Music theory is easy -- and it's fun!

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by ombudsman

My hypothetical stereotyped people are no more personal than yours !



I'm not sure what calling out (all) people for subjective self indulgent thinking has to do with miracles and world saving. (Well, it would be miraculous if the we all stopped doing that stuff, but I'm not holding my breath.)

Well, you answered my post and attacked me, so yes your statement is more personal than mine.

What you call self indulgent I call practical advice. Take it or leave it.

Again, be light and have a wunderful day.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by callouses

joecharter, i went to your youtube page and checked you out....very beautiful music, you have talent...i enjoyed it. You know, a person can know theory or not, read music or not, the results are what counts. looking fwd to listening to you again!

Thanks dude!

I enjoy every music genre from classical to blues, jazz and even rap.

The approach to each style is different. One can clearly tell whether a genre was developped on paper -- or on the street, by ear.

[ombudsman]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

Well, you answered my post and attacked me, so yes your statement is more personal than mine.

What you're telling me is that it's easy to take it personally and react when another person is mocking a stereotype that suits their viewpoint, and when you're closer to what they are mocking than the other (imaginary) binary choice.

Point being, you are reacting just like you are saying I did.

That's not really important, thought. You're missing what I am saying, after you write it off as being a personal attack. If it was a personal attack, though, I wouldn't have said that everyone pretty much does those things.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by ombudsman

That's not really important, thought. You're missing what I am saying, after you write it off as being a personal attack. If it was a personal attack, though, I wouldn't have said that everyone pretty much does those things.

Whatever.

If this isn't a personal attack, I wonder what it is:

Originally Posted by ombudsman

Putting on airs about somehow being more authentic than other people is just as much of a joke as anything else. Maybe it's even a bit worse. You know what people, and experiences, are authentic in this world ? All of them.

If you're the type of person who thinks my little cousin's graffiti is just as worthy as any other artist's, fine by me.

I was merely describing a guy who thinks too micro and a guy who thinks too macro, with no specific references to anyone. There are dysfunctional models in this world, whether you like it or not. Any model will have extremes and every extreme will tend to dysfunction. Too much or not enough of anything can kill you.

I did not put on airs about being more authentic than others. If you care to read what I wrote, I simply stated that discussions about "using theory" or not don't end up well because "using theory" can mean so many things.

Your intervention was a total misjudgement on your part and I think you should take it back.

[ombudsman]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

I was merely describing a guy who thinks too micro and a guy who thinks too macro, with no specific references to anyone.

And you consider that to be fair banter not directed toward anyone personally. I said pretension and self indulgent thinking are common at all levels, without even bothering to carve out an exception for myself in the "virtuous middle", and evidently my (admittedly cutting) example of the other kind of pretension aside from the one you described struck a nerve, and you took it personally. But there is no specific reference to anyone in my post, either.

It's a perfect example of how easy it is to think someone is talking about you.

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

If you care to read what I wrote, I simply stated that discussions about "using theory" or not don't end up well because "using theory" can mean so many things.

That characterization does not jibe with what you said-

"And then you've got the "artists" -- players of various skill levels who will use every possible connection between theory and whatever vague concept comes through their mind to impress the crowd or justify their work."

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

Your intervention was a total misjudgement on your part and I think you should take it back.

Ah, so when you post you are "simply stating", but when I post I am "intervening". That sounds bad ! But I thought you had to have a bunch of people to do an intervention ? That's always been my experience.

[JoeCharter]

Well, I am very sorry that my coloured description of an "artist" may have ticked you off, ombudsman -- and nearly devastated by my incorrect use of "intervention" in this context. It does sound awfully bad, doesn't it?

Like my aunt often says to me, you're the best.

I hope you have a bright and sunny day.

[ombudsman]

It's moderately sunny here, which is OK with me, much more sun and I'll have to turn on the AC. Still, not much to complain about being Friday as it is. Good day to you and your aunt.

[mc1]

since this thread has gotten somewhat serious and depressingly contentious, i will write that musical theory does include any statement, belief or concept about music.

but the notion that anyone who knows any fact about music is a music theorist doesn't seem as reasonable to me.

that's akin to saying that 1 + 1 = 2 is part of math theory, so any person who knows that fact is a mathemetician. only in the strictest sense.

[MICHAEL MYERS]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

You've got the "over thinkers" -- typically beginners who wonder what an augmented chord is and whether it would help them with their barres. You can tell from their question that they don't get it.

And then you've got the "artists" -- players of various skill levels who will use every possible connection between theory and whatever vague concept comes through their mind to impress the crowd or justify their work.

Both extremes are bad... As with anything in life, a good balance usually works best.

Very true. All of it.

[drguitar001]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

Thanks for the humour, guys.

To those who wonder whether theory is useful to the average musician, the answers here seem to suggest that it depends on what you make of it.

You've got the "over thinkers" -- typically beginners who wonder what an augmented chord is and whether it would help them with their barres. You can tell from their question that they don't get it.

And then you've got the "artists" -- players of various skill levels who will use every possible connection between theory and whatever vague concept comes through their mind to impress the crowd or justify their work.

Both extremes are bad... As with anything in life, a good balance usually works best.

This statement is interesting in that it points to the knowledge level of the poster. I can understand how folks can see this as "fact" when looking at the statement on the surface. But when those words are explored, it reads like a statement from someone who has no real experience with music theory either on paper or in practice. In fact, it looks like someone who is trying to flame folks who actually have an understand about this thing called music theory.

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

You've got the "over thinkers" -- typically beginners who wonder what an augmented chord is and whether it would help them with their barres. You can tell from their question that they don't get it.

Hmmm... "over thinkers". Is that even possible? It seems to me folks who are thinkers will resolve problems. And although much of music theory is pretty simple, everything seems complex until you think it through. So I do not understand how learning that barre chords and augmented chords are not necessarily intertwined is a an extremely bad thing.

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

And then you've got the "artists" -- players of various skill levels who will use every possible connection between theory and whatever vague concept comes through their mind to impress the crowd or justify their work.

The music artists I know (folks who make a successful living in music), live and breath music theory as part of their daily life. One of these is a gentleman who has won several Emmys for scores he has written for TV. He is also one of the finest jazz pianists I have ever played with (and I have played with some great jazz pianists). If asked, he will tell you (in depth) what music theory concepts he used for various measures of any piece he has written. He doesn't do this to "impress" a crowd, he does this to instruct a fellow musician curious about his technique.

Another gentleman is a world class composer (my old orchestration teacher). He has won countless awards all over the world for his innovative, creative and ultimately musical compositions for all manner of instrumentation. He will also tell you in minute detail what theory was involved in his compositions, beat by beat, if you will allow.

I do not see this as bad by any stretch of the imagination.

What I do see as bad are folks who misrepresent what it means to have a deep knowledge of music theory and it's application. In my experience, those folks who make fun of music theory are the same folks who either have no real understanding about what they speak of or have just enough understanding to realize they know practically nothing and must make fun of it to feel better about their lack of knowledge.

To put this in practical terms, would you go to a cardiologist to have your heart repaired or would you go to a Witch doctor who makes fun of the Cardiologist and instead says that their way of "feeling the illness" is a better way to cure the heart trouble? The Witch doctor might put on a better "show", but the Cardiologist will actually treat the situation in a proper manner and will do high quality, proper work.

It's your heart, make a choice.

[mr. beaumont]

The "artists" Joe describes do not exist. They're just the over thinkers who THINK they've got this stuff down.

[MICHAEL MYERS]

Originally Posted by drguitar001

To put this in practical terms, would you go to a cardiologist to have your heart repaired or would you go to a Witch doctor who makes fun of the Cardiologist and instead says that their way of "feeling the illness" is a better way to cure the heart trouble? The Witch doctor might put on a better "show", but the Cardiologist will actually treat the situation in a proper manner and will do high quality, proper work.

It's your heart, make a choice.

I don't think an analogy with medical troubles is valid here.

Music is best not treated clinically even when playing from a score.

Many great modern musicians have described how their playing starts to stink when they over think (it rhymes). I'm mainly talking about players that aren't reading from scores here and by using the word "think", I mean those that begin to "think" about their playing theoretically whilst playing.

Then you get the guitar players that aren't great (on a lower level) doing something similar (on a lower level) and sucking/stinking (on a higher level???) or whatever you call it.

There needs to be a healthy balance of spontaneity (playing what sounds (sounds is the key word) good at that moment) and theoretical knowledge.

The brain type and wiring is crucial to this balance also.

[MICHAEL MYERS]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

The "artists" Joe describes do not exist. They're just the over thinkers who THINK they've got this stuff down.

Did Stevie Ray Vaughan exist? (I know he no longer exists).

[JoeCharter]

Stating that I dismiss and flame those who care and know lots about theory is just about the most ridiculous statement I've read here on the AGF. Those who have been around for more than 11 posts would know this couldn't be farther from the truth.

The other suggestion on how I intimately know (or do not know) my stuff doesn't even deserve an answer.

I have never had a music dispute with anyone reasonable in over 30 years of playing. If people just keep coming back with personal attacks in answer to my conceptual statements, I just let them have it, especially when they are anonymous members with just a handful of posts.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

The "artists" Joe describes do not exist. They're just the over thinkers who THINK they've got this stuff down.

Indeed.

"Artist" was used in a colourful context to demonstrate one extreme.

People who read it literally read what they want to read.