Autechre Some thoughts on technicality as part of the process of music

There was something that he said in particular that really convinced me. I think it was that a lot of artists who think they don't know theory learn it through a buddy who has learned it, or just by copying records really closely and subconsciously picking up those patterns. Because if you drill down, whatever you're making is influenced (whether 2nd-, 3rd-, ...25th- hand) by something that uses the principles of theory. Maybe going all the way back to Bach... a lot of pop and funk uses his ideas.

There are rules to, like, counterpoint and voice leading (not that I know wtf they are or anything...) but you don't HAVE to follow them. You can even willfully rebel against them and who knows, maybe that's as limiting as following them rote. But is that any worse than complete ignorance? I don't really think so anymore...

I think it's just a matter of being cognizant of the mechanics of the music, which has historical value, even if you think it's going to help you make music. You will understand it better. You can give names to things, which helps you think about them more analytically. It's just a tool, it's not a dogma. You can learn theory head to toe, and come back to your record collection and still love the same music you did before you learned it, except now you know how it works - you can give a name to that scale, those chords. And you can look at the compositions as a set of decisions, and adopt the ideas for yourself and make different choices to personalize it.

FWIW, my friend loves Drexciya and Oizo right alongside his Mimaroglou, Stravinsky and Berlioz.

  On 6/27/2012 at 10:20 PM, sweepstakes said:

I just got in an argument with a friend about this who thought intentionally not learning theory in order to maintain somekind of sincerity or purity was a copout, willful ignorance. He compared it to intentionally not learning to read. I think you have to find your own way and your own context for the tools, but coming out of that argument I decided I agree with him, it can't really hurt you to learn some theory. Even Autechre, who are otherwise very autodidactic, learned how to create "substantial melodies" from Bola.

+1. more knowledge doesn't hurt creativity. if you were a "creative fluke" and just got by with hitting weird button combos on your hardware, then yeah, theory might aggravate you and make you feel retarded, but if you want to be able to take music apart and put it back together your way, a bit of theory is a great ally.

  On 6/28/2012 at 5:25 PM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

LOL, that's really fucking stupid to think you have to know theory to make great music. It's like saying every painter needs to go an art school. It's art form based on passion and expression, best learned through experimentation and following your own personal path to learning how to communicate your own voice.

 

Especially dumb that anyone would think you need education in these art forms when hundreds of thousands of the greatest artists couldn't give a fuck about theory.

You're dumb

I'm the one saying it's up to the artist to chose how to make art. I'm saying go to school, learn from your friends, try to learn as little possible outside your own discoveries, one of the above or all of the above, follow your own path how you feel fit.

You're basically saying not correct for artists to not investigate music theory because it doesn't feel to be the correct path for them in communicating their own voice. You're being ignorant.

A lot of AMAZING FUCKING ARTISTS played and or continue to play by ear, by heart, by soul. They did it wrong eh? You think Jimmy Hendrix would have been a better song writer or guitar player if he knew if he was playing in a pentatonic scale or diatonic key whilst he shreds out a fucking solo that is melting peoples brain as naturally as baby sucks milk from their mothers tit?

I don't like Jimi Hendrix so I don't really have an opinion.

Can you name me some of these amazing artists that know nothing of music theory that are so awesome?

Isn't that enough of an example (when what is most popularly described as the greatest guitarist of all time was self taught and played by ear) to be able to understand that "different strokes for different folks" is a very relevant concept to grasp for everything.

You said there were lots, I was just curious who they were that's all.

Just because someone is self-taught or plays by ear doesn't mean they don't know any music theory.

I just can't deal with anti-intellectualism in art, or in general.

any good internet sites for piano theory? i'm a visual learner, youtube?

  On 6/28/2012 at 8:48 PM, Dan C said:

I just can't deal with anti-intellectualism in art, or in general.

This.

It's not wrong to not have consciously learned any theory, but I now think it's misguided to believe that this ignorance gives you any sort of edge.

I don't think learning theory is a "path". It's just a tool. That's all.

/last post

Music is an art form, you can treat it like a science but it's an art form. Thus subjective.

I know there is a lot of great artists with very little understanding of music theory and that put even less in practice for a lot of reasons I know. I'm not going to spend an hour researching interviews and trying to recollect what I think might be the most interesting examples to you. I read interviews with artists in magazines, online publications, and anywhere I could to addictive extent for almost a decade until the last couple years. I've talked to a lot of my favorite musicians at shows and through instant messaging. I have known a lot of great musicians, some more fluent than any of us and as far as I can tell I put to practice more music theory than most of them, which is saying a lot.

I really disagree that an artist choosing not to overly involve themselves in music theory, not afraid to learn but believe that they don't think it's best for them to practice consciously is considered a form of anti-intellectualism. How you see things is just your opinion. Thank god everyone doesn't think the same or things would be very boring. Which is apart of point that diversity is great and people viewing music from different perspectives, from different backgrounds, from different understandings is a great thing. Hence why it's great that we have a lot of musicians and artists with a lot of music theory knowledge, a lot of with some understanding and quite a few with barely any at all.

Who is anyone to say what is the best approach for another person, with a brain grasping a completely different reality, with a different love for music, some maybe love music more or less, hard to say, but we are all love things differently in our ways. You have no ability or authority to say if it's better for any individual to know more or less about music theory. You can't even really honestly say you know these things about yourself and your path to becoming a musician. You can only make informed guesses and follow your heart on to what is best for yourself.

Edit: I really should proofread my posts before I post them but I'm in a hurry. God knows why I cared enough to fix my mistakes.

  On 6/28/2012 at 10:39 PM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

I really disagree that an artist choosing not to overly involve themselves in music theory, not afraid to learn but believe that they don't think it's best for them to practice consciously is considered a form of anti-intellectualism.

I agree, but supposing that this is somehow superior to learning theory I think is anti-intellectualism.

How could being against learning something be anything but anti-intellectual?

  On 6/28/2012 at 10:39 PM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

/last post

Music is an art form, you can treat it like a science but it's an art form.

These things are not mutually exclusive.

Yep. Self-taught musicians are necessarily going to use at least some simple form of scientific experimentation, moreso than by-the-book musicians.

(e.g. What does this sound like? Sounds good. What can I do with this? Oh, now, that doesn't sound good. I don't want to do that again. Let's try something else.)

I shoulda been outta the house 10 minutes ago what am I doing coming back to check this conversation.

I'm not saying any approach or level of understanding, or use in practice is better than option A or option E. Once again, different strokes for different folks.

I am not saying art and science are mutually exclusive. I'm saying art is subjective and can be deduced through a variety of approaches with no explanations or rules. It's fucking art. It can be anything to anyone. Some people love, love, love Jandek. Most of his albums follow no time signature, key signature, rhyme or reason. Just one example.

I'm not trying to make this an argument, it kinda feels like y'all are pushing this to the extreme, where you're taking this to an extent that is I feel ridiculous.

Some people that do not really use music theory consciously in practice when they make music, make music so naturally, so by their ears, so by their heart, so by their soul that they don't even need trial and error, they just let loose to an extent. Obviously, there are some boundaries there that they understand but they are not thinking about things even close to that of a trained classical musician. Thus pretty much coming from a different world, to an extent.

  On 6/28/2012 at 11:01 PM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

Some people that do not really use music theory consciously in practice when they make music

This is the key word to me. I just don't see a problem with turning what's happening subconsciously into a conscious process. It could only help, right?

I think it has to be trial and error if you don't have any schooling though. And investing time in the trial and error method probably helps you keep your uniqueness or "soul" or whatever you want to call it, when you start learning theory.

I can really only speak from my own experience making music, and I tend to agree with BFC. I really appreciate technical novelty but through a creative vision. So for example artists like Bola and Autechre who in my opinion have created their own visions, and executed them technically great. There's also Burial and Ramadanman, who when you take their music on their own, has creative novelty as far as I can see, and technical 'innovations' with how they layer things and process sounds. I don't know if the technical aspects create the creative vision or vice versa, but to me they are emotionally obvious while some academic technical novelty, or something like technical death metal may be technical, but is not at all obvious emotionally. This is sort of where the subjective experience and knowledge of genres come in.

If someone is using simple synths, simple drums and there's nothing there really on a technical level, then maybe the layering and melodies are technically great, and that in itself is a nice achievement. Something like this is definitely something I value and appreciate, but I will have to spot it and that's not always easy.

  On 6/28/2012 at 11:01 PM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

I shoulda been outta the house 10 minutes ago what am I doing coming back to check this conversation.

 

I'm not saying any approach or level of understanding, or use in practice is better than option A or option E. Once again, different strokes for different folks.

 

I am not saying art and science are mutually exclusive. I'm saying art is subjective and can be deduced through a variety of approaches with no explanations or rules. It's fucking art. It can be anything to anyone. Some people love, love, love Jandek. Most of his albums follow no time signature, key signature, rhyme or reason. Just one example.

 

I'm not trying to make this an argument, it kinda feels like y'all are pushing this to the extreme, where you're taking this to an extent that is I feel ridiculous.

 

Some people that do not really use music theory consciously in practice when they make music, make music so naturally, so by their ears, so by their heart, so by their soul that they don't even need trial and error, they just let loose to an extent. Obviously, there are some boundaries there that they understand but they are not thinking about things even close to that of a trained classical musician. Thus pretty much coming from a different world, to an extent.

i pretty much covered this, I never said its necessary but it's a tool that expands upon just feeling it. Why anyone wouldn't want to add another tool is beyond me. It also must be considered that everything musical is really just our interpretation of varying transient frequencies. All music that anyone makes is a ripoff of something that has already existed in some way, but I might be veering off topic a bit on that note. Knowing the theory of notes to me is not much different of knowing the theory of learning how to use a synthesizer. As a wise person once told me, you gotta learn the rules before you can break them.

And I slowly realize that this is turning into a debate with no simple answer simply due to the subjective nature of the matter... It's hard enough to even define what music really is

  On 6/29/2012 at 12:13 AM, sergeantk said:

All music that anyone makes is a ripoff of something that has already existed in some way, but I might be veering off topic a bit on that note.

I started to veer into this territory as well but I ended up deleting that from my post. This seems very relevant to the discussion: music creation and how you learn it. Using what you already know, subconsciously or not, intuition and experimentation vs. learning standardized theory and terminology and looking at music analytically using a more objective (as in, shared) set of rules.

  On 6/29/2012 at 12:13 AM, sergeantk said:

Knowing the theory of notes to me is not much different of knowing the theory of learning how to use a synthesizer. As a wise person once told me, you gotta learn the rules before you can break them.

Not knowing much theory, I'm not sure how accurate this is, but I like this idea a lot.

Obviously everything you do is influenced by everything you have ever experienced and so everything is you've done and will do is derivative to the past. You can stretch any statement to a ridiculous extent but I thought I was merely arguing for the millions of people who are great at making music that don't understand or practice much of any music theory in the academic sense.

I would really love to hear the music made by someone who never had ANY exposure to music their whole lives, meaning the chance for any form of theory to influence them is none. This would be very interesting but that ideal is very unlikely to realize.

That's all I'm really getting at, i don't disagree that there have been great musicians without formal training though; if that wasn't the case, there wouldn't have been a reason to make this thread.

  On 6/28/2012 at 11:27 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 6/28/2012 at 11:01 PM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

Some people that do not really use music theory consciously in practice when they make music

This is the key word to me. I just don't see a problem with turning what's happening subconsciously into a conscious process. It could only help, right?

I don't post here much but I came across this thread, read all of it, and I feel the need to chime in my 2 cents on this one specific statement.

I think assuming that having vast or even an amateur amount of music theory imprinted in your mind and consciously applying it to your creative process will ultimately help you create BETTER music is non-sense. Maybe you didnt say the music will be better, but thats what it all really boils down to, right? Anyway, for editing and nit picking an already set in stone structural composition, yeah, theory might come in handy. But when it comes to the creation & manifestation of a great song or arrangement, how can you be certain a deeper conscious application of music theory will help a person turbo charge their inspirado? I personally have seen people with over a decade of being classically trained in music theory get in a creative space with much less classically trained musicians and fall flat on their face and not be able to keep up with the flow of inspiration and riffing going on.

I personally see music as a life form, one that can be contained and one that can be let loose. It's up to the person behind the instrument to decide if they want to calculate their creation or let it naturally flow and flourish. Both classically trained & non-trained can achieve that, but who's to say the one who has theory to back them up will sound better? That's ultimately up to the listener.

  On 6/29/2012 at 6:24 PM, Recursive said:

  On 6/28/2012 at 11:27 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 6/28/2012 at 11:01 PM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

Some people that do not really use music theory consciously in practice when they make music

This is the key word to me. I just don't see a problem with turning what's happening subconsciously into a conscious process. It could only help, right?

 

I don't post here much but I came across this thread, read all of it, and I feel the need to chime in my 2 cents on this one specific statement.

 

I think assuming that having vast or even an amateur amount of music theory imprinted in your mind and consciously applying it to your creative process will ultimately help you create BETTER music is non-sense. Maybe you didnt say the music will be better, but thats what it all really boils down to, right? Anyway, for editing and nit picking an already set in stone structural composition, yeah, theory might come in handy. But when it comes to the creation & manifestation of a great song or arrangement, how can you be certain a deeper conscious application of music theory will help a person turbo charge their inspirado? I personally have seen people with over a decade of being classically trained in music theory get in a creative space with much less classically trained musicians and fall flat on their face and not be able to keep up with the flow of inspiration and riffing going on.

 

I personally see music as a life form, one that can be contained and one that can be let loose. It's up to the person behind the instrument to decide if they want to calculate their creation or let it naturally flow and flourish. Both classically trained & non-trained can achieve that, but who's to say the one who has theory to back them up will sound better? That's ultimately up to the listener.

Good post/points... Nothing else to add really, but if creation is a form of expression than how one goes about creating is ultimately personal to their interests. I wouldn't call myself a musician because I don't approach it as someone with musical knowledge, however I do enjoy making music and have been exploring it more often lately (mainly because a friend has let me borrow their 202). I've had a similar approach with the piano and acoustic guitar, in that I enjoy them for the sounds. Maybe the difference is I don't approach them with the intent of making a track. It's all very basic and ultimately inconsistent, but I still enjoy this process even if what I am making doesn't sound good. It's the stream of consciousness that is appealing to me basically. Its not really having a clue, almost not thinking, and yet being able to communicate with yourself. You get into that meditative state I guess, where you are almost no longer aware of yourself. It doesn't happen too often, but it's a nice treat when it does. It's like the focus ring on a camera, most of the time with my process things will be a blurry mess, but occasionally it will sharpen and make sense moments after you had already played the notes or whatever. Its like your conscious brain is observing your subconscious or something. I really have no clue. Perhaps eventually I will get bored/frustrated with this anti-intellectualism and learn how to make good music, but for now I'm happy hearing sounds.

i think its good to know as much as possible for you to comprehend, but i realized it is endless. You could go into physics and mathematics. Music theory is just divisions of the frequency spectrum. You could get into micro tunings and stuff like just intonation. You think you know stuff and then some engineer shows up on a forum and makes you feel like an ill informed half-wit. Its like staring into space. it goes and goes

  On 6/29/2012 at 7:20 PM, marf said:

i think its good to know as much as possible for you to comprehend, but i realized it is endless. You could go into physics and mathematics. Music theory is just divisions of the frequency spectrum. You could get into micro tunings and stuff like just intonation. You think you know stuff and then some engineer shows up on a forum and makes you feel like an ill informed half-wit. Its like staring into space. it goes and goes

Well I think that the mathematics and physics involved with music are actually quite awe inspiring, and most people don't really consider them when making sounds. Of course, I think around here, there is certainly more appreciation considering the sheer number of synthesizer junkies.

theory can be a hindrance sometimes; i know quite a bit of theory - scales, modes, circle of fifths, chord creation, jazz chord substitutions, that sort of stuff - because i come from a guitar-playing background. when i make electronic music, it's far too easy to sit down and immediately start working in C without thinking about it, and sometimes i want to do something but have a mental block about it because i think 'wait a minute, this is in C minor and that note doesn't fit in the scale...', that sort of thing.