/mu/ - Music (Temp full images)

>>54835978
All of the above. Don't even bother thinking about jazz unless you know theory.

>>54835978
it makes stuff easier

probably but you'd need to be an artist/musician in the first place.

bit of a chicken and egg thing, but if you can't make anything work it's pretty painful putting in the effort.

If you want to be a serious musician, it's absolutely necessary. Also makes listening to music a much more active and rewarding process.

Uh, it gives you structure and some guidelines that you can take or leave. It's only essential if you're a purist; plenty of your favorite musicians I'm sure don't know theory, but they could probably benefit from it.

It won't make you a better musician on its own but you can think of the knowledge as something that will accelerate your ability to comprehend and refine your skill. If you play video games, think of it as something that boosts the amount of experience points you get by a percentage.

>>54836045
On the second point, I completely agree, but it's not necessary. There are plenty of musicians who are capable of composing intricate, beautiful music without ever looking at sheet music.

>>54836088
music theory =/= sheet music

>>54836111
Duh. I was just using that as an example.

It's not at all necessary to be good or successful, in fact, some of the best musician just have an intuitive grasp of music. However, for those who are very inquisitive about music it, it teaches you the language and structure and possibilities of music. I don't know, to what degree that helps an artist. Sometimes I think treating music like a science squelches innate creativity.

>>54835978
Unless you are an artist/musician, learning this crap just makes you sound pretentious.

>>54836168
>Sometimes I think treating music like a science squelches innate creativity.
Agree entirely.

Obviously the basics are necessary but an intuitive musician probably knows the basics without being aware they do. But when something's composed according to strict rules it crushes any soul and ingenuity the music might have, outside of jazz and classical

Can someone explain to me how modes work? if I play all the white keys starting at C, that'd be C-ionian. But if I play all the white keys starting at D, would it be c-dorian or D-dorian?

>>54836168
i dunno mang, theory doesn't make it a science
a load of jazz musicians and classical musicians knew it and their music is far from a scientific method

>>54836318
modes are alternative scales, used for coloration
i'm not sure what you're talking about with the white notes being c ionian because c ionian has a Gsharp
all the white notes from c would be c major

>>54836337
>and their music is far from a scientific method
The good ones, sure. But come on, once you've learned the theory it's all too easy to write really derivative, bland jazz/classical

>>54836337
people dont think music theory be like it is, but it do

He's written music that is "technically" more interesting than a lot of stuff written by Classically trained musicians. Alternative tunings etc.

It really doesn't matter whether you learn music theory or not. What matters is whether you're creative or not.

There is some fucking awful music written by people with Phds in composition, great music written by people that don't know what a 'key' is and vice versa.

if you're not creative and find it impossible to even attempt creating your own music without knowing theory, it will not help you to learn it.

if you are not creative just give up trying to become a "musician" because you will never be able to. you can learn to play an instrument but you will only ever be able to cover other people's creations.

It helps you write a lot better, doesn't do much for performing.

>>54836375
no i totally agree, theory is no excuse for creativity and ideas, all i'm saying is that theory doesn't have to push it into scientific method

i know a guitarist who's full of ideas and got shitloads of stage energy, and he'd be a great guitarist if he bothered learning a little bit more theory to articulate his ideas past arpegiating a chord and adding delay
thats all i'm saying

>>54836318
All the white keys beginning from D would be D dorian.

>>54836318
Modes are easy to understand... what you stated is correct - if you play all the white notes on the piano from C to C you've played the C Ionian mode (C major) .. if you play the 2nd mode in C you are playing D dorian all the white keys again but from D to D) and so on up through all the white keys till you start back at C .... in order your playing C ionian, D dorian, E phrigian, F lydian, G mixolydian, A aoelian and B locrian .... Thats the 7 modes in the key of C if you want to move to different keys you moves either up through the cycle of fifths or down through the cycle of fourths.. hope that helps;)

>>54836515
aaaaieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>54836434
>people that don't know what a 'key' is

i don't think richard's one of those people

>>54835978
Yes to both. It will make you a better listener and more accurate when describing a musical outcome. You will be able to push out material more consistently. Also, it will help you determine what is common place and what is fresh or "new". Remember, they are common tendencies to be aware of, but not always to follow.

>>54836375
Perhaps, but in my opinion learning theory makes it actually easier to *avoid* writing really bland stuff. Because when you have a good grasp of theory and have listened to a lot of music, you know exactly what all of the overused forms are and you can consciously decide to move away from them if you so desire, or work within them in a new way.

IMO the greatest benefit of knowing music theory is being easy to easily communicate ideas to other musicians, having a shared vocabulary is really helpful.

>>54836499
>i know a guitarist who's full of ideas and got shitloads of stage energy, and he'd be a great guitarist if he bothered learning a little bit more theory to articulate his ideas past arpegiating a chord and adding delay
With you on that one. We all know a few guitarists like that but I'm not sure the issue is their lack of theory knowledge, more that they just try to be X guitarist from Y band. (Usually QOTSA or Tool etc.)
For example I know a guy who knows a shit ton of theory, doing music at uni, but he's held back by his shit-tier taste and refusal to innovate, only copying generic nu-dadrock band #20163

>>54836557
Thanks, man. I'm not the guy who posted the questions but for as long as I've been learning theory, modes have thrown me for a loop.

>>54836434
Richard always bullshits people, he may not be able to sight read but he definitely knows music theory as in he has knowledge of scales chords tuning systems etc and how they all relate to one another

>>54836578
Definitely agree with you on this post. Songwriting is much easier with someone with a good grasp on theory knowledge.

>>54836557
That doesn't explain modes at all. All you did was explain how to play the seven greek scales on a piano

>>54836578
But much of it you can learn and develop independently. What we call music theory is based entirely upon the westernised 12-tone scale, I find that people make more interesting music when they develop their own compositional style and approach to music making, rather than charting everything out before

It's a matter of opinion of course but I find that things with an element of improvisation, or compositions based around minimalism, sound so much more soulful than rigorous, meticulously molded compositions. If there's some incidence (the resultant melodies of Steve Reich's stuff, the overtones you hear in LaMonte Young drone pieces), then for me that sounds far better and more expressive than hackneyed cadences

>>54836308
What the hell does this have to do with theory? It's not a rule set.

>>54836668
what do you mean was that not a very basic answer to the question asked?

>>54836685
>What we call music theory is based entirely upon the westernised 12-tone scale
No it isn't. Where did you get the idea that music theory is limited to western classical music?

/mu/ actually talks about music.

>>54836685
I hope you realize that minimalism and Steve Reich are staples of 20th century classical music, and that they have very much to do with music theory and those who study it.

>>54836734
Anti-theory people tend to be the types of people who make things up when they have no idea what they're talking about.

>>54836717
So what makes say the mixolydian "mode" a mode. What is the essence of a mode? Is any ordered list of pitches a mode?

>>54836696
>What the hell does this have to do with theory? It's not a rule set.
No but when it's treated as such (and it can be) it sucks

>>54836515
>>54836557
Thanks

>>54836685
You're just complaining about common practice tonal music. Music theory has been beyond that for over 100 years now.

>>54836809
It's not though. It's a method of analylizing how written music is made. Please stop talking out of your ass, you're clearly uninformed.

>>54836578
>learning theory makes it actually easier to *avoid* writing really bland stuff
But I think that might be an issue too, because some of my favorite music would be considered completely bland composition-wise (i.e. most folk), and none of it would have existed if the artists told themselves "nah it's been overdone already".

I know a bit of theory and every time I write down something I think it sounds like somebody's style, it's a pain in the ass sometimes.

>>54836244
True, but only if you brag about it in conversation and real musicians catch a whiff of the bullshit.

>>54836734
>No it isn't. Where did you get the idea that music theory is limited to western classical music?
Because that's the way it's taught, to me anyway. I may have gotten a skewed view of it since all the theory I know has mostly been a by-product of learning violin/piano.

>>54836776
>I hope you realize that minimalism and Steve Reich are staples of 20th century classical music, and that they have very much to do with music theory and those who study it.
I'm aware but I'm trying to say that somebody with no knowledge of music theory could also compose one of LaMonte Young's dronier pieces. That's not to detract from them, I don't rate music based on how difficult it is to play/make, but all I'm saying is music theory shouldn't be thought of as a prerequisite

There is something much more important than theory, and that's ear training.
I'd say, you can be a great musician without being versed in music theory, but if you can't play at least a simple melody by ear, you're not a musician.

>>54836903
So deaf people can't be musicians? Did beethoven cease to be a musician after he lost his hearing?

>>54836903
Exactly. Theory knowledge with out ear training is useless. You can have all the technical knowledge, but if your ears can't hear it, then it's no good. It's the reason why some people with no "formal training" in theory are great musicians. Their ears are developed enough to where they can process the theory, without "knowing" it.

>>54836840
>It's not though. It's a method of analylizing how written music is made. Please stop talking out of your ass, you're clearly uninformed.
And that's fine, for some people analysing music adds to their appreciation. But I prefer to think of music as an art and I think in terms of approach, theory can tend to make it feel more like a science (which isn't a problem if that's how you want to think of it, only realise it's not for everyone). Visual art has no equivalent of music theory as far as I'm aware

>>54836838
>You're just complaining about common practice tonal music. Music theory has been beyond that for over 100 years now.
That's true but in the context of this thread we're talking about common practice tonal music

>>54836807
it shares the same key signature and therefor all the same notes as the major scale from which its derived but because its starts from the fifth degree of its relative major scale the formula for the scale in tones and semi tones will differ.. and the derived chord (playing the first third fith seventh etc ) will produce a 7th chord instead of a standard major chord because of the flat 7

>>54836685
Right. Exactly. Knowing music theory doesn't take away your ability to improvise at all, but Steve Reich and LaMonte Young both had to learn a lot of theory in order to do what they did. I'm not saying those sounds couldn't have happened otherwise, but like, in the LaMonte Young example, he had to know a shitload about how sound waves interacted with one another, and of how pianos worked in order to do the Well Tuned Piano. It doesn't make the music any less beautiful or soulful, and I'm sure the idea was born from a place of art and creativity above every other aspiration, but to actually execute something like that as well as he did you would have to know theory. Whether you were taught in a class or just from years of experimentation and development independently.

>>54836375
>But come on, once you've learned the theory it's all too easy to write really derivative, bland jazz/classical
Sure, with a basic knowledge of theory and no drive to study music or imagine beyond what is very traditional. Those people probably should (and often do) stick to playing.

>>54836373
This is wrong, C Ionian is the same as C major, it sounds like you're thinking of ionian augmented, which is the third mode of harmonic minor

>>54836976
>That's true but in the context of this thread we're talking about common practice tonal music
Did you read the second half of my post? The thread was originally about whether knowing music theory was worth it, and music theory encompasses more than just that era of music (although that era makes up a vast portion of it).

>>54836950
Physiological hearing is something completely different than musical ear mate, just like deafness and tone deafness. When you train your inner ear enough, you can still hear melodies in your head even when you are deaf.

music theory can stifle creativity if you are thinking purely in terms of theory, but learning theory will open up mental windows to new ideas. once you have the knowledge, it kinda stays in the background

>>54837049
Succinctly put, anon.

>>54836989
C Ionian is C major. The natural modes are just a major scale, with each mode beginning on a different scale degree.

For example, C major:
C Ionian = C major starting and ending on C
D Dorian = C major starting and ending on D, scale degree 2
F Lydian = C major starting and ending on F, scale degree 4
etc...

>>54836976
>Theory can tend to make it feel more like a science.
But it doesn't. Inform yourself of a topic before you talk out of your ass about it

>you lot pretending you know anything about making good music

>>54837049
>music theory can stifle creativity if you are thinking purely in terms of theory, but learning theory will open up mental windows to new ideas. once you have the knowledge, it kinda stays in the background
What level of know-how does everybody mean though? A working knowledge of scales and chord structures? Or further knowledge?

>>54837095
>But it doesn't. Inform yourself of a topic before you talk out of your ass about it
Yes it does, I'm reasonably informed about theory and in my experience it's a great compositional aid, and it'd be difficult to make music of any kind without some knowledge of intervals and scales, but it creates the concept of right and wrong answers in music, or right and wrong things to do next. That sounds like a science to me, rather than an art

>>54837198
>right and wrong
Where did you get these skewed ideas of what music theory is?

>>54836978
So would you say that any list of interval ratios is a mode or is it restricted to diatonic scales?

>>54837221
>Where did you get these skewed ideas of what music theory is?
Blame the UK educational system
It may be due to the environment in which I learned what I know (playing violin orchestrally), but feel free to correct me and explain to me why I'm wrong rather than being condescending

>>54837147

imo, the more the better, just dont become religious about it if you know what i mean

>>54835978
i think knowing your respective instrument inside and out is more important than theory. (assuming that simply playing to a beat isn't considered "theory." because that's pretty essential.)

because once you've put in hours of playing, say, piano or upright bass, even if you're just learning covers and no theory, when you hear another musician play something, you have an understanding of what they're doing. in other words, you can tell what they're doing to get that specific sound.

i think practicing and genuinely knowing your instrument trumps any knowledge of theory. i think most serious musicians, who practice a lot, also invest time in learning theory too. and, honestly, if you want any other musicians to take you seriously, you should at least get some sort of "babby's first music theory" book and learn some basics. but reading about obscure harmonic theory shouldn't be seen as a shortcut, or a legitimate merit to music you create.

>>54837221

this guy again
>>54837273
But could you please recommend a book/source I could use to re-educate myself on music theory? Because I feel like my experiences with it have caused me to become bitter and dismissive about it
Although I can't hear any difference between what I do and "proper" music, I always worry everybody else knows something I don't, and that I'm unwittingly making stuff which is somehow "wrong"

>>54835978
>Is there a good reason to learn music theory?
There are no good reasons. If you want to study it for curiosities sake, go for it.

>Does it make you a better artist/musician?
No.

>>54837379
You're right, you are pretty bitter and dismissive. Especially bitter.

>>54837250
from what I've learned which is basic knowledge but from jamming with alot of jazz and funk musicians I think in western music you would tend to think in terms of the following : the major scale, the harmonic minor, the melodic minor, the penatonic, and the symmetrical scales like whole tone or whole half etc... then each different note in each of those scales can be considered a mode which will derive its name generally from the major scale mode names but with alterations added such as say the Lydian augmented scale which is the 3rd mode of the melodic minor etc..

>>54837281
>but reading about obscure harmonic theory shouldn't be seen as a shortcut, or a legitimate merit to music you create.

in other words, don't be like "but muh perfect mixolydian to phrygian permutation" when people don't like your shit. but if you just want to do that, then that's cool.

>>54837379
I don't know of any books, but the important thing to remember is that in the end there is no "proper" and there is no "wrong".

>>54837475
Well then help me to correct that, you're right I've probably been quite ignorant of the subject but I have no idea where to start learning music theory in a way which is more appealing to me than the way I've previously been taught

>>54836903
How do I train my ear?

Learning music theory may limit you as in to say when you're composing, it may feel limited to you.

But to others who haven't learned music theory it'll sound great if composed in the right way

>>54837546
Thanks, I've been kind of dumb in that case, I railed against the theory I've been taught because I felt like it imposed those concepts, which I didn't think had a place in music

>>54837595
The best way to do that would be to work with an actual teacher, it's really hard to accurately assess your own listening skills, especially early on, so having someone to push you in the right direction is very helpful. Take a theory class if you can.

>>54836976
Visual art does have an equivalent though, it's called shading techniques and all of that shit, there's loads of books describing techniques and shit.

>>54837671
I see where you're coming from but I'm not sure that's quite the same, shading techniques & brush strokes are probably more analogous to instrumental/production skill

It's more or less like knowing the proper way of painting in different styles. You still have near infinite options of what to make and they are still clever ways you can go out of the boundaries

>>54837595
also, get used to singing. If you can't sing something, you probably won't be able play it by ear.

just learn music theory and music production and then smoke weed

>>54838162
What? I'm a terrible terrible singer but I can play by ear fine.

>>54838302
Probably means being able to pitch things in tune with your voice. It's possible to sing in tune while still being a crap singer

>>54837595
You start off by differentiating between two distinct intervals (say, minor 3rd and perfect 5th), gradually adding more intervals until you can recognise them all, individually and in sequence (that would be a good website to start: http://www.trainear.com/). Then, you begin recognising scales and individual notes in triads and 7th chords. Other websites you can use: https://www.teoria.com/en/exercises/, http://trainer.thetamusic.com/ .

Seriously, do train your ears guys. It's like discovering an alternate reality.

>>54838330
yup

>>54835978
It allows you to know what you're actually doing.

Why do these threads always end up in the most hostile arguments? I don't think there's anything that gets /mu/ as angry as music theory does.

>>54838330
Nope, if you sing in tune it's at least mediocre

>>54838582
Learning new ideas tend to offend people, especially traditionalists who don't need no lernin.

>>54835978

If you want to play with other people, you better learn how to write and read music.

And by other people I mean musicians other than guitar players.

>>54838407
I like to test myself by singing different harmonies to everyday sounds like lawnmowers or car horns etc

>>54836434
even shitty musicians know what key they are playing in. If they dont then i doubt they are capable of playing decent music

>>54838668
That's a great thing about ear training, actually. You can do it whenever you want it and wherever you are. After a few years, you can accurately recreate songs in your head. It's almost like having a radio in your brain that you can turn on and off.

>>54838668
When I'm in the shower I like to sing different pitches until I can find the ones that reverberate the most around the bathroom

>>54836434
>people that don't know what a 'key' is

It's a legend, anyone playing music for more than one week will at least know what a fucking key is.

>>54835978

find the notes that work with your song and then play them in any order with some sort of rhythm like how you would play an sp 404 or something and youll come up with some cool stuff

>>54838969
Put down the bong pipe mr weed man

>>54838969

youre an idiot and youre also gay

>>54838969

Or you could just learn how music works?

>Hey, my song is in G minor
>Proceed to write a Melody in fucking G minor

>>54835978
What are some good resources to learn theory, /mu/?

Is there any sort of established theory for microtonal music (as in microtones that don't exist in any scale, not just Western ones)?

>>54839057

thats basically what i said. you have to know what key your in before you can know what notes to play, but what i said was kind of a tip for making neat little tunes without thinking about it really. before you hate on it, try it. it sounds so obvious, but just playing the notes of a scale with rhythm in mind can make some cool melodies ive been making music for almost a decade and from my experience, and ways to think outside the box can help inspire people to make new melodies, so i thought i'd share

>>54839036
your*

>>54835978
Learning music theory is basically "reading the manual" of music, so to say.

>>54839118

Yeah, I do it sometimes by adding chromatism, or the blue note.

Things have names, names are important, keep it in mind. Putting words on things is what makes it possible to comunicate them with other musicians. That's my opinion

If you don't know music theory then you don't care about music.

And I mean that with full sincerity. You can't claim to love something that you give NO shits about discovering more about.

Point being: if you have to ASK yourself about learning it, you don't care about music.

>>54835978
Is there a good reason to get single digits?

>>54839319
I know a lot of good guitar players and drummers that don't know almost any theory. I feel like it makes you more of an artist than a musician if you can play without knowledge of theory.

Or a hack if you solely only read tabs.

>>54839383
I like that idea of "artist not musician."

>>54836976
It probably seems like such a science to you because you're fucking autistic. It's really not all that confusing to understand the basics.

I can't think what else it is, other than being lazy. If you truly care about music, I would imagine that you'd find it worthwhile to learn how others created it. That doesn't mean you have to do the same thing, but it sure does stop you from doing shit that's been done thousands of times before.

I'm really fucking sick of people excusing their ignorance as innovation.

>>54839314

oh yeah i never said theory isnt worth learning just experimentation or a different perspective on your playing can yield good results.

>>54839036

directed at you

>>54839008

>>54839481
/thread

When you learn to draw, you will learn proportions, perspective, shading, color mixing (if you paint), etc...

And guess what, it's the same for music, you will learn scales, harmony, counterpoint, etc, etc...


Refusing to learn theory is dumb. The greatest artists of all time (even the ones making abstract art) knew theory, and knew what they were doing, regardless of the art.

This thread makes me feel terrible. And maybe a bit hopeful.

I've been "playing" music on and off for 5 years. Obviously, I picked up a good bunch of stuff here and there, but never got a proper teaching about music theory or hearing things.
I feel like a fucking analphabet tool. I kinda see how rythmic theory work, got some very tiny clues about scales, harmony, all that, but still feel autistic. Like I'm totally unable, really absolutely unable to recognize a tune, a note, and play it on my instrument, even if I hear it from the same instrument. If you tell me the notes and where they're played, it'll be crystal clear, but there is no way I'm able to do it by myself right now, or do it again if I forgot. I don't "recognize" stuff I have never been teached about. And I tried, every couple months or more, to get better at this, but it looks like a colossal jungle planet of knowledge to explore where you got lost and confused after 3 steps.

it depends on what you mean by "learn music theory". small amounts will go a long way, but you don't need much more than the basics.

for example, the beatles never formally learned any music theory. they just picked things up as they went along.

>>54840030
I know how you feel. I've been playing guitar for 5-6 years, developed really good technique, learned really advanced fingerstyle songs... only to realize one day that I can only play like a robot, mindlessly letting my muscle memory do the magic I could not understand with my mind and ear.. I've recently started taking classes with a real music teacher, and only now am I discovering what real music is about. Well, I guess better late than never.

>>54840030

I have a tip for you bruh

Learn your intervals, it will make you understand and recognise notes 56431465434 times better.

Do you know what an interval is (Minor second - Major second - Minor third - Perfect fifth - Major seventh, that kind of shit)?
If not, start to learn that.

Then you will associate each interval with the beginning of an easy song.

I have examples:

>Root note to minor second
Jaws theme song
>Root note to major second
Happy birthday
>Root note to perfect fourth
Amazing grace
>Root note to perfect fifth
Superman theme

Do that for all the 12 intervals. I know it sounds really dumb, but it works, trust me.

>>54840315
Wouldn't Amazing Grace be Fifth to Root?

>>54840193
Yeah, that's what I've started to do not long ago, but with rythmic theory. I keep forgetting all the time what the figures for 4/4 or 3/4 mean (it's not the english/american system where it indicated you how the measure is divided from a round, it's much more complicated for no reason), but that's happily not the major point of it.

>>54840315
I perceive what that is, even if it looks pretty blurry from where I stand, but I'll work towards clearing the fog in this direction.

>>54836168

>It's not at all necessary to be good or successful

This is true.

BUT

for some reason, people think that this is a reason to not study music theory. Musicians like Jimi Hendrix actually did have a grasp of music theory beyond just being intuitive. Anybody will start to grasp patterns and tendencies when they become proficient at an instrument. Learning music theory is just a way to not only expedite this process, but to categorize all of this knowledge throughout the entire history of music. In my opinion, musicians with only an intuitive knowledge of music would have been even better if they had gained a knowledge of music theory.

Its also entirely false that music theory squelches creativity. Anybody with more than just a passing knowledge of theory can tell you that it is not a set of strict rules. It is just a way of categorizing the options available to you under different contexts. Sure you wouldn't apply pre 1600 counterpoint rules to rock music, but absolutely nobody is saying that you should. People are just ignorant.

Related: This is a guy that graduated from my school of music a few years back. He was born a musical prodigy, and has been able to intuitively compose instantly his entire life. Since learning and categorizing his knowledge in college, he has improved a hundred times over.

as a child: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l0xppLcgl4

now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC8E9HIDeck

>>54840193

i'd say 5 years is about the point when robotic/conntrived shit starts coming to an end for most people, and you start coming up with better melodies. its not better late than never anon, you are doing good man. a lot of people dont even notice what you noticed, just check out bandcamp lol

>>54840464

Nah, Amazing starts like this
>aaaaa-AAAAAAAAahhhmmaaaaaaaaazing grace...

The root too perfect fourth is in the aaa-AAAAA part

>>54836434
Theres an interview somewhere where he talks about using hes own scales and different tuning systems. Its pretty obvious that he has some sort of basic understanding of theory, atleast

>>54838744
>what is atonal music
Hurrdurr top kek to all my friends

>>54840315
Thanks, gr8 tip m8 i r8 8/8

>>54840555
they don't lie

Once again, requesting resources for learning theory.

>>54841013

the jazz theory book by mark levine is one of the best resources I've ever used.

In general, jazz theory is the most versatile avenue of theory, its essentially what is used in most tonal music post 1850.

If you're just starting out, it may be a little much to handle at one time. I would recommend sitting at a piano with it and going at a slow pace. A week per chapter is probably a good place to start, but you can increase it if you feel that you are understanding it. The reason I say this is because when I was younger, I picked this book up and read it cover to cover. I started trying to apply things in the latter half of the book such as harmonization and "playing outside" before I fully understood the basic theory. Another important reason is that Mark Levine doesn't necessarily explain everything in print. You need some time to absorb the information that he's trying to convey.

Trust me, it will be worth it to work at the knowledge slowly.

You can find a decent free pdf just by searching "the jazz theory book mark levine pdf"

You should at least learn up to 4 voice leading since that will help with why something sounds poopy/how to get certain sounds

>>54839383
>>54839413
I think the idea of artist not musician would work better when determining it down to application rather than learning. Defining what you want to be in music isn't how you learn it's how you apply your knowledge.

>>54837273
I think you may have gotten that idea because you're confusing stylistic practice with theory itself

Obviously in any given style there are musical conventions that are meant to be adhered to and this is where, if you don't understand how those conventions give that style it's shape then you could very easily begin to think that there is a right and wrong

>>54837585
Take a college course or if you're a teeny bopper, AP Music Theory

The composer of this and many other great songs never studied music theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM_uk0ZTIXE

>>54841594
btw, his name is Spinetta, google it, everything he made it's pure gold.

>>54841594
so what are you trying to say

>>54835978
>Does it make you a better artist/musician?

I think it's different for everyone dude.

Some people are really creative with music........then they learn theory and it totally fucks them up. Their mind is locked in the theory box.

Others can kinda continue to be creative and keep the theory isolated and apply it where needed.

It must depend on how your brain is wired or something.

>>54841777
You don't actually need to study music theory to be a better musician.

all of you are ignoring the fact that theory is needed to communicate between musicians

>>54842183
with that in mind the worse case scenario of being a good musician that doesn't know crap about music theory is someone saying something and you feel like a dunce for not knowing it. I've made a lot of my friends feel bad on accident by saying something about a scale I though they were improvising in.

>>54841912
did you actually see this happening in reality? i cant really imagine someone being fucked up by knowing more about what hes doing.

>>54841970
can YOU make music like that?

>>54841912
I really don't think you are telling the truth right now

>>54835978
Yes because it allows you to recognize the patterns in any genre you want to play so instead of copying someone else's music you can expand on it.

>>54842333

Music theory can fuck up self taught idiots.

You know, they learn 3 scales and stick to it for the rest of their life, wondering why the music they make sounds boring.

>>54841970
all you proved is that he doesn't need theory to make music like that. Can you prove that it'd be the same for the average person?

>>54843099
thats not really learning theory though, that just dipping their feet in the water. If they only had the motivation to learn 3 keys and stop, then I think its fair to say that they shouldn't be making music in the first place due to the motivation factor alone.

I'm pretty knowledgeable about theory and am able to apply it to the instruments I've been trained on. I'm also a self-taught guitar player and I can say that I've fallen into the same patterns with all of my instruments. Knowing or not knowing theory has nothing to do with it

>>54835978
Double yes. People claiming that learning theory may 'stifle creativity' are bullshitting you. The best way to transcend standard composition is actually knowing the rules that you want to rebel against. A real composer/musician is able to be creative without losing awareness of what is happening composition wise.

As some anons pointed in this thread, please don't neglect ear training. It's probably one of the single most important skills to any composer/musician.

>>54843256
nah it's not about how much they know, as if knowing more will stop someone from getting "locked in the theory box".
getting locked in the theory box is more of when someone stops listening to music and starts thinking about it. people of this sort tend to be stuck in their heads, not just when it comes to music but in their daily lives as well.

theory has its use for sure, it's just that people tend to use it in the wrong way. you don't write music by mapping some chart that adheres to a strict theoretical structure, you write music by hearing it in your head, using theory to assist you in getting what you hear in your head out.

but yes, i do hate theory nerds. they are usually autistic, annoying as fuck and have no natural style at all because they are stuck in the grid (not just in music but in life). i'm half-kidding.

>>54836434
>He's written music that is "technically" more interesting than a lot of stuff written by Classically trained musicians
totally disagree. He pretty much copied what Stockhausen was doing in the 50s and 60s. and Stockhausen knew his theory.

>>54837147
knowledge of compositional techniques, orchestration, large scale forms etc.

harmony is only a small portion of music theory

>>54838582
Its the age old problem of uneducated people thinking they know everything.

The more you learn about music, the more you realize you know nothing, and have far more to learn.

plebs who know nothing think they don't need to learn a thing and can write songs intuitively 4 eva

>>54839383
>guitar players and drummers
most pleb musicians there are.

bands dont usually know shit about music and therefor end up writing pretty mediocre songs with 4 uninteresting chords.

>>54841013
Music theory for musicians and normal people:
http://tobyrush.com/theorypages/index.html
tl:dr Music Theory:
https://gumroad.com/l/tldrmusic
Tonal Harmony Textbook
http://publish2.me/file/94c95514ed4bf
Music Theory for the Computer Musician
http://i-e-i.wikispaces.com/file/view/Music_Theory_for_the_Computer_Musician.pdf

>>54844640
Hey, I'm learning composition with the classic Logier book. Have you heard about it? Do you recommend it?

>>54836308
>i clearly don't know anything about music theory

>>54844640
great post thanks

>>54840464
Fifth up to root is a fourth. Intervals between notes are different depending on the octave. An interval is not a note's relative position to the root of the scale but the distance between two notes regardless of their positions in said scale.

Either learn all of it, or find a way to make it work without it. I find that after learning a lot of theory, I have a hard time adjusting to using intuition. Which is always better for writing music.

>>54844609
yeah but a lot of jazz standards never started out particularly musically complex.

I've been studying the theory these days, I found it comfortable to know what I am doing with times and stuff.

It's all about feeling comfortable of what are you making, doesn't matter if it's by theory or just playing and instrument to improvise.

>>54836168
Well that's because people make a weird bifurcation between implicitly learned music theory and academic music theory. Jimi Hendrix knew music theory in the sense that he had pattern recognition skills that let him understand the songs that other people played. That's all that academic music theory is too. It's not a rulebook on how to make music, it's a set of patterns that we've seen work in the past. If you make a song that follows none of those music theory patterns, it doesn't make your song wrong, it makes it new patterns in music theory.

>>54844609
You can know a lot of music theory and still write 4 chord songs.

If you're someone who likes 4 chord songs, learning music theory probably makes you write more 4 chord songs.
If you're someone who likes progressive music, music theory helps you write more progressive sounding pieces with weirder voicings, time signatures, and structures.

Music theory's only end goal is that you know more about music, not that you make more complex music.