nomenclature will actually free you of this, not make you more restrained.

File: fennec!.jpg (72KB, 718x720px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 718x720px

>>73946877
Thanks for sharing your honest opinion.

I've seen some people in the thread liking my piece, and i've seen you disliking my piece. it's just a matter of opinion.

>>73946789
But music theory isn't a process for making music! It's just describing what's going on, it's not some cold formula

>>73946850
Learning music theory will allow you to more aptly describe the environment you're trying to create through sound.

Theory is a tool, not a guideline. You'd know that if you spent even a small amount of time learning theory.

Learning the fundamentals of any discipline allows you more creative potential, not less.

>>73946937
this pretty much

>>73946937
>it's not some cold formula
Tell it to any blues musician ever, a genre that 100% relies on the most basic formulatic music theory

>>73946942
>Learning music theory will allow you to more aptly describe the environment you're trying to create through sound.

Maybe for you, not for me though.
What is right for you is not essentially right for me, anon

>>73946951
you're actually retarded

>>73946970
You could talk shit but your composition is trash so you have no room.

>>73946970
this is how stupid people justify not growing their knowledge.

this is how fat people justify not losing weight. your argument is the definition of ignorance.

>>73946974
I'm sorry for telling you the truth about blues.

The entire genre is based on following a basic music-theory formula

>>73947005
>music theory
>formula

you are dense as fuck, I'm done.

>>73947002
I'm tired of people calling me stupid in this thread.

I think my point of "what is right for you is not essentially right for me" was a very fair point. i'm not the first musician who doesn't like to compose using music theory.

And there are plenty of successful musician who don't give a fuck about theory

>>73946951
Most prominent blues musicians did not have a "proper music education"
They played what they felt, it wasn't until the analysis of it that theorists could lump it together and say "this is basically what's going on"

And even though the theory of blues is pretty limited relative to other genres, it's pretty impressive how different artists used very similar scales to create very different pieces

>>73947005
you're actually hopeless

>>73947018
He's too dumb to learn theory so he spends his time rationalizing it.

>>73946879
I don't know how learning more about something like harmony for example could ruin the creative vision of anyone since many innovations started in artists wanting to destroy the things they studied before but I guess if you already have your own style then go for it, knowing what you want is the most essential thing after all.

being afraid of influence is sign of weakness.
it's also observable fact that some initially fresh underground artists lost their identity after contact with basic theory, but this will happen sooner or later anyway, you cant stay a noble savage forever.
aphex twin and legowelt still maintain a veneer of noble savagery in interviews but bet they explored many concepts already, there's no isolated artistic curiosity which is only interested in own discoveries.

>>73947036
i'm sorry you're stupid. i'm sure you have other redeeming qualities.

>>73947036
Most musicians don't compose coldly with soley theory
They take some ideas that they like, noodle with them, and refine it
No one with an intimate knowledge of theory composes in the way you're describing

>>73947036
your music will never be worth listening to if you don't learn theory

if you're too stupid to learn it find another hobby.

File: 12_bar_blues_formula.jpg (82KB, 596x461px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 596x461px

>>73947018
>>73947042
>>73947048
>Hurr durr blues is not following a formula that is 100% based on simple music theory

Music theory CAN be used as a formula and there are musicians WHO DO use it as a formula. that's just a fact

Leave the tripfag alone. Some people enjoy being ignorant, some people actually need to be stupid to make it through life. It's his life.

>>73947088
THEY DONT USE A FORMULA, THEY ARE STUCK IN THOSE PATTERNS BECAUSE THEY DONT UNDERSTAND THEORY AND CANT SEE THEY ARE USING THE FORMULA YOU ARE ACTUALLY RETARDED

>>73947070
My IQ is within the top 1% of the population, but of course you are now going to call me "narcissistic" for saying that i have high IQ.

As if it's okay to call me a retard but it's not okay for me to defend myself with the truth

File: 1410327799085.png (66KB, 465x657px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 465x657px

>responding to tripfags

>>73947123
el oh fucking lel

>top 1% intellect of the population
>spends his free time shitposting on an internet image board

>>73947123
i'm in the top .0005%, what now faggot

>>73947088
You realize this "formula" is for the background chord progressions right? It's a lot easier to play with other people if everyone is on the same page with what their playing and it gives a massive amount of variation to what a solo blues guitar can do over it.
If you take that chord progression, make a backing track to it, and give it to as many blues musicians you want, you'll see just how different each player plays over it.

>>73947112
Blues musicians were 100% aware they are using a "blues formula" anon.

If they were being imaginative and not following a formula that is based on music theory, they would have made music that is more varied.

>>73947069
My nigga.

>>73947111
Being stupid is actually highly advantageous in today's world. Most people really hate being around people smarter than them, and do everything in their power to make them leave the room at all times.

>>73947123
Ignore the guys yelling "stupid"
They don't want to have an actual conversation

File: iq-test-tweet.png (45KB, 370x153px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 370x153px

>>73947123

>>73947137
I'm actually starting to like the little shit. He sure stands his ground, I'll give him that.

>>73947206
It was not an online test, it was 3 professional tests in the israeli karni institution.

I was tested 3 times just to confirm the results

>>73947223
Yeah, now put your trip back on.

>>73947179
What blues musicians are you referring to? Pretty much the only time those are used on improv open mic nights where you don't even really know the people you're playing with

>>73947248
>>73947140
>>73947083
>>73947070
Plz don't derail with some dumb name calling and Iq arguments

File: ddb.png (679KB, 600x825px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 600x825px

>>73947123

>>73947179
Got a response for
>>73947168

by the time you're done reading this thread, you could be on your way to reading up on the fundamentals

fucking start now

>>73947123
please keep posting, i haven't laughed this hard in weeks

>>73947304
Alright, it doesn't change the point of my argument tho:

music theory can be used as a generic formula

It's not necessary but it's extremely useful.
Honestly, just learn some theory

File: 47d.jpg (47KB, 600x597px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x597px

>>73947325

>>73947368
Wow you really showed me. 10/10 i like how you addressed my argument.

Bye.

>>73947325
What kind of argument is that? You can make formulaic music without music theory too

Also can you define what "generic formula" even means? Cause as I said earlier, you can take any number of musicians, have them solo to the same backing track and get wildly different ideas and variety

File: 1e0.png (435KB, 539x436px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 539x436px

>>73947389

>>73947408
It wasn't an argument against learning music theory, i only made this argument because of this guy >>73947018 who was implying music theory has nothing to do with formulas.

I already addressed what i think about learning music theory. it's not right for everyone, one size doesn't fit all. if you feel like it would help your own creative process, learn it. if you feel like it disrupts your creative process, don't learn it.

>>73947428
>>73947368
It makes it really hard to have an actual conversation with the trip if you keep shit posting

>nah I dropped out of elementary school, these stupid formulas like "math and science" disrupted my creativity

>>73947444
But he's right, music theory has nothing to do with formulas
Sure you can use it like one, but that's not what music theory is about

File: c8fWLeT.jpg (830KB, 1775x2598px) Image search: [Google]

830KB, 1775x2598px

>>73947451

File: 5b6b476a764543c98772690fccab1090.jpg (141KB, 770x1027px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 770x1027px

>>73943103
I am not too interested in the instrumental technique. I am more interested in emotion than in technique. I do not enjoy listening to music for the sake of a brilliant solo. That solo has to deliver emotion. If it is technically breathtaking but does not deliver any emotion, that musician is not very interesting to me. There is a difference, in my opinion, between a juggler and an artist. If the playing is barely passable, but it delivers a lot of emotion, that musician is a genius.

>>73947464
I'm going to copy-paste my post because i already addressed with in the thread:

science is inherently different from art.
In science things are objective, and you need to actually prove things experimentally, just "feeling" that something is right would not be enough.
But in music, its all subjective, and "feeling" that something is right is everything

>>73947469
How do you use music theory compsitionaly in a way that is not formulaic?

>i want dissonance, im going to use minor second

>i want something to sound "big", so im going to use octaves

That's kind of following formulas, don't you think?

>>73947532
music theory is a vehicle for musical expression

>>73947444
You're right, music theory isn't for everyone
It's for people who want to broaden and deepen their understanding of music, actually understand what theyre playing, and why certain combinations give the feelings they give harmonically

>>73947547
Science is art, stupid.

>>73946926
>>73945996
Hey dude I'm in a composition program and I'm going to break it to you

It's bad

It doesn't matter if you know/don't know theory, in regards to how much talent you may have. What matters though is that you increase the amount of tools in your toolkit. Your composition has interesting harmonies but it's not really composed. It's more of just this kind of meandering world that doesn't go anywhere save for some cadences, which you seem to understand.

Anyway this thread is shit theory only augments your ability to make music.

If you don't know theory your music is probably rudimentary. Defending ignorance is stupid. The tripfag is the face of ignorance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c_LeIXrzAk

>>73947560
Understanding music is not just about music theory. artistic and emotional concepts are more complicated than what can be described through music theory.

File: 1461915918425.jpg (63KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x500px

>>73947615
>Hey dude I'm in a composition program
??????

>It's bad
Alright, thanks for sharing your hot opinion

I'm still the only one in the thread who shared his own compositions here

File: cp.jpg (43KB, 1583x258px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1583x258px

rate my counterpoint

I find it difficult

Knowledge of your craft increases creative potential. The more you know about something, the more material you have for innovation.

>>73947646
I've score films, and am enrolled in a comp program. Have had my pieces played and have more scheduled this year. I'm a working composer, that's what I meant.

I gave you constructive criticism but you are too hard headed to listen to nay of it.

>>73947725
But for me, it's disruptive to the method i use in order to create music.

I think about my music as atmosphere, as places, as emotions. and when i compose my music, i think about the place i create, not about the notes im playing.

Reducing the atmosphere to just theory harms my method of creating music, its just disruptive really, i don't like thinking about it

>>73943103
If you dont know music theory you are forced to use 12tone equal temperament with a440hz,
This was picked for you by someone else may not lead to the best tones in your opinon,

someone is actually dictating what tones you can play

>>73947781
Being illiterate in music theory will only make your music duller. Your "music" is pathetic.

>>73947760
>I gave you constructive criticism
1. You just said: "I used a composition program, it's bad". that's not constructive criticism.

2. Even if you did give constructive criticism, it would just be your opinion, not some sort of an holy objective truth

3.
>I've score films
Show me your film scores

>>73947781
Because you don't use it to create music. You use techniques to create music. You use theory to describe it to other people in an effective and easy-to-understand way.

Otherwise, you have a band of dunces who are like "nah I think it should go like this" and then they sing something that doesn't sound anywhere near what they're trying to do.

>>73947547

Gonna steal what this Anon said
>>73947615
>It doesn't matter if you know/don't know theory, in regards to how much talent you may have. What matters though is that you increase the amount of tools in your toolkit.

Your look at theory is really reductionary.
>i want dissonance, im going to use minor second
>i want something to sound "big", so im going to use octaves
These are relatively true, but it would be true regardless of the label that music theory assigns to it, or that you assign to it. It's painfully obvious that you don't see the value of learning ideas, tools, and a way of discussing musical ideas from literally centuries of musicians who were better than either of us could hope to be.

>artistic and emotional concepts are more complicated than what can be described through music theory.
Find me ANY artistic idea that can't be thoroughly analysed and explained through it's respective lens of media theory

>>73947781
>nah I never learned how to read, it ade my words less creative. I'm a better speaker than everyone else because I don't know the basics of grammar

>>73947805
That's just not true anon.
I would argue that following music theory instead of focusing purely on the atmosphere and mood im trying to create would make my music duller.

Look what happened to modern prog rock, many of them learn music theory and forget about the atmospheric qualities of music, and i feel like it harms their own music

>>73947833
Hey, anon....play the scary chord. You know, the one that's like, whoa everything's scary now. Like spiders everywhere. You know which one I'm talking about?

>>73947843
you need to understand the difference between objective things such as science and language, and subjective things that are based around human emotions, such as art.

>>73947781
you music fucking sucks

>>73947655
Good use of imperfect consonances (3rds & 5ths), and good ending using a P8, which is a perfect consonance. Should have opened with that too.

You used only consonant harmonic intervals, which is also good.

Overall, decent technicals, but not very creative (lots of intervalic repetition, try spicing it up). Very adherent to the rules of first-species counterpoint.

7.5/10

I think of it like a playground.

Some people can run around a playground, slide down the slides, run through the tunnels--all with their eyes closed, because they're talented and have spent a lot of time feeling their way through the playground. They know it like the back of their hand.

Others prefer to open their eyes and take a look at where the jungle gyms are, where the slide starts, how far to the balance beam etc. Perhaps these people are more conscious of the playground for what it is, and why it works the way it does. But maybe not.

Regardless: even if you don't know "theory," you're still doing it, because "theory" is more a description of how the playground is laid out--not some mystical thing in the sky. Eyes closed or not: you're still on the playground. How you get to know the playground is up to you. Problem is: few of us have the ability or dedication to learn the playground with eyes closed. It's actually easier to play around when you open your eyes--even just a little bit.

>>73947878
Thanks for sharing your hot opinion. some people like it and some don't.

I'm still the only one in the thread who shared an original piece

>>73947876
Art is manipulating the world around us into meaningful creative expressions. A deeper understanding the world around you (music theory) allows for deeper creative expression.

>>73947876
Speaking is a form of art. You have no argument.

>>73947913
Music theory doesn't explain everything about music, that's what you don't get.

it doesn't explain the very core of it as an artform, which is the most important thing about music - how it effects you on a visceral level.

Human emotions are more complicated than what music theory describes

>>73947876
You don't know what art is. Language is art.

>>73947959
Language is not art.

Poetry is art. Writing a novel is art. Caligraphy is art.

>>73947781
My old bassist had a similar approach and it was fucking impossible for him to describe what ideas he had in his head
"It's like you're on the upper west coast in a log cabin, with a flannel shirt and a hot babe with you"
Literally what he said one time
You don't see how hard it is to work with other musicians without a common language to describe music?
>>73947831
>"nah I think it should go like this" and then they sing something that doesn't sound anywhere near what they're trying to do
This is exactly what he would do

If he knew any amount of theory, we could have gotten the ideas clearly and worked towards a good song way quicker than we did
For fucks sake I'm a drummer, why do I know more music theory than someone who plays notes

>>73947958
Art is a vehicle for human expression. Music is a vehicle for art. People who spend years studying music theory have a better understanding of human emotions than you ever will. I think you're autistic. You don't know what art is.

>>73947898
I guess. Even Pavarotti possessed every quality that shows why "legend who don't need to know no theory" sucked balls. At some point in his life, he stopped being able to learn and internalize new roles. After he reached a certain age, he was only able to play as Rigoletto and Rodolfo for the millionth fucking time.

Contemplative dedication > talent with a hat hung on it

>>73947978
Are you an aspie? You have a severe deficiency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_arts

>>73947979
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bGPPBoh9E8

Radiohead told the brass section of this song to play as if they are "in a traffic jam". and they did it even though they know some music theory.

Because the secret is that the core of radiohead's creative process is not based on theory, it's based on their imagination.

>>73947859
I fucking hate this shit
Thanks for providing an example of what surely happens with bands everywhere

>>73948021
Language itself is not art, but some artforms use language.

The same way sound itself is not art, but music is an artform which uses sound.

I hope you understand that you were wrong

>>73948024
I know man. To me the biggest irony is that a major triad used in the right place can absolutely be the "scariest" or "darkest" or "most outside" choice.

This is why it's so important to not typecast intervals and chords into these silly emotional states.

>>73943103
The monks who invented western musical theory did not have any understanding of sound as frequency.

Understanding the physical properties of sound is more productive at least to me than music theory,

>>73947958
You have no idea what you are talking about. Music predates your understanding of what it "should" do, which in reality is nothing. Music is about listening. You are doing more than that which is inherently wrong.

Music theory is a long-standing academic study of the discipline of what makes music sound the way it does, in the western canon.

A misconception you seem to have is that theory is developed alongside practice, which is wrong. That did not happen until the last century. For long, theory followed practice, long after it became common-place. You are simply ignorant and I recommend you quit making an ass out of yourself.

>>73948023
Holy shit you are retarded. Those kind of directions exist in the classical music world too you fucking loser.

https://youtu.be/5Kyso5VmZ6g?t=609

>>73948038
>being this dense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_art

>>73948038

>>73948052
You don't even know what you're saying.

>>73948038
BTFO
>>73948067

>>73948063
I know this kind of instructions exist in the classical world too, anon. that actually proves my point even further, it doesn't disprove it

>>73948067
You are the one who is being a moron right now. not every sound is art. some artforms use sound. how is this not obvious to you?

>>73948052
That's what music theory is.

>>73947816

1. Yes I did read the post.

2. No shit, thanks for stating the obvious. The problem is not my opinion, the problem is that you are too stubborn and hard-headed to listen to someone telling you that you have weaknesses. Your piece is lacking in a lot of things and there are ways to improve it - not by me but by you. Again, you are too close minded.

3. No unless you want actual help, you are a tremendously douchy weeb faggot.

>>73948088
Explain

>>73948101
>>73948067
I was not "BTFO" unless you have a terrible reading comprehension.

"Sound arts" are artforms which uses sound as a primary medium.. this is from the wikipedia page he linked.

Sound itself is not art, but some artforms use sound. i don't think i can make this argument much clearer

File: in-this-moment-i-am-euphoric-not-because-of-any-19266409.png (107KB, 500x445px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 500x445px

>>73948113
You don't get to decide what is and isn't art.
Every noise that has ever been made in history can be framed as art in some context.

>>73948113
BTFO
>>73948148

>>73948148
Every noise can be framed as art, sure. you can use the noise as an artistic medium.

But sound itself is not art, its just the medium you use in order to transfer your art to the listener

>>73948113
It doesn't prove your point because to you music theory is not a valid languague, whereas if you know both theory and retain your imaginative way of representing things, your way of communicating music will be enhanced. You say that they are mutually exclusive while I argue, dare I say outright state, is wrong.

You sir, are an uneducated swine, and any and all statements made by you should be comprehensible to anyone save for only the truest of dadaists around. Utter nonsense lacking in any merit besides that of proving that the internet allows for instant idiocy to be communicated.

ur a faget

>>73948185
all sound is art.

>>73948137
Is saying "double the frequency" really better than "octave"? Get real.

>>73948185
No.

>>73948113
If anything those directions shape the timbre, tone, and intensity of loudness

You can't give those instructions to any type of ensemble without an arrangement already in front of them. Otherwise it's going to be an incoherent mess

File: Jaden+euphoric+smith_63d046_4937880.jpg (27KB, 563x548px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 563x548px

>>73948185

>>73948203
real mature

>>73948185
>being this confused about what art is

>>73948234
I know many, many grown men and women who introduce complexity to things where it's not beneficial. Very insecure.

>>73948249
>>73948231
>>73948219
>>73948204
I will give you a simple analogy:

Color is not art. however you can use color in paintings and create art.

Color = the artistic medium
Painting = art

Now back to sound:
Sound = the artistic medium
Music = art

Sound by itself is not art

File: header_42-62371123-rothko-2.jpg (283KB, 2000x1252px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 2000x1252px

>>73948316
>color is not art

eat shit faggot

why does a minor chord sound more sad than a major chord?

>>73948316
BTFO
>>73948332

>>73948332
The color black is not art, the piece which used the color as an artistic medium is art.

>>73948332
does that look like a smooth surface to you? genuinely curious

>>73948342
Educate yourself. Learn some theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rEqrPwVITY

The tripfag is peddling ignorance.

>>73948351
I WAS NOT BTFO, also im starting to suspect you are samefagging.

Creating a minimalistic piece using one color doesn't mean the color itself is art. the color is still the artistic medium, they just happened to use one color instead of multiple colors

>>73948342
Because you're making that attribution.

>>73948359
Black is art.

>>73947903
https://clyp.it/user/djax3c4z

Here's some shitty solo projects I've been working on, I'm a drummer and have only been playing guitar for a year and only dabble with piano
Pretty much all of the melodic and harmonic components of my stuff comes from learning theory, noodling with it until I like an idea enough to keep working in it

Not knowing, or intentionally not learning will never help you get better, I couldn't have made this much progress in such a small amount of time without theory

Here's a question I have for the people who took the time to learn music theory
Is your music legitimately better than when you didn't know theory?

>>73948376
he doesn't explain why brighter is happier though, he just inserts another adjective

>>73948389
https://psychology-tools.com/autism-spectrum-quotient/

>>73948396
is it not a universal response? you think it might be learned?

>>73948315
You still haven't explained anything, you've only mustered a couple of insults. A display of arrogance if anything.

>>73948421
does someone who learns about composition and proportion make better drawing than someone who doesn't?

>>73948316
Idk what this has to do with what I posted in
>>73948219

Without the arrangement beforehand, you can't just dictate to musicians "play like an eagle soaring then plummeting to it's doom" and expect anything to sound good

>>73948445
I'm not full time teacher, but I've taught enough people to know, no, it is not a universal response at any level. 100% environmental/cultural.

>>73948421
Yes yes yes
Music theory has only helped me become a better musician faster than I otherwise would have
>>73948416
Is me

>>73948389
you could not be more BTFO

>>73948481
Well that's subjective it would depend on the raw talent of the person who doesn't know
im asking if in your personal opinion if YOUR music has improved - when compared to nothing else but your own work

>>73948479
Then you describe to me the benefits of understanding the science behind frequencies, if you're so emotionally attached to the idea as to feel "insulted" by what I've said.

File: Extremely-cute-kitten_large.jpg (30KB, 500x331px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x331px

>>73948416
Here is my worthless opinions on your pieces:

I think Fazz Junk really bad.

Booty is nice, nice work :D

Streaks is pretty bad too, but better than Fazz Junk

Slow Snake is pretty good, but the "solo" is pretty bad

FunkyBBlues isn't very good

Funk Box isn't very good either

But you know, the most important thing is that you are having fun, and your own opinion about your own music should always be more valuable to you

>>73947886
thanks
I tried opening with a P8 but ended up with a lot of oblique motion no matter what I tried

>>73948629
your opinions are garbage

>>73948651
Your opinions aren't any better

>>73948648
A P5 would have worked too. It just needs to be a perfect consonance.

File: 59c.jpg (36KB, 500x557px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x557px

>>73948656

>>73948698
You are aware this is not a rational argument, right?

>>73948629
Yeah I know most of it is pretty bad, but I've only been playing instruments with notes/pitches for about 1 year, and only been messing with production and recording for the last like 2 months on and off
Can you talk about why you think those pieces are bad?
Slow snake solo is good awful, but I think that's cause I had to line into my audio interface cause the midi on my keyboard doesn't work
Funkybblues is literally a phone recording
And funk box was more of about trying to toy with vocoding than anything else

How long have you been playing?

>>73948713
Hey man if you have a problem you can talk to us

its ok your music is primitive and youre here because you are more than likely alone, its ok

just shhh dreams now, let the theory in

>>73948421
desu i fell music theory doesn't really help much in learning how to make music, but it does help a lot in learning how to steal from others

File: crazyaga.jpg (38KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 479x720px

>>73948713

>>73948651
Well can you give your opinions on my projects then?

>>73948713
You are aware that you are falling face-first for all of this guy's bait, right? I suggest you just stop replying.

Music theory is useful if you want to create avant-garde music and truly do something that hasn't been done before.
It's easier to break the rules if you know them

>>73948769
i think he's actually retarded

>>73948769
He has such an immense ego. He's so easy to manipulate.

>>73948729
>How long have you been playing?
10 years but im not the best technical player. over 90% of what i play is original material, i have tons of stuff, most of it unrecorded.

Here have some more music i made:
https://soundcloud.com/matanken/the-way-the-earth-circles-aroud-the-sun-makes-me-feel-dizzy

>Can you talk about why you think those pieces are bad?
Sure.
First of all many of your pieces don't have the guitars tuned properly. but even if it was tuned properly, your "solos" come of as weird and not captivating to me.

About Fazz Junk, you use a very "spanish" feeling chord progression and rhythm, and the guitar sound and filter effect really really don't fit it in my honest opinion

To be fair relistening to your pieces, i can tell you are a drummer, because the rhythm parts are actually pretty nice, even in the songs i said i don't like

I think my opinion wouldn't have been as bad if everything was properly tuned and recorded better.

>>73947179
Stop. Music is a balancing act between structure and variation. In the blues, the chord progression (I IV V) serves as the backbone over which the melody (variation) occurs.

>If they were being imaginative and not following a formula that is based on music theory

They ARE being imaginative--in their melodies, their solos. And it is only through the chord progression--with it's KNOWN, ESTABLISHED structure--that they can be imaginative.

Improvisational music like the blues only occurs when there is an underlying structure. Without this structure, guess what improvisational music like the blues or jazz would sound like?

It would sound like a bunch of musicians each playing in a different key at a different tempo. It would sound atonal, it would sound harsh, and it would certainly not sound good. Why? Because there is no common structure that every player can follow. The guitarist might be playing in Bb and the pianist in F#. The bassist would be in D and they'd all be playing in their own time. It would be pure chaos, and not the kind that's some performance art free-jazz circlejerk.

Also, you seem to associate music theory with some sort of machine-generated formula. Yeah, I know, you say your argument is that "music theory can be used as a generic formula," but that's a given and doesn't really reflect your own stance on music theory as demonstrated by your other posts in this thread.

In a previous post you said it's fine to "enhance" your own compositions with music theory, but then continue to imply that using any sort of music theory is tantamount to using a formula. And then you say that using any formula means you're not being imaginative. You illustrate this clearly in the post I linked above, and I'll paste it now:

>Blues musicians were 100% aware they are using a "blues formula" anon.

>If they were being imaginative and not following a formula that is based on music theory, they would have made music that is more varied.

>>73948885
Using music theory compositionaly is sort of formulatic, but it doesn't mean it needs to be forbidden to use it to enhance your pieces if you feel like it can make your music better.

I just don't think this method of composition is right for everyone. i feel like it's not right for me

>>73948742
interesting

File: 1381875140014.jpg (140KB, 680x684px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 680x684px

I don't know if this is a good or a shit thread

>>73948929
>Using music theory compositionaly is sort of formulatic

How so? And in what way do you think people use music theory when composing?

>>73948868
My ears are pretty shit from drumming
(Wear your earplugs kids)
But I used the tuner in my DAW, so idk how I can get it any more tuned really
I feel like I'm limited by the production end more than anything cause idk how to do all those fancy things to make it sound nice
I'm not really sure how you got a Spanish feeling from that song but thanks
I'll give your stuff a listen in a bit

>>73948991
I already explained it in the thread >>73947547

>>73948969
It's one of the best I've ever seen.

>>73948929
>>73948729
Honestly, you guys are literally at the same level, and neither have any good faith to school the other.

>>73949023
Music is subjective anon.
If we are both at the same level in your opinion it doesn't mean we are both objectively at "the same level".

i think my music is alot better than his music, and he maybe thinks his music is better (idk what he thinks desu, but if he thinks that, it's cool)

>>73949079
That's why you'll never get improve. I wonder how many perfectly capable people IRL you rejected forming that musical relationship with because of your shitty ego.

>>73949023
I'm not looking for schooling, but I'll gladly take it if you've got it

And if you think we're at the same level, despite me playing for 1 year and him for 10 I guess that only supports my case for learning with music theory

Could you school me tho? I'm pretty good about criticism

File: main-qimg-7433932e01710812c162944d7c25393d-c.jpg (24KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x400px

>>73948929

>>73949118
I'm not making music that is designed to please any sort of audience.

I'm designing my music with one objective: the objective of pleasing myself and creating the best album i can create for myself.

I want to create my own AOTY.

I think im using the perfect method for that, which is considering my own opinion as the only relevant opinion

>>73949079
his music is miles ahead of yours

File: 1494303584135.jpg (23KB, 284x284px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 284x284px

>>73949150
Thanks for your hot opinion.

If i wanted to create music in his style i could do it fairly easily (and i would), its just really really really not my style of music and i very much prefer what i created

>>73943103
>Is music theory essential for music production?
In terms of computer-aided music production? No. But if by music production you mean composing a musical score by hand for someone else to interpret and perform, the answer's yes.

>Do you think someone can be a brilliant musician with knowing little/no music theory?
Yes, because the only skill you absolutely need to be a great musician is a really well-trained ear for music. Even being able to hear itself is optional to great musicianship if your ear has already been trained well enough (see late-era Beethoven.)

>>73949145
I'm not making music for any audience either
I don't even have a goal like making my personal aoty, I just enjoy the process
>>73949079
>>73949118
I don't really think music can be "better" than another, but I do actively try to improve in any way I can

>>73949199
nah you can't

>>73949199
you can tell he's mad when he posts cats

how do i filter tripfags?

>>73949260
He's obviously autistic and has a real difficulty with people. Notice how everything is about what he "feels" and "likes" and "wants".

>>73949233
give me 30~40 minutes

>>73947248
>mom gets him tested for autism
>tells him its IQ tests and that he's a genius so it's not so hard on him

>>73943103
Paul McCartney

>>73949019
You have a very broad view of what is formulaic and what is not, though I guess given your pissant style of responses in these threads, defining what is formulaic and what is not is a matter of subjectivity.

You are, however, objectively hated by many people in this thread because you associate music theory with formulas, and somehow associate formulas with a lack of creativity. And that hate is justified.

You are ignorant because you dismiss music theory blindly and you are a dick for spewing contempt for music theory all over this thread under the pretense of "it's subjectivity/my opinion." You're a douche for spending your time arguing about science vs. art and obfuscating the main theme of this thread by debating the validity of analogies.

But feel free to dismiss this because it's your opinion that I'm wrong.

>>73949324
i'm not going to listen to your garbage
you don't even know music theory

>>73949324
So I just listened to your stuff on sound cloud
It's not bad but it all sounds super slow and ambient
Nothing is really going on with anything and the sounds don't mesh
Possession take 2 is my fav mostly cause it's the only one without super long drawn out whale noises
Dawn close mic is literally 4 whole notes repeating for nearly 3 minutes
"The way... " Is just like 2 chords arppegiated with delay
Idk what you were trying with experimental kaliedoscope but it just doesn't sound harmonically pleasing at all, with little more work I think I would really like it tho
The sound quality is too bad on the last 2 for me to fairly talk about them

>>73949324
I'm excited to hear your interpretation of my style

Also most of your stuff sounds really really similar my dude, sounds like youre in a bit of a rut, assuming you only upload the stuff you think is best/like the most
A lot of it is out of time too? Idk if this is on purpose or not, but practice with a metronome

File: 1397287927220.jpg (19KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x300px

Seriously guys I would be a little worried if someone I knew wanted to make music without even knowing a tiny bit of what he's doing. Like, you are not fucking Paul McCartney or Thom Yorke, you can compose without knowing the process behind it but don't get pissed when someone calls you out on your music being legitimately bad since you couldn't even tune your shit properly.

>>73949324
After listening to your stuff again idk if you can do what I'm doing
Especially not in 30-40min
I have a lot more instrumentation and just generally a lot more stuff going on

File: fennec fox.jpg (34KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x334px

>>73949719
>>73949324
>>73949569
Here.
It's not a good recording quality and the drums bleed in the guitar recording, but i promised to do something within 30~40 minutes and its almost 1 hour already so eh

It's not really my style but i think it proves i could do something like this.

https://clyp.it/euahhuw0

>>73949569
>assuming you only upload the stuff you think is best/like the most

I don't, most of my favorite pieces are not uploaded. the only real proper upload is "The way the earth circles around the sun makes me feel dizzy"

>>73949569
>A lot of it is out of time too? Idk if this is on purpose or not
Nah my tempo is just pretty bad.

But as i said, none of them are serious recordings, the only serious blueprint in there is "The way the earth circles around the sun makes me feel dizzy"

>>73950338
Are you fucking serious, bro?

>>73951129
Yes. the objective was to make a song in "his style" in 30~40 minutes. it took 55 minutes, i did not have time to polish it or anything, but it proves i can do that style

>>73951174
If that's your honest effort, that's horrible.

File: 1461802342819.png (31KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 657x527px

>tfw you can only write things that are slow because you can't into rhythm

rza's music went to shit after he into music theory

File: tb3kTDy.jpg (24KB, 480x336px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x336px

>>73951300
>>73951364
K i don't like being underestimated.
Here is something that i made in more than 55 minutes. something i actually took some time and made it properly.

https://clyp.it/osfr2di1

(i was aware that the "made in 55 minutes" piece had parts that are not on tempo, but i was already late in posting it because i promised to post it in 30~40 minutes. i think it proved i can make music in that style )

>>73944467
>washing dishes
>not shameful

>>73944940
it kills your soul.
i swear to god, i had to analyse bach so often that I'm very creative in doing baroquesque shit, but it always sounds like him and not me

>>73951649
please stop posting these dumpster fires

>>73951906
?

>>73951649
>when deaf people try to make music

>>73951649
the only thing you proved is that you have no musical ability

>>73951947
>>73951959
Fuck off honestly. that track is not bad.

It was never even meant to be shared anywhere since it's not a style i'm aiming for

>>73951977
you're joking right? you can't be this delusional

>>73951987
1. I was legitimately not joking.

2. I start to suspect i know who you are. go back to /gg/ if you are that person

>>73943103
>Is music theory essential for music production?
YES
>Do you think someone can be a brilliant musician with knowing little/no music theory?
Just learn the basic stuff, at least. It really isn't as difficult as it may sound.

I don't usually /thread myself but
/thread

>>73951977
>shitty basic ambling note sequence with NO breaks
>poor choice of drums
>no dynamic contrasts at all

I could have made that in 5 minutes AND it would have been 100 times better. Find an easier hobby, like scrapbooking or photography.

>>73951947
>>73951959
>>73951987
This are all posts by the same person

>>73951649
Literally anybody could have made that. I'm not even being dramatic.

>>73951649
that really took more than half an hour to make? i'm dying

>>73952027
i'm counting 5 minutes from now

>>73952034
Alot of people could have made something like that, that's true. i posted it more because of the guys who posted "you make slow music because you can't stay on rhythm XD"

>>73952047
Let's see what you can do

>>73951649
this track would be a lot better without that shitty line repeating throughout the entire song

it's a pretty basic track, and the kick drum is annoying. Also learn about EQing, it's almost painful to listen to.

>>73952069
its still slow though? you really think that's fast?

>>73952088
Sure.

As i said,
> i posted it more because of the guys who posted "you make slow music because you can't stay on rhythm XD"

Here is music in my actual style
https://soundcloud.com/matanken/the-way-the-earth-circles-aroud-the-sun-makes-me-feel-dizzy

>>73944503
>but steve is just an engineer i don't understand

>>73952072
link a youtube video and i'll sample it to prove I did it just now

>>73952116
It's much faster than what i do normally.

This is what i do normally:
https://soundcloud.com/matanken/the-way-the-earth-circles-aroud-the-sun-makes-me-feel-dizzy

>>73951649
Sounds alright. Could be the background theme to an 80's horror film or something.

But definitely not something I would listen to just to groove. Melody is so repetitive and the music itself doesn't really take you anywhere- it just adds some extra little effects.

>>73951649
It really shows that you don't know music theory. Your tonal range is very limited. It's like a 8 year old trying to express his emotions, but he can't because he doesn't know enough words and how to chain them together to properly convey his inner world.

>>73952279
Just that i do know music theory (not in depth tho)

I will post this again tho:
> i posted it more because of the guys who posted "you make slow music because you can't stay on rhythm XD"

Here is music in my actual style
https://soundcloud.com/matanken/the-way-the-earth-circles-aroud-the-sun-makes-me-feel-dizzy

>>73952298

Nah, I've heard enough to know that clicking that link will be a waste of my time.

>>73943103
I don't believe in music theory. Anyone one who does is bullshitting their entire audience.

>too stupid and lazy to learn music theory and make actual compelling and interesting music

>spend hours on a music imageboard desperately trying to convince strangers on the internet into doing mental gymnastics so that I can consider myself a real musician

>>73945486
Isn't Paperback Writer almost entirely in G?

>>73952333
>"Truly meditative experience. Is that an e-bow your using? Only wish it was longer!"

>"very ethereal"

>"Soulful. Mesmerizing. Feels like the sound is pulling at ropes tied to oneself. Has a certain gravity to it. Lovely and deep."

That's people talking about my music, the song i just gave you.

>>73952362
my mom has a soundcloud too

>when faggots on /mu/ acting like they don't need music theory because there are prodigies who have perfect pitch and rockers that have a good sound but minimal technical skill

Music theory isn't a guideline

>>73952377
people in 4chan liked it too tho. actually most of those soundcloud comments are people from 4chan probably

If someone wanted to make interesting music they would take the time to learn theory.

If they won't, it's because they can't. Stupidity, lack of discipline, inability to focus, laziness or a combination of those things are what stops them. To boast about now knowing theory speaks volumes about your insecurity and need for validation.

>>73952030
>Crazyaga of all fucking people complaining about samefagging

crazyaga is the michael phelps of getting trolled.

>>73952428
I was told not to learn it by one of my teachers. You could lose what had and never have it again. If you really think you need music theory please explain why you need it

>>73952491
All music uses theory, whether you want to call it that or not, whether you're actively applying it or aware that you're using it is irrelevant. If you're making music you're using music theory and it can be deconstructed by someone more knowledgeable than you.

>>73952491
Well, first. Explain what you could lose from increasing your knowledge on the creation of music. Music theory is a simple way to interpret something that's been around for millennia. Your creative is only limited by your own imagination. A painter isn't limited by the techniques they learn to paint. A musician isn't limited by the techniques and knowledge they use to create music. It's ignorant to think that knowledge will inhibit the creative process.

>>73952491
I feel bad for you.

>>73952412
those people probable have shit taste, just like you.

>>73952537that's fucking stupid and you know it. Explain how one would feel a certain way from playing said peace. It's not just based on what you hear, but where you are and coming from while you play a piece. Get this music theory shit out of my sight. It's complete bullshit.

>>73952591
your music will always be as infantile as your attitude because you don't know any music theory.

How about the /mu/ fags who believe theory limits creativity then explain. If I get an explanation that makes sense I'll just forget everything I've learned.

>>73952657
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49alQj7c5ps

They're just too stupid to learn it and want tod be considered real musician, so they do mental gymnastics to try to justify their ignorance. It's like telling a writer not to expand his vocabulary because it will limit his imagination. Complete bullshit.

>>73952555 What you could lose is the creativity in itself. When you get into music theory you limit yourself.

>>73952714
How about you explain how it limits creativity besides saying that it just does. That's what this entire argument is based on. It just does.

>>73952714

You didn't explain how or why that happens. I don't think you could, but humor me.

>>73952714
Actually even better. Give me an example of a person that has been limited by music theory.

>>73952780
Bono

>>73952879
I don't think he even knows theory.

>>73952734
the only argument for this is "you just have to feeeeel the music mannn" from people who don't make music

>>73952714
>>73952734
>>73952780
My old teacher. Told me he learned music theory and he never had that creative music he like beofer he learned music theory

>>73953164
That's probably just an excuse to why he failed as a musician. He probably never was very good.

>>73953164
What instrument did he play?

>>73953203
I'm sorry it's just the way I feel about music theory.

So what we learned today is that crazyaga makes garbage music and absolutely did not prove his point

>>73953300
Guitar. I wanted to learn how to write the music I was playing on paper. Note for note. Maybe I misinterpreted what music theory is.

>>73953429
also that he's severely autistic

>>73953425
>buckethead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyQJH615KwA
>Les Claypool
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4OhIU-PmB8
>John Entwistle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jPW0XWuo6g
>Victor Wooten
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eynnYLXW3Fo

Well, to at least make a point that music theory doesn't lessen your creativity here are few musicians who were formally trained.