Music Theory
 

any good sites you can recommend?
any help and opinions are welcomed.

thank you, obrigado.

Music theory is for losers.

That said, here is a good website:

http://www.teoria.com/

And if you have any questions, you could always just ask me.

i've never used a site for theory. but just like noumenal said, if you have any questions, just ask.

what good does it do you two knowing music theory?

it's fun. and totally L33T.

what good does it do you to not now any music theory?

some things just work for some and other things for others,

alot of amazing and alot of shit music has been amazing and/or shit because of the use of, or at least understanding of music theory at the time of composision,

the same as alot of amazing and alot shit music has been amazing and/or shit because of the lack of use or the lack of knowlegde of theory blah blah......

it doesnt actually matter,

if you want to learn it you should and if you dont you shouldnt,

ha ha, I should bust out my Half Japanese albums

Fuck music theory. I made the mistake of majoring in guitar, and I hate it. (Meaning, I have it all my years in highschool.)

Music theory is the reason my 3rd grade music teacher told me i'll never sing that banana fana song well. So I cry about it a lot and try to destroy my vocal chords...

Generally speaking, I think music theory is a great help on some occasions. Mainly not to waste time with a tries/errors approach to get something you have in mind out of your instrument ( for obvious reason, this applies only when the thing you have in mind is achievable through "simple" technique rather than scraping a dead rat on fire on the strings).
That said, I don't have a clue about music theory, my music teacher was blind and made us draw the visions that music created in our minds all the time. And I'm grateful to him for that.

flaming dead rats \m/

It's not something you know, it's something you do.

Music theory has made me a better performer, composer, and listener. And practicing music theory proper also is just really fun (like val-holla said)--it's a way of interacting with music that gives me great satisfaction and pleasure.

But music theory as a term is a wide umbrella. Dismissing the academic discipline doesn't bother me; I can understand how people could see it as just a bunch of wankery. On the other hand, music theory the term also encompasses rudiments or fundamentals of music, which everyone who has any interest in music should understand, period.

so what are these?


i wasn't trying to confront you about music theory i was just wondering how useful it is outside of classical/compositionalwhatever.
sometimes when i've spoken to music students their schooling in music seems to be more detrimental to their appreciation of music rather than something that helps open their mind, i.e. their relationship with music seems to be based more in theory than in listening or playing, which to me seems bizarre.

You can play and compose without knowing any theory, but knowing theory makes it a lot easier and faster. I don't know a lot of theory, but even the small amount that I know has helped me a lot.

Well, the problem is that learning fundamentals depends on which musical practice you're talking about. In most music schools, there is heavy emphasis on common-practice tonality (ca. 1600-1909), which is still an option today or at least has been absorbed by other musical styles. I guess rock music is a mix of common-practice tonality and modal practice, certain rhythms, etc. But when it comes to common-practice tonality the usual trio of fundamentals is counterpoint, harmony, and form--all three from both a written and an aural perspective.

But it's hard to say that if you're not interested in classical music that you shouldn't bother with those things. Like I said, aspects of those things are found in pop/rock/jazz. Form, harmony and so on. And secondly, you should be interested in classical music. I'm constantly bothered by, for example, how the average educated person loves Shakespeare and Austen, but has no interest in their contemporaries Palestrina and Haydn. What's the deal?

I know what you mean about music students. I know plenty that hate theory and get bogged down, complaining about how they can't listen to music anymore. I am not one of those people - I came to music first by playing, not listening. However, every theoretical thing I've learned has only enriched my muscial experiences. Every day I have epiphanic experiences with music - I view it as a very spiritual and mysterious thing. I just can't understand those people who say they can't enjoy music anymore or that theory ruins music. To be honest, I kind of hate those people.

But anyway, as far as why you might want to learn theory as a rock listener, for example.....there are often musical ideas and things being said that depend on the listener understanding certain things, either theoretical or even historical. The best example that pops in my head is in several Beatles songs. If you want a good example of what I'm getting at, then seek out a pair of books by Walter Everett called The Beatles as Musicians. He's a theory professor at the University of Michigan and the way he analyzes the songs is really awesome. He also breaks down the overall musical language of the Beatles, which I found enlightening.

Of course, just because I like something doesn't mean everyone should. I probably come off as some kind of zealous proselytizer. But undergraduates in musical schools are very skeptical and there will probably be a revolution soon in the way theory is taught; defensiveness goes with the territory. Where I'm going for my doctoral studies, they have a pretty forward-looking program. They teach mainly form, structure, rhythm, and a more inclusive harmony. I think it is working because as an approach, it is more applicable to different musical styles.

I know some music theory. . .but the other day I was tabbing out a bunch of songs I have written for the new bassist for The Spectral Presence. And I was thinking- this would be so much more useful if it had sheet music with it. I could put it in power tab and it would be awesome. Of course I could still put it in powertab- I know how many bars and what BPM each song has exactly- but I don't know that I'd be able to properly notate some of my rhythm patterns because I don't think about whether I'm strumming quarters, eighths, dotted notes or anything- I just do. There are some times where it is fairly obvious but other times not so much.

well, it's not that i don't like classical music i know what i like but i have no idea what what i like is, i hear the odd bit of stuff that i like but i have no idea who composes that type of stuff, what era or style it is etc...
anyway, what i meant about students was that a lot of them seem to be closed to music that isn't classical stuff, i.e. they only like music that i would presume is more theoretiocally complex and high minded than for example sonic youth. and then aside from that the only other stuff they listen to is inane pop. i've never met a music student that has the hunger for experiencing new music that certain other people have.
sorry, this isn't really about music theory, it's about my disappointment in finding out that most music students aren't actually music fans.

It depends on the music you want to make. Sure, for Sonic Youth type stuff you don't need it, but if you goals are more along the lines of Return To Forever, you better crack open some books quick.

I'm sure I've sent you PMs about Peter Kivy's take on this point before - if memory serves, I think it came across in that thing I sent you a while ago, my dissertation jobby? If I didn't, you really should read Peter Kivy, he's very, very good at consolidating music theory with cultural theory/ philosophy - it's basically him and Adorno, as far as I'm concerned (with an honourary mention of Schopenhauer.

To Mr & Bowels - from my point of view, the reason there are a lot of very, very shit improv (whether that means noise-improv or jazz-improv or electro-acoustic-improv or whatever-improv) bands out there is because people neglect that every sort of music has its paradigms, its theories, its archetypes, its modes (in the not-so-properly-musical sense of 'modes') and so on. That's not to say that one can't get by without theory - many people can and do. However, in the vast majority of cases, if one doesn't look at whatever music you're making in something approaching a critical fashion, then it's just dilletantism or vanity.

I think music theory is incredibly important, and I struggle with it - mainly because I don't see myself operating within a 'properly' 'classical' field. I sympathise entirely with Messr Noumenal's point about people not listening to classical. You don't have to like it, but you really should give it a go, unlike the 40 million sub-genres of rock. While I have an ok basis in theory, I don't feel for a second that I'm going to stop liking horrific no-core or somesuch because it's somehow 'stupid' or whatever - it doesn't work like that. I think anyone with a critical approach to music (critical in its broader sense) should have an interest in theory, and many people - including Mr & Bowels, based on the (so-called) real world conversations I've had with you - have this implicitly. Making that explicit does no damage, and will probably benefit your ears greatly.

Ah, but Mr D, you're one of the exceptions that makes music entirely intuitively, and well.