Why learn music?

[LarryCrabtree]

You have a point in that without an ear it is hard to play with others. I recently picked up a tuba for a reasonable price and started playing with a fiddle orchestra. While I still have to work out some of my fingerings I can here when I am not on key and know what to do. Had not played a tuba since college 20 + years ago but it is coming back. Being able to read bass lines does help.

[lfmn16]

Originally Posted by lwknives

. Whether you chose to acknowledge my personal ability doesnt matter though. The fact is, there are people who can write complex epic music with no theory knowledge.

You keep changing the argument. I already agreed that some people can write complex music without a knowledge of theory. I'm saying that you haven't provided any evidence that you can do it. I'll leave it to everyone else to decide what they believe, but in my opinion if you make big claims on a public forum you should be able to back them up.

[lwknives]

Originally Posted by lfmn16

You keep changing the argument. I already agreed that some people can write complex music without a knowledge of theory. I'm saying that you haven't provided any evidence that you can do it. I'll leave it to everyone else to decide what they believe, but in my opinion if you make big claims on a public forum you should be able to back them up.
Ive already said that I cant prove it right now, I dont have a recording.

I agree that I havent provided proof. I havent seen your diploma from your music education either though. Like seriously, how am I supposed to prove that I have written that song? Just real quick lay down an epic metal recording? Recording is actually kind of time consuming, especially for someone with as little experience as I have. I said I enjoyed writing it, not that I had recorded a lot of it. I dont even have a way of making a video that is 20 min long. I dont know how I could prove it even if I had it recorded.

Also, I didnt mean to be make a BIG claim. My point was that its my music isnt "rock formula" music. I think your reading a lot more into it than I was trying to convey.

[Febs]

Originally Posted by lwknives

I agree that I havent provided proof. I havent seen your diploma from your music education either though. Like seriously, how am I supposed to prove that I have written that song? Just real quick lay down an epic metal recording? Recording is actually kind of time consuming, especially for someone with as little experience as I have. I said I enjoyed writing it, not that I had recorded a lot of it. I dont even have a way of making a video that is 20 min long. I dont know how I could prove it even if I had it recorded.

Also, I didnt mean to be make a BIG claim. My point was that its my music isnt "rock formula" music. I think your reading a lot more into it than I was trying to convey.

I think you are missing his point. He is not disputing that you wrote the song. He is disputing your claim that it is complex.

[RedMoses]

I kinda learned to read music when i was young but did not keep up with it, now im at the point where i want to learn Bach and theres only so much of it you can digest and play back using your ear, i wish i could read comfortably now because i looked at the charts and its SCARY!

[LarryCrabtree]

I can understand what one person was saying about the music listed and linked from you tube. When I listened to the Carol of the Bells a piece I have played many times both in orchestra and for a coral group I can say that the persons playing in no way played the piece as written, in fact they butchered up a lot of it. I can also say that playing it with electronic instruments and very loud does not make it better. I just last night went to the Trans-Siberian Orchestra's Christmas concert in Nashville. If you want to hear the song played heavy metal style but played correctly and with some style listen to their playing. Of course I do know that all of the musicians I watched last night are classically trained and read very well. But that is really the way it should sound in metal. First when you play a piece that everyone knows make sure you can play the parts correctly. You don't have to play note for note but at least make the tune be there. In the you tube version I heard it was not there after the first phrase.

[lfmn16]

Originally Posted by lwknives

I agree that I havent provided proof. I havent seen your diploma from your music education either though.

Please point out where I claim to have a degree in music. I could post my transcripts detailing how much theory I have taken but I'm not sure which of my claims require that kind of proof.

If you don't understand the point I'm trying to make by now then no amount of explanation will make it clear.

[lfmn16]

Originally Posted by Febs

I think you are missing his point. He is not disputing that you wrote the song. He is disputing your claim that it is complex.

To me writing a song is finishing a work and either recording it or writing it down, either are easy to prove. Having a handful of unfinished ideas is not the same as having written a song.

I keep hearing how hard it is to record a song. Well if it was easy we would all write epic masterpieces. Having the tenacity to write, arrange, record and publish a song is what makes it such an accomplishment. By skipping all the steps and just saying you've done it denigrates the effort of those that have actually done it.

I have lots of great (in my mind anyway) ideas, but until I take the time and effort to complete them, that's all they are. If other people want to evaluate the claims and examples and believe that he has written interesting, intriguing, complex 20 minute epics, it's certainly none of my business.

All this dancing around the truth is too exhausting for an old man like me. I'm going to sit in my rocker and dream about the next number one hit I'm going to write!

[lwknives]

Originally Posted by Febs

I think you are missing his point. He is not disputing that you wrote the song. He is disputing your claim that it is complex.

Without hearing it? Like I said its not completely done yet. Still needs drums, a few transitions ect. I guess I shouldnt have posted the link.

[lwknives]

Originally Posted by LarryCrabtree

I can understand what one person was saying about the music listed and linked from you tube. When I listened to the Carol of the Bells a piece I have played many times both in orchestra and for a coral group I can say that the persons playing in no way played the piece as written, in fact they butchered up a lot of it. I can also say that playing it with electronic instruments and very loud does not make it better. I just last night went to the Trans-Siberian Orchestra's Christmas concert in Nashville. If you want to hear the song played heavy metal style but played correctly and with some style listen to their playing. Of course I do know that all of the musicians I watched last night are classically trained and read very well. But that is really the way it should sound in metal. First when you play a piece that everyone knows make sure you can play the parts correctly. You don't have to play note for note but at least make the tune be there. In the you tube version I heard it was not there after the first phrase.

yah, I butchered parts of it. I like it though, I wasnt trying to copy it, I was making my own interpretation of it.
Anywho I didnt cliam anything but that no theory was used writing those, I didnt claim they were complex.

[lwknives]

Originally Posted by lfmn16

To me writing a song is finishing a work and either recording it or writing it down, either are easy to prove. Having a handful of unfinished ideas is not the same as having written a song.

To me writing is also the process, I never claimed to have a polished work. Sorry it came across that way. My point was that I wasnt working on generic rock formula music.

I keep hearing how hard it is to record a song. Well if it was easy we would all write epic masterpieces. Having the tenacity to write, arrange, record and publish a song is what makes it such an accomplishment. By skipping all the steps and just saying you've done it denigrates the effort of those that have actually done it.

I never claimed to have a finished project! My claim was that I enjoyed writing (as in the process of writing) Epic long songs. My point is, at this point having I cant record a song real quick just to prove I have written (as in, I know how to play all the parts, not your definition) it.


I have lots of great (in my mind anyway) ideas, but until I take the time and effort to complete them, that's all they are. If other people want to evaluate the claims and examples and believe that he has written interesting, intriguing, complex 20 minute epics, it's certainly none of my business.

OK, its more than just random great ideas, its a song with structure it just has missing parts and parts that require more than one person to play. BUT NO IT IS NOT COMPLETE, I HAVE AGREED THAT ITS NOT COMPLETE. I AM MAKING NO CLAIM NORE HAVE I MADE A CLAIM THAT THE SONGS WERE RECORDED OR WRITEN DOWN ANYWHERE.

All this dancing around the truth is too exhausting for an old man like me. I'm going to sit in my rocker and dream about the next number one hit I'm going to write!

OK... please explain how I have danced around the truth.
I made a claim that you incorrectly interpreted as me having a recording of a song and an available link to it. I have repeatably stated that that is, in fact not what I meant.

[Ric5]

Why learn music?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you can play it ...

[lfmn16]

Originally Posted by lwknives

OK... please explain how I have danced around the truth.
I made a claim that you incorrectly interpreted as me having a recording of a song and an available link to it. I have repeatably stated that that is, in fact not what I meant.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[/ARGUEMENT]

[lwknives]

Thats nice...
I'm not sure if I'm getting trolled or if I'm bad at communicating.

Maybe some definitions will help.

Complex; Chromatic melodies, mid progression key changes, chords other than your standard ones (maj, min, 7th, aug, sus ect). fitting together of many different textures. Changing the feel of the song around. I dont know the theory that tells you how to use that stuff. I guess if you do know that theory your definition of complex would be different.

Writing; I was thinking of this in terms of laying the song out more than note for note documentation of the song. I guess this definition could be wrong but its what I meant when I said it.

Intriguing; Something that arouses interest or curiosity. This is completely in the ears of the listener.

Epic; Something that conveys a story. I try to "paint pictures" that tell a story with my music. Most people prolly wont see them in my music though.

[fmoore200]

Originally Posted by lwknives

Thats nice...
I'm not sure if I'm getting trolled or if I'm bad at communicating.

Maybe some definitions will help.

Complex; Chromatic melodies, mid progression key changes, chords other than your standard ones (maj, min, 7th, aug, sus ect). fitting together of many different textures. Changing the feel of the song around. I dont know the theory that tells you how to use that stuff. I guess if you do know that theory your definition of complex would be different.

Writing; I was thinking of this in terms of laying the song out more than note for note documentation of the song. I guess this definition could be wrong but its what I meant when I said it.

Intriguing; Something that arouses interest or curiosity. This is completely in the ears of the listener.

Epic; Something that conveys a story. I try to "paint pictures" that tell a story with my music. Most people prolly wont see them in my music though.

Not to pile on, but from your definition of complex I can tell you with absolute certainty that music theory tells you how to do those things.

One example, using the 'mid progression key changes' example given:

In music theory that is called a modulation and generally happens to vary long (sometimes short) pieces of music. Modulations occur in many pop songs as well during the bridge.

I think you are saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that in the middle of a given line (melodic sequence) you change keys. That is cool if done properly, but if done too frequently it loses effect. The reason why key changes work is because the listener is used to the key the piece is in and gets a sudden shock by the new key.

But the point I'm trying to make is that all things you cite as not bring taught in music theory is in fact there. Theory is general, what you do with it it's personal, so of course they don't teach that.

That being said, if you can write the way you say without any formal training, that is impressive.

Carry on with the flame war... Lol

[lwknives]

Originally Posted by fmoore200

Not to pile on, but from your definition of complex I can tell you with absolute certainty that music theory tells you how to do those things.

I didnt mean to say that there isnt music theory that teaches how to do that stuff. I just dont know it.
I am assuming that there is theory to describe all musical techniques, but I dont think it is necessary to spend years learning it if you can already play it. Unless you want to of course.

One example, using the 'mid progression key changes' example given:

In music theory that is called a modulation and generally happens to vary long (sometimes short) pieces of music. Modulations occur in many pop songs as well during the bridge.

I think you are saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that in the middle of a given line (melodic sequence) you change keys. That is cool if done properly, but if done too frequently it loses effect. The reason why key changes work is because the listener is used to the key the piece is in and gets a sudden shock by the new key.

I guess im just talking about chords that arent in the main key of the progression.

But the point I'm trying to make is that all things you cite as not bring taught in music theory is in fact there. Theory is general, what you do with it it's personal, so of course they don't teach that.

I dont believe I said they weren't taught, I was saying that it takes a while (depending on time constraints, up to a couple years) to learn it. I dont know it yet, im working on it.

That being said, if you can write the way you say without any formal training, that is impressive.

Carry on with the flame war... Lol

I think my argument may have been misinterpreted (either due to my poor communication or people not being able to read).

Let me set up a hypothetical situation.
Say there are some guys who want to start a band, each of them has been playing for 5-6 years with no theory training. They all have decent ears and can pick up tunes and improvise by ear. (I cant prove that I fit in this category but there are plenty of musicians who do).
Say they want to start a band that plays "complex", "interesting" prog rock.
They can spend a year putting together good material, writing and practicing good songs, or they can spend two years learning the theory required to write those same songs.
Will they be better musicians because of that theory? YES. Will they play better music? I dont really think so. It wont be WORSE but I dont really think the music will be better. They WILL have more tools to write music, but I am not sure that it is worth putting the band on hold for two (maybe more) years.

I DO NOT think that knowing music theory ever holds someone back. BUT nothing is free! For some people the benefit they get from learning theory is not worth what they have to put in to it.

I also DO NOT think that music theory doesnt explain what I do in my writing, I just havnt yet devoted the time required to catch up with my ear YET.

[kreider204]

As always, I can't help but notice that it's only the people who don't know theory who argue that it's not important ...

[Febs]

Originally Posted by lwknives

Let me set up a hypothetical situation.

Let me set up a hypothetical situation.

Let's say you want to bake a cake. A new type of cake, and one that no one has ever tasted before.

Which path do you think will most likely bring you success at your cake-baking endeavors?

A. Learning the recipes for existing cakes, and then using that knowledge to create your own, unique recipe?

or

B. Randomly putting different ingredients together until you independently happen to come across flour, sugar, eggs, etc.? IF you ever happen to come across those ingredients.

Like all analogies, this one isn't perfect, but it illustrates the point that knowledge can help you achieve your goals faster and more effectively. Can you succeed in songwriting without any knowledge of music theory, essentially through random experimentation and learning as you go? Sure. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. But it's not necessarily the best way to achieve your goals.

[Thrill-House]

I would say in a common band setting, its not SUPER important, and many bandmates ive had over the years knew little or no theory, and even fewer could read music. This did not impede us from playing.

The problem i DO often run into is communication. Without having a basic understanding of music theory and even just basic music concepts (and proper terminology), it can became quite frusturating for me or my bandmate to get our ideas across. Something as simple as what the proper timing is in a riff can become a big debate, which is usually argued with "bah-bum! ba-bum! Boom bah-bdashaf" or some other rabble. When i attempt to provide them with correct terminology such as "One Tri-pl-et Two Tri-pl-et", etc... they become confused and/or dismiss it. And should a song come up with a time signature in anything other than 4/4.. oh lord...

Ive never believed everyone needs in depth knowledge of theory, but ive also always believed that everyone can benefit from a basic understanding of theory and music notation.

[fmoore200]

Originally Posted by lwknives

I think my argument may have been misinterpreted (either due to my poor communication or people not being able to read).

Let me set up a hypothetical situation.
Say there are some guys who want to start a band, each of them has been playing for 5-6 years with no theory training. They all have decent ears and can pick up tunes and improvise by ear. (I cant prove that I fit in this category but there are plenty of musicians who do).
Say they want to start a band that plays "complex", "interesting" prog rock.
They can spend a year putting together good material, writing and practicing good songs, or they can spend two years learning the theory required to write those same songs.
Will they be better musicians because of that theory? YES. Will they play better music? I dont really think so. It wont be WORSE but I dont really think the music will be better. They WILL have more tools to write music, but I am not sure that it is worth putting the band on hold for two (maybe more) years.

I DO NOT think that knowing music theory ever holds someone back. BUT nothing is free! For some people the benefit they get from learning theory is not worth what they have to put in to it.

I also DO NOT think that music theory doesnt explain what I do in my writing, I just havnt yet devoted the time required to catch up with my ear YET.

I hear you, but why can't those band members learn theory while writing, rehearsing, gigging, etc? If they were any good to begin with it is likely (not absolutely) that the writing will get even deeper as their collective tool set and musical understanding increases.