How long have you been a MM?

  On 12/22/2009 at 10:43 PM, modey said:

 

  On 12/22/2009 at 9:41 PM, maus said:

if you tell a guy to build a car and figure it out, sure he'll make some mistakes. but chances are that guy's car is going to be far more original, personal, and innovative.

this is ridiculous. that's like saying all education is rubbish and we should all just learn everything by ourselves. i think you'll find about 75% of people (or more) are incapable of that.

I see a lot of peeps paying for an education in music that have not the ambition to teach themselves, they seem to be forcing themselves into a routine to figure it out, I dunno seems kinda lazy to me, im pretty hungover but I must say I agree with most of the shit maus said

That was beautiful.

well my view, in simple terms, is this: fuck music theory.

in my opinion, the phrase "music theory" is almost an oxymoron. there is no theory for music in my opinion. knowing what a pentatonic scale is doesn't mean shit. what if I just press random keys on a keyboard in correlation to how many green things I can count from my window? I'm calling that the chloroverde scale. there you go - I just created a piece of music theory. my point being that theory is meaningless when it comes to such an unrestrained creative form such as music. theory is very useful for engineering or scientific experemenration etc. theory is redundant for art. who fucking cares what scale it is? does it sound good or not?

in my opinion being inspired by music is studying it. therefore you are using music theory when you're composing music inspired by other music.

yeah absolutely, unconciously using what people now call "music theory" because you have learnt about the mechanics of music through practical experiments is fantastic. somehow thinking you can learn these things from a book though is, in my opinion, wrong.

well, sure, you can't just read a book and learn music theory just like that. i see theory books as just a reference really. sometimes it's nice to know what a chord is called and what scales sound nice over the top, because sometimes it's something you might not figure out yourself.

People need theory so they can judge a piece of music without knowing fuck about music. In a sense the music world might be a better place without it, I'd say most pop songs are written using an algorithm, which was made by analysing music. To compare to piece of music and their similar attributes you need it, which may be a good or a bad thing.

But I cant help but think that if you have a natural ability in music and you've always been making it, how could the theory of it make your ability any worse? Theres a chance that it could kill your interest in it, but you should be smart enough to realise this is happening.

in my opinion theory is good for remembering what certain combinations of notes, scales and stuff sound like, it's something that I kind of pick up while simply doing it. for instance pentatonic scales often sound kind of like children's music and happy.

but yeah I remember someone on watmm saying "fuck around until it sounds good" this is the best music theory imo

I beg to differ.

If you wrote an algorithm that understood chord structure and the basics of harmony/melody, it could output a tune that would most likely sound listenable. Add to that an algorithm for beat programming and FX and you have yourself a song.

It might not be as good or inspired as something a human would do, but it would certainly pass on future producers.

^

are you on drugs? what the hell does that even mean?

yes and yes.

no, seriously. the debate is whether music theory can help you make music, right? i think most of us know what sounds 'good' by experience, but those things are codified. someone with no ear for music could still program chord progressions after reading about them and create 'music'.

  On 12/23/2009 at 3:36 PM, acidphakist said:

I beg to differ.

 

If you wrote an algorithm that understood chord structure and the basics of harmony/melody, it could output a tune that would most likely sound listenable. Add to that an algorithm for beat programming and FX and you have yourself a song.

 

It might not be as good or inspired as something a human would do, but it would certainly pass on future producers.

 

I didnt mean like an actually programme. I ment it more in the sense of using the same chord progressions, using the same key, keeping in 4/4 and know when to make a change from major to minor. Just keeping the "plan" of your song the same. You dont hear anything Avant-Garde coming from Lady Gaga or Timbaland now do you? If you have enough grasp on music theory, you could write a song in Sibelius stick it in to any old DAW and without ever playing the song, know that it will be listenable.

Since ieafs has already said (pretty much) anything i could've added on the subject, i'm just going to say this:

There's too much concern over what is right or wrong way to make music and i believe this is a fallacious dichotomy. The proper one is simply good music vs. bad music (as established by the subjective consensus of like-minded pockets of this online community, at least, since there's always a debate on what is good and bad anyways).

Is there a Lady Gaga forum?

i just make what sounds good (to me).

I just make what sounds good (to sneaksta)

been playing guitar and drums since 1987.

in 89 i my dad spent $300 some odd bills for a decked out casio at that time had alot of fun and sold it in a move.

about 3rd quarter of 96' i bought a korg poly 800 2 and cakewalk.

then in 98' i bought fl pro 2 and used it with cakewalk and my poly 2.

then eventually got both classic electribes a and r, then fl 7 (up to 9 now) and now cubase 5, wavelab 6 and a bunch of vst's, line 6 toneport ux2, akai xr-20, yamaha field recorder.

1 year 1 month

it's kind of funny, i've been using fruityloops 3 for eight years without upgrading. it still does all i really need.

  On 12/23/2009 at 1:56 AM, ieafs said:

well that's just personal taste... but i'd say that there is definitely an element of effort you need to get into stuff like that though. it's like another language - you don't go "oh fuck german i don't understand it what a load of shit". it takes years to learn another lingual language so why should you immediately "get" another musical language? you know, less enlightened people say that about the sort of thing about the electronic stuff most people listen on here...

i'm not saying there isn't merit to that stuff... i'm just saying that to me, it's a different entity entirely. it's music for the sake of being technically innovative. to be honest, i feel the same way about technically 'innovative' electronic music... richard devine or some of autechre's more out-there stuff suffers the same fate to me.

also, in terms of it being a 'language', i'd be willing to bet there are a large number of people speaking any language on the planet who have a mastery of verbal expression, yet never learned to read or write (probably less common these days, but the point remains.) the rules of grammar and syntax might apply to those of us who know them, but to be unhindered by them (or at least unhindered by comprehension of their existence) is a freedom and method all its own.

the point i'm making is that while theory is valid in and of itself (whether it be tonic theory, or complex programming, or design theory) and that's fine. the problem, for me, enters in when those who champion theory begin to say that when it is NOT used, the art created is somehow invalid. and this happens a LOT, in my experience. this may be partly because a lot of folks who are theory nazis have spent loads of time and money learning it.

  Quote

i mean, when you realise that even something as fundamental as the chromatic scale actually has no basis on anything and was actually just a way of making things easily changed into other keys. it has no real basis whatsoever and that's a musical rule i almost guarantee you abide by most of the time. i mean, what the rules are essentially saying is that "there are NO RULES but here's a starting point so you can properly know that".

i'm not sure i'd completely agree with you here. the chromatic scale is based on mathematical harmonics (roughly). you're actually getting into something which (perhaps ironically) i have a lot of interest in, and that's how the brain responds to music, and why it responds as it does. harmony and rhythm have very specific effects on our biochemistry, and human and animal brains both seem to have some remarkable characteristics for retaining, repeating, and creating music. there's a book called "this is your brain on music" by daniel j. levitin that is FASCINATING in this regard.

but a lot of levin's assertions and discovery, though seemingly theory-based, actually work COUNTER to traditional theory it its more advanced stages. what i mean by that is:

you state later how more 'advanced' systems of aleatory and complex harmonic 'rulebreaking' are examples of theory at its most advanced. i won't argue that, but the end result (in cases of schoenberg and his contemporaries) go against the fundamental harmonic and rhythmic basis that appeal to our brains (or minds, if you prefer) on a biochemical level. so yes; from an ACADEMIC standpoint, these examples are very 'advanced' and in the language of music that humans have developed, quite an achievement.

you could also write an oratory in klingon that is, from a critical standpoint, the most beautiful example of the klingon spoken form - but that doesn't mean anyone except someone else expert in klingon is going to care.

  Quote

messiaen is a pretty bad example here to as you definitely can't accuse him of being theory for theory's sake. he built his own sort of musical language out of the existing things he liked. it wasnt trying to be a scorched earth policy or just being difficult or weird for the sake of it. i mean, he taught music and wrote some highly technical stuff but he was never just in the thrall of the complexity. the fashionable ideas of the day - serialism and music concrete - he tried it out and decided that they generally didn't work musically for him. THAT'S being a proper composer. he was looked down upon sometimes for having traditionally pretty tonal melodies sometimes as well as his own weird modal thing and serial elements. he was really a romantic who essentially wrote music that moved him and was beautiful.

that's some good info - i turned off from messaien rather quickly after hearing a few bits... but in a way that sort of underscores my point as well - i was introduced to some of messaien's more aleatoric pieces by an ex-berklee theory guy extolling the mastery of theory that it exhibited. but listening to it was simply a chore. i'd go so far as to say stuff like that (the name of the piece escapes me, and i'll allow that it's likely not representative of messaien's stuff as a whole) shouldn't be called music. perhaps "experimental tonal theory manipulation" would be a better title. we seperate mathematics from its practical application, so why not the same for other scientific explorations?

  Quote

again, musical theory doesn't tell you how to make music. there is no rule of how to make a melody. that's maybe why you're taking it the wrong way. making music and learning theory are seperate things. you could have someone who has studied for 5 years but doesn't actually know how to make music. i had a friend at school who was grade 9 at piano and hadn't ever written anything and probably wouldn't really know where to start. actually making music is a whole seperate thing.

true... i think we're more or less on the same page here - i'm just slightly more bitter about it having been exposed to a great number of people who have told me (and i quote) that i "cannot be a professional composer without having a solid background in theory." i'm in the minority in this regard, working professionally as a composer. the reason i so vehemently argue my point is because i have to justify my lack of 'musical training' to clients from time to time. in the end, when they hear my work, they either like it or don't. but i feel it's this spreading of the concept that theory somehow has a bearing on the quality (or yes, even innovation) of composition that is damaging to music as a whole.

another great example is this:

without exception, every guy who gets on my case about theory in this industry composes almost exclusively for orchestra. as of late, thanks to the ilk of harry gregson williams, stylus RMX drum loops are now getting layered on top of the orchestra... and even (gasp) the occasional electric guitar. these are considered by some of the older film music guard as being "innovative" and "interesting" (to be fair, some agree it's gimmicky, but the general consensus is that it's a cool 'fusion' of traditional composition an modern sounds.)

NONE of these guys consider sound design and creation to be as essential to composition as the theory they so dearly embrace. now this is one area where i manage to get more notice, as i give as much (in some cases more) attention to the sounds i'm using as to the musical composition.

  Quote

 

so wait, aren't you saying that these things are 'wrong' because they don't work with your own personal theory of how music should be?

 

i'm actually not. =) i'm not saying in any way that theory is 'wrong' or those who use it are. it's like mac vs. pc - nobody is WRONG, but everyone constantly fights about why one is better than the other.

where it becomes a problem is when these guys try to tell me that *i* am wrong, or shouldn't be composing. the prejudice about theory is much stronger from those who embrace it against those who do not. i'm just standing up for the little guy. =)

  Quote

anyone who is corrupted by the theory side of things simply isn't a good composer - it's a completely different thing. it's not what they know - it's how they use it. whether you know a lot or very little. something that utilzes that knowledge isn't any better than something that doesn't and vice versa. it's what the final prodcut is.

well here i have to agree to disagree. i think that archaic concepts of how melodies and harmonies SHOULD work can definitely have a negative impact, whether you're creative or not. anything you learn or absorb (particularly if you're being told that it is iron-clad fact) has an impact on your perception and view.

  Quote

 

well yeah i agree totally, but that's THEIR fault. that's probably also the field - if you want great visual art you don't go to a commercial artist do you?

well that's an interesting point. i'm struggling with this a bit in my field. the sad irony of all of this is that if i want to be commercially successful, i have to write the generic, orchestral drivel that most others do. and throw some edgy RMX sounds on top. i don't want to do that. i actually DO want to innovate (from a film music standpoint, not from a theory standpoint), and that's a different concept, really.

  Quote

my whole point you can be a great artist whether or not you know any theory behind what you're doing just that there's pros and cons to each way of approaching it. for every self-taught genius there are 1000 self-taught people writing typical boring music. for every great composer who learned all this stuff there's 1000 other people who learnt the same thing and write typical boring music. either way has it's own merits.

 

i think the only way it might be swayed is that (like that modular synth example), people who aren't that creative end up gravitating towards theory doing stuff like you say. not that the theory DOES that to them. if say richard james decided to take a few years of classes i guarantee he wouln't suddenly make bad music but it would probably give him insight into things he hadn't considered before and he might start making a new sort of good music. then take a non-creative musician - if they know theory they make non-creative technical music, if they don't they make non-creative non-technical music. it's TWO different things

this is actually right in line with what i'm getting at. the vast majority of the problem with 'theory nazis' as i've called them is exactly that. many of them were never really 'musicians' to begin with. i still maintain that theory CAN negatively affect creativity too, though. i had this argument with my girlfriend (a film school grad) and put it like this:

you give two people the task of getting from one side of the forest to the other. one of them you educate (by showing them a path through the forest), the other you don't.

now yes, the educated person CAN go off the path if they so desire. it's a luxury for them. but when push comes to shove, they're most likely going to follow that path, because they know where it leads.

the person who is 'winging it', is DEFINITELY going to have a harder time here and there. they're going to have to learn for themselves how to forge that path... but it's not a luxury, it's a necessity.

analogies never really fully illustrate points. and not EVERYONE is going to benefit from one method over the other, and not EVERYONE will react the same to either. but i maintain that people who have to figure stuff out for themselves generally end up creating more interesting results.

this may stem as much from the fact that people figuring it out for themselves are usually doing it relentlessly because of being driven by an underlying PASSION that the other type may or may not have.

there's a lot of factors, and nobody really knows i guess.

this has been a good discussion overall.

okay my family is pissed that i'm doing this instead of having xmas family time.

cheers,

c

stuck up idm musicians don't need any theory

the only musical training i had was accordian lessons when i was about 10. did that for about 2 years (got tired of friends making fun of me and my grandma demanding i play it birthday parties).

joined a synth pop band in mid 80s... basically, we were depeche mode wannabes. we called ourselves "foundation"... i got out of that cuz i wasn't all about the goth direction they wanted.

then, i joined a group who were kinda like "ready for the world/prince" as a keyboard player. the name of that group was "new position". that didn't last.

around 1989, a few friends and i formed a band that was kinda like "the replacements". i played bass and sang until we got another dude who played bass. then i was the singer. i joined the navy and the band went on to do gigs in hollywood with the guitar player singing. they went on for about 4 years. then i rejoined them in 94 after the singer/guitar player left after some fight. the reunion only lasted a month and a gig since we all had different interests (one of my friends wanted to go the shoegazy slowdive route, another dude wanted to go the synth pop 80s route, i was interested in idm and electronic music but was along for the ride).

i djayed art galleries, a hair salon opening, and house parties from 99 to 02. a loft party in L.A. was the last time i djayed with vinyl ever.

in 02 i formed souvlakia with a former band mate from the band i was in in 94 (the guy who wanted to go the shoegaze slowdive route). we made a collection of tracks from 02 to 05 and released a zip in 07... it's not hosted right now.

03 i started making music as asymmetrical head. did a bunch of shows in 04 and 05. i still make music, but i don't do live gigs anymore!

at the moment, i'm trying to infiltrate a couple of hip hop circles to produce some tracks. one in orlando and another in L.A... the one in L.A. i'm having success with, but the one in orlando not so much. so i design for them instead!

If you cant sum up your opinion in less than 7 lines then Im not reading it.

played piano when i was 3

played the electrical bass and guitar since i discovered masturbation

started making electronic music in 2008