Note reading is not music theory? Good lord!

part of it. chill out man.

knowing the difference between a C major and a C mior chord is music theory too, and no sheet music reading is needed for that!

calmate!

Rob you can be as contrary as anybody, can't you? At least just admit that you've been pwnd by your childhood sweetheart once more and let that be it.

yr delusions grow ever more elaborate my good man!

Ok.

Tell me where I hear these, now.

SYR 4

have fun

they might be giants

they might be giants


they might be giants








they might be giants

There's no 12-tone pieces on there. Honestly. I'm not one-upping you, it's just a simple fact. I mean, I haven't listened to it in years, but I'm very confident of the fact. There are atonal pieces, and improvised pieces, and indeterminate pieces, and sound-art pieces, and studies, but no 12-tone pieces.

This is the problem with music theory. On one hand, I entirely agree with everyone saying it doesn't matter. On another, similar hand, I agree that just by playing people pick up music theory.

I was reading up on Makams and Maqams last night, which are largely taught by listening. They're a bit more restricted than the ragas of North India, but they're not so far away. They're bloody impossible. There's about four sorts of F#s in a Maqam in D, and although I appreciate that in theory, playing it or hearing it requires loads of concentration on my part. The point is that it's not a formal, written teaching, which is mostly exclusive to Western art music (or 'classical' as it's often wrongly called). The majority of the world outside of Europe (and large slews of European folk) don't teach music theory by writing it down.

Anyway. The point of my riposte to Rob - don't try and talk music theory if you know fuck all about it. Throwing a couple of words you've read at a piece of music you like doesn't mean that the words you're using mean what you want them to.

For the record, I get a lot of enjoyment from music theory, and relative to a lot of people here I maybe know a lot. However, I still know fuck all, relative to a lot of musicians I know. I gave one such person a copy of the second part of Fushitsusha's 'I saw it! That which before I could only sense...', and he agreed with me that it's mysteriously nearly a 12-tone piece (although I think he described it as a 'horrifically inadequate, over-amplified pastiche of 12-tone').

As I've said before, a lot of my music is intentionally ignorant of music theory despite the fact that I can read music. And its weird to tell people this because they often assume because of this that my playing is erratic and exceptionally discordant when it really isn't. I may have a weird chord every now and then but a lot of it is really simple and catchy.

Anyways, I hate closet Coheed & Cambria fans.

I played cello for 8 years, playing symphonic performance pieces, and have studied theory on my own and with other musician friends and through jazz teachers, so I know what I know, not that I would ever assume to know it all.

No proof of Jandek, just aguess.

But yeah reading interviews with Beefheart's magic band, I am aware of his methods.

It wasn't me, looking at the thread it was Herr & Bowels, but that's pretty much accurate. Part of the thing with using music theory is you have to use it well, you can't just use it as a blunt instrument (to mix metaphors). You could know everything there is to know, play every instrument to virtuoso level, but if you've got nothing to contribute to the world, it'll still be shit. Having said that, the overwhelming majority of musicians ever have nothing to offer the world, and I wouldn't say a bit of theory wouldn't hurt the majority (as opposed to this flagrant lie about 'it all coming from you, man').

A personal method of writing songs is not the same as using music theory like it's studied and practiced in its most common forms. That Beefhart is aware of some of it because of YEARS of having made music (even though he hasn't for ages) is a normal progress for anyone who has a modicum of talent and keeps going at it for some time. In saying that, you can still write perfectly good and technically impressive songs without knowing music theory. Unless ameteurish internet chit chat now passes for hypothetical ''music theory''.

I think there should be a separation between "music theory" and "music method". People like Jandek--and SY--do use music theory, but they aren't necessarily aware of it, so it's more of a method. Like Thelonious Monk--he may very well have known nothing about music theory. He just played what he liked. But his method happened to be genius in terms of music theory. Method just means that, underneath everything, there is something very logical about the music. It is not necessarily the same as theory, but it can be. Paul McCarney may not have understood music theory, but he did demonstrate it in his method. Unlike Jandek, his happened to coincide with popular music.

my harmony professor teaches a course on the beatles. he teaches howe they really were recolutionaries in harmony, since they started peices from the dominant andhad extremely strannge chord progressions. im not sure excactly what, my friend took the course and told me a bit about it. but even if he couldnt read music, he could still facilitate music theory and theoretical methods. even blues men from the deep south write all of their songs in a I IV V I chord progression, and thats music theory.
and i know a bit. i study musicology at UNI. today i learned counterpoint fifth species.
and i can tell you a shitload about the renassaince baroque period (got a 97 in a shit hard history of music test last week).
but i dont usually use any music theory when writing, at least not purposely, i just find learning the stuff interesting.

I played flute for two years, that as much as I know.

Quite a bit.

I'm just a new guy here, just chipping my bit in.

Knowledge of music theory is definitely not the key to writing great music, you can look almost anywhere to see that.
It is a great tool to have though.

I read an interview with Thurston about his experiences playing improvised music with jazz players who are well versed in music theory and aural recognition. He was saying, basically, that that was a whole new challenge for him, and a part of the music where he was unable to participate because the other players were speaking in a language he was unable to understand.

--
in regards to knowledge of music theory 'justifying' people like Branca, i'm not so sure about that. I think you can be equally valid as a musician, performer, artist with or without theory knowledge, provided that the INTENT is there to make good music/art and you are open to the experience and the other players around you (provided you arn't solo).

A bunch of guys fiddling with the knobs on their amp, not listening to eachother at all, revelling in the fact they are making 'arty noise', that's not what makes music good to me.

Holy crap. Me too. I got a 95, though. And the teacher pretty much gave us the test questions before hand. Weird, though...

i know everything about music.

What I don't know in theory I make up with creativity. As far as technical stuff, I know the basic scale structure(whole, whole, half, whole, half thing). I know about a dozen or so chords by name but the rest is stuff I just figured out by playing guitar for 8/9 years.

I can write music notation beter than I can read it. And over time my ears have gotten much better with tuning.

same here but it's been over ten years since then so I might have forgotten most of it.