Music and Maths

  On 3/27/2014 at 6:38 AM, brendyman said:

 

But my point is, I don't think learning music theory is going to help my music one bit. I feel like if I start to learn all these rules and regulations (and exceptions to the rules [then exceptions to those exceptions, I'm not joking]) I'm just going to start subconsciously following them and then my art will stagnate.

 

I don't think that assuming something isn't going to help is a great starting point because you will look for positive reinforcement that you are right and ignore anything - shitty teacher excepted - that may or could prove beneficial. The idea that there's nothing to be gained from music theory is incredibly myopic and naive.

You guys are actually really fucking awesome for proving me wrong

I don't want to hate music theory, but I know my hate for my instructor is pretty much entirely clouding my vision

(Have I ever told you guys how much I love this community even though I'm super new here?)

So many awesome replies in here. Thanks guys!

  On 3/26/2014 at 8:50 AM, Diabrotikos said:

I think ignorance is bliss when you start making music, cause you're focused on your sensations and not your logic. But at a certain point, you should move to music theory, or your art will stagnate.

Yep, this is why I started looking at theory. Ever since I've started writing my own music, I've been painfully aware of how much I rely on standard, (i.e. boring and cliched) melodies and progressions.

One thing I've found, though, is that, even after having ploughed through that theory book, and got my head around most of the concepts therein, I still struggle to implement it in my own music. I think this is just a matter of time and practice though, and probably an element of laziness on my own part, i.e. sitting down and banging out a half-hearted jam rather than crafting something really beautiful. Still, I think it's a useful part of expanding one's musical vocabulary, to use Peace7's term.

@Entorwellian: yeah, it's an awesome book. I was lucky, I actually managed to get free access to it via my uni library as an e-book. I just happened to search 'music theory' in the catalogue and it was the first thing that came up... pretty sweet for me!

As an aside, one thing that made theory much easier for me was learning it mainly with reference to a piano/ keyboard rather than guitar, which is my first instrument. For whatever reason, something like a 5th or a 7th chord or whatever is far easier to understand on a keyboard than a guitar. I think it's the visual thing of not having extra strings cluttering the place up.

Limpy, I like your concept of applying, say, cubism to music. I love the idea of taking an aesthetic from a different creative discipline and trying to apply it to music... making music that sounds like a gothic cathedral looks, say, or music that sounds like a Le Corbusier building. And of course, I agree with your view of theory as a tool that can be used/ ignored/ shattered whatever way you like. While it's obviously not the only route to good art, I have to admit that I really like the old-fashioned concept of learning and mastering the fundamentals before really creating your own stuff. I think it's cool that guys like Dali clearly had a handle on classical painting techniques before going off and creating something completely new.

  On 3/27/2014 at 11:51 PM, brendyman said:

You guys are actually really fucking awesome for proving me wrong

 

I don't want to hate music theory, but I know my hate for my instructor is pretty much entirely clouding my vision

 

(Have I ever told you guys how much I love this community even though I'm super new here?)

I'm with brendyman here. watmm is the fucking business, and you guys are awesome.

  On 3/27/2014 at 11:51 PM, brendyman said:

You guys are actually really fucking awesome for proving me wrong

 

I don't want to hate music theory, but I know my hate for my instructor is pretty much entirely clouding my vision

 

(Have I ever told you guys how much I love this community even though I'm super new here?)

By the way I think it's great that you have a grasp on what you do, and feel like you have developed your own style or techniques. That in itself allows you to have a 'voice' that can be recognisable/unique. I would just emphasise that understanding theory comes in handy especially when delving into musical genres that you might be otherwise unfamiliar with, yet enjoy. Being able to dissect/understand structural/harmonic/melodic ideas in other forms of music allows you to take those principles and then apply them to your own field (as you see fit), and I feel that is a valuable compositional tool*. Sure you might get there on your own, but this allows a lot quicker way. It's a bit like hearing a sound and wanting to recreate/mimic it. You could spend ages fucking around with a synth until you get it. But if you have an in-depth knowledge of synthesis and how sounds are made means you will get there a whole lot quicker.

* Howard Goodall did a 'fairly interesting' documentary series ages ago about music and one episode focused on The Beatles. In it, he showed how their chord progressions completely went against what was considered 'the expected progression' and modulated in a 'new' interesting way. Being able to recognise and understand that can really help you in your own work.

Aha, here it is (from around 3min onwards talking about Penny Lane). Ignore the posh british bloke. Also, this was a primetime thing so designed to appeal to the layman.

[youtubehd]vLkBCNuiygs[/youtubehd]

Ze arts are great for finding The Self. Input xBirrionz, output xOneziez. Theory or none or numbers or making music by crumpling paper- it's all good. Cuz in this Ultra Life - ***CONSCIOUSNESS*** - we are all just learning about ourselves. Arts are one of those avenues (and at higher levels, everything becomes a refined art). We all change and morph and if we're lucky, we find styles that represent us (as opposed to representing a mediocre copy of Arphox Twonz).

Alphonse Mucha is best known for this style:

But he only got there after being able to paint like this:

Pablo Picasso is best known for this:

But cubism is about abstract representation of true 3 dimensional vision, which could only have been come across by having concepts of traditional representation of "3d" form:

Normal Rockwell is known for tight illustrative and draftsman-like painting skills like the figure in the foreground:

but the abstract expressionist painting above, is actually a painting by Normal Rockwell, parts of which he submitted to gallery exhibits (using pseudonyms) and won first prize and honorable mention at another.

The whole point of the visual examples, is cuz it's easy "to see" (a' har har), that one finds themselves, in preeeetty indirect ways often. We cannot even predict what our true styles are, until getting there. So numbers or not, I feel it's very important to take in AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, and learn from as many sources as possible. Even shit that we feel is shit-- there is something to be learnt from that, because we are merely learning our PERCEPTION of such things-- not necessarily perceiving something without value.

Study everything, experiment with everything, do many things that are seemingly unrelated-- then your ULTRA TRUE STYLE will birth itself.

Oh yah: "maths"

Superb examples, peace7. Your posts are always awesome.

  On 3/27/2014 at 7:35 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Music theory has become a dirty word because of its association with snooty academia and stale mechanical exercises and rules and reductionism.

 

 

It really doesn't have to be that way.

I think when you are working with machines the theory becomes less important than a million other factors though.

  On 3/28/2014 at 2:30 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 3/27/2014 at 7:35 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Music theory has become a dirty word because of its association with snooty academia and stale mechanical exercises and rules and reductionism.

 

 

It really doesn't have to be that way.

 

I think when you are working with machines the theory becomes less important than a million other factors though.

 

Could you give an example?

  On 3/27/2014 at 8:06 PM, luke viia said:

music is math, but trying to write it through the lens of numerical relationships will not lead to emotionally satisfying music most of the time (see many of ragnar's poly-rhythmic ylc threads). imo it'd be like trying to cook through the lens of math: "i'll make this pie with only prime numbers of tablespoons of all ingredients!" -- you will get an intellectually curious pie, but it will likely taste horrible, because it puts the underlying mathematics before the purpose of the thing (which is to eat, or to enjoy listening to it).

I think the whole point of mathematical/generative music is getting past doing stuff because it's cool on a mathematical level, and finding out what mathematical stuff works on a musical/emotional level. Would be pretty complicated though probably.

I'm just going with the "can't" and "shouldn't" have no place in music theory, Limpy. I just want to make my tunes speak, and I'll be satisfied only if they work in my ears. math can help reach that goal. music theory too. muscle memory? all kinds of symbolism probably too.. personally I'm more and more leaning towards thinking that you simply need a ton of mnemonics, little programs to repeat certain patterns, so it will be possible to build on a grander scale.

latest renoise version fascilitates that on a reeally huge level with the pattern in pattern option, so I think I'll start looking into that when I am ready to explore a larger scale.

personally I think the reason for having all these mnemonics shouldn't preceed the reason for making something in the first place. I think that that's where a lot of the bullshit in the world stems from. peope don't know what they are working towards.

"posting worldview in a thread about music theory" achievement unlocked :)

Yeah lemme just articulate my exact position on music theory:

It should be descriptive, not prescriptive. It should be a forensic tool used to understand other music, not a set of rules to determine how to actually make music.

  On 3/31/2014 at 1:41 AM, missingsense said:

personally I think the reason for having all these mnemonics shouldn't preceed the reason for making something in the first place. I think that that's where a lot of the bullshit in the world stems from. peope don't know what they are working towards.

*YESH*

  On 3/28/2014 at 8:06 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 3/28/2014 at 2:30 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 3/27/2014 at 7:35 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Music theory has become a dirty word because of its association with snooty academia and stale mechanical exercises and rules and reductionism.

 

 

It really doesn't have to be that way.

 

I think when you are working with machines the theory becomes less important than a million other factors though.

 

 

Could you give an example?

 

understanding synthesis, programming drums, using samples creatively, knowledge of the equipment with which you are working.

The machines basically become a tool with which you can understand theory intuitively.

  On 3/31/2014 at 9:01 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 3/28/2014 at 8:06 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 3/28/2014 at 2:30 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 3/27/2014 at 7:35 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Music theory has become a dirty word because of its association with snooty academia and stale mechanical exercises and rules and reductionism.

 

 

It really doesn't have to be that way.

 

I think when you are working with machines the theory becomes less important than a million other factors though.

 

 

Could you give an example?

 

 

understanding synthesis, programming drums, using samples creatively, knowledge of the equipment with which you are working.

 

The machines basically become a tool with which you can understand theory intuitively.

 

All that stuff is music theory. Theory underlies everything. From Merzbow to...uh sorry I'm tired I can't think of another musician.

  On 3/31/2014 at 1:45 AM, LimpyLoo said:

It should be descriptive, not prescriptive. It should be a forensic tool used to understand other music, not a set of rules to determine how to actually make music.

This, a thousand times

Also, just to show how crazy the rules in part-writing can get, I'll show you guys this flowchart I made for my Theory class to help me with all the strict rules:

http://cl.ly/image/2k0Z22472M0U

Man, what a mess

And it doesn't even cover everything

for me music is more like athletics or dance. good sports players are genius mathematicians in terms of the calculations they have to do in real time to perform and there are so many calculations to do they'd choke if they thought about it.

so theory could be good in theory lol, but to implement it well you'd have to follow it robotically because there are so many parameters that make up music you'd become overwhelmed with decisions. (i would at least) music isn't like baking where you have to follow a strict recipe. it's like cooking, you have some ingredients and maybe style of food you're shooting for and off you go. season to taste.

also, classical theory is based off of a lot of assumptions about music and i don't find the language used all that useful if you aren't using those assumptions. and i personally think it seems backwards to try and use it as a language and try and make it fit when thinking about electronic amplification and all the ways that changes and effects sound. it's like using horse and buggy metaphors to talk about cars. what the hell is horsepower.

i'm with whomever said throw some shit into max and listen to the results or patch some math on some other modular. i love logic modules. if some math seems interesting i'll try it out, but it's because the math seemed interesting for whatever reason unrelated to classic theory. i don't care if it's be vetted by the experts to be musical or not. and i dunno unless i actually do something i don't understand it...

so yeah, mathier numbers and variables abstractions i find to work better for me than a lot of the abstractions of classic music theory. like if i'm using a different pitch system why the fuck do i want to think in terms of c plus cents or whatever. seems like a waste of time for what i'm into - i get how it could be useful for other people.

i could be wrong though. i'm curious, is there anything music theory has taught anyone that's counter intuitive?

  On 4/2/2014 at 10:14 AM, Jonah said:

i'm curious, is there anything music theory has taught anyone that's counter intuitive?

not so much counter-intuitive as insightful -- it formalizes why a lot of compositions sound so pleasing, and once you have it abstracted like that, it's easy to dislodge from one particular song and use it yourself, or see it in all sorts of other compositions. i started as a guitar player so most of the theory i learned was related to chord progressions and keys; helpful stuff for a beginner.

  On 4/1/2014 at 9:34 AM, brendyman said:

Also, just to show how crazy the rules in part-writing can get, I'll show you guys this flowchart I made for my Theory class to help me with all the strict rules:

 

http://cl.ly/image/2k0Z22472M0U

 

Man, what a mess

 

And it doesn't even cover everything

fuck that!

  On 4/2/2014 at 10:14 AM, Jonah said:

 

i could be wrong though. i'm curious, is there anything music theory has taught anyone that's counter intuitive?

Dig deeper. There's lots of good shit just sitting there waiting to be learned by you.