Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

jdogric12aolcom wrote:Yes, absolutely. What often makes music interesting is that it sets up an expectation, then exceeds it or goes in an even different way. Too much theory may be impressive, but gets you stuck in the rut of the expected.

In my opinion it is exactly the other way around. Too much theory and knowledge might get you to avoid the expected to a degree that will make the audience unable to follow your thoughts.

That´s the problem with contemporary classical music. Ligeti, Admas, Reich, Stockhausen a.s.o. have all had a tremendous knowledge of music and have all tried not to repeat things, that Bach, Beethoven, Brahms or Schönberg had done before. They were successful, but at a high price: less then 0,5 percent of music lovers are regularily listening to contemporary classical music.

jdogric12aolcom wrote:Example: A common convention (not rule, notice) is to write chords in order of the circle of fifths, e.g. Em Am Dm G7 C. But if that G7 went to Bb instead of C, your ears would perk up a lot more.

If you do not know anything about music theory you are certainly more likely to let that G7 resolve into C than if you know about theory. And if you really KNOW a little about theory you will find the change to Bb almost as boring as the change to C.

Excellent points, Markus. I had not thought of it that way. This is certainly turning out to be an interesting little exchange! I'm so glad I have all of you to discuss this stuff with. Cheers, everyone.

I got a two year music degree from the local Junior College around 1980. It has helped me be much more consistent when I write, and makes it MUCH easier to pick up on what's going on if I'm trying to learn a song from a recording. Not to mention reading makes me more money.

I have met some theory guys who were anal about it and couldn't play simple music with any feeling well.

But I've met a lot more undisciplined musicians who jump time, forget sections of songs, and insist on being leaders from their own limited comfort zones, which means the trained musicians on the project had to work a lot harder!

As much as I try to see them coming and defer, sometimes I wind up carrying leaders who have no business leading.

Very interesting comments, YB, thanks!

One of my Orff Schulwerk professors told me that in his view musicians start with the romance of music, then get into the science, whether that's theory or technique, then the really great ones get back into the romance.

I find knowing theory is pretty handy, having a box to step outside of seems cool to me. Just be sure to step out of it now and then!

I find it funny that people always bring up Lennon/McCartney as people that knew no music theory IMO. They knew a lot, not by book learning, but by playing all those long sets in Hamburg, playing standards as well as rock progressions, learning form and chord sequences, the genius was how they combined a lot of disparate influences into something new.

They were like great pilots who never took flying lessons.

Great thread.
I think we all agree that the interesting ideas in music come from breaking the rules.
I'm of the school that says you have to learn the rules before you can break them, otherwise you'll have to sort of re-invent the airplane before you can fly. At the same time, I know highly trained musicians who can't improvise a note. I get bogged down in the nomenclature, that is, all that paperwork kills my creativity. I need just enough theory, as needed, to understand what's happening, and then I pass it off to the other side of my brain.
My practical education in music consisted of having taught myself to sing every harmony part on the Beatles' first few albums by the age of ten. Later I took some guitar lessons and a semester of college theory class. I don't really have a desire to notate anything when I work, but just to jot down the cues in shorthand on a piece of paper.

I think a lot of people get too wrapped up in the "rules" of music theory and I believe it can impair creativity if you let it. The trick is...don't let it. I don't worry about the names of the notes or chords that I play, I play what I hear in my head and my fingers just do what they have to do to transfer what I hear in my brain to the instrument.

I like to think of music theory as the grammar rules of the "language" of music. For example, anyone who would speak grammatically correct English all the time would start to sound boring to me after a while (my apologies to the Queen). Slang, idiomatic expressions, colloquialisms etc. all add color to our speech and literature and make conversation and storytelling a lot more interesting. The same goes for music. It's OK to break the rules.

Where music theory also plays an important role, IMO, is in communication. If you want to have other musicians play what you've composed, they need to know what and how to play. Which key, which chords, which scales, etc. Being able to read and write music is a big plus. But even in casual situations where no sheet music is involved, it makes it so much easier when you can say to someone "play a Csus4 instead of a C at the 8th measure" than having to say, "well, play that chord by putting your fingers here, here and here when I nod my head just after the drummer starts hitting the ping ride." Being familiar with the nomenclature and such just makes communicating ideas between musicians that much easier when they all speak the language of music.

johnashfield wrote:One of my Orff Schulwerk professors told me that in his view musicians start with the romance of music, then get into the science, whether that's theory or technique, then the really great ones get back into the romance.

What about the romance of the science of the music?

Studio tan...

Ol' Green Eyes Is Back!

Good point! There definitely is a romance to the science of music... I think what my teacher was referring to was being able to know the science, and to be able to use it, but then being able to be free of it as well.

You know... whatever works for anyone really! A buddy of mine would start calling these type of discussions "the musical vapors"!

Again though, I would argue that Lennon/McCartney knew a lot of theory... they were not "untrained" pilots at all, they just learned by doing. Of course crashing and burning on your guitar is a lot less dangerous than in a plane...

That's why I like this kind of work. No urine testing required.

I like this quote

"Talking about music is like Dancing about architecture."

That's why I like this kind of work. No urine testing required.

If this refers to what I assume it refers too, True great musicians know that creativity lies in your mind, not in controlled substances. Take Frank Zappa for example, a creative genius, and militantly anti-drug.