#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Music theory, in fact, is all about "putting things in boxes" - labelling and identifying sounds, breaking them down, categorising them, and so on. Just don't make the mistake that music is theory is supposed to "explain" music. It's the grammar of the language, so is useful for studying the language. English grammar will tell you the names of all the parts of speech, the types of words, the punctuation marks, etc., that I'm using in this sentence. It might even say something about the etymology of the words. It will certainly assess the spelling. What it won't tell you is why the words have to go in this order. It won't tell you why we spell words the way we do (etymology is not explanation, only history - why did the words come from there and not from elsewhere?). It won't tell you why we don't have gendered nouns the way most other languages do. Most importantly it won't tell you how you are managing to understand these sentences. You learned to speak English (assuming it's your mother tongue) before you knew anything about grammar, spelling, or even the alphabet. We all learn the language of music the same way - by ear alone. That's how we all understand music: by listening to it. We know what it means immediately. When we hear that chord in the Stones song, we get it. It means exactly what it says. We just don't have any words to properly translate that meaning, that feeling. If we did, we wouldn't need the music. I'm not saying theory is pointless! I agree with you, it's good to talk about music with like minds (that's what we're here for after all), and theoretical jargon is designed for that purpose. We just have to be careful not to over-complicate things.
__________________
"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." - Leonard Cohen. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Theory can 'splain' lots of stuff and put into words what is 'happening' when music affects the brain a certain way.
But there's always this: If it works, who cares why? And if you do figure out, musa-mathematically, what happened that SOUNDED good, that doesn't mean you've 'cracked the code' and can now duplicate it by writing something different. I'll let James Brown 'splain it'....... Best, Howard Emerson
__________________
My New Website! |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Rules were made to be broken. And nobody broke more rules to greater effect than Keith Richards…
__________________
"It's just honest human stuff that hadn't been near a dang metronome in its life" - Benmont Tench |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I’m sure that Keith Richards thinks exactly the same way.
__________________
Best regards, Andre Golf is pretty simple. It's just not that easy. - Paul Azinger "It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so." – Mark Twain http://www.youtube.com/user/Gitfiddlemann |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I guess something like psychoacoustics, or some branch of psychology, could explain it, at least in part. And cultural history, and so on. Not the body of knowledge I understand as "music theory" Exactly! "Why?" is always a fascinating question - partly because music theory can't answer it. But we can understand music perfectly well - and play it perfectly well - without knowing "why it works". Quote:
But I'm not sure what "duplicate it by writing something different" could mean - it's a contradiction in terms! OK... That'll do. It's not music theory, of course (and it's not James Brown! its an actor!), but it'll do.
__________________
"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." - Leonard Cohen. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I think it's very unfortunate that a bunch of descriptions of how actual musicians use musical intervals to create tunes and harmony has wound up under the term ' music theory'.
It's a term which clearly leads some people to equate the subject with theoretical physics or some kind of laws based science which is absurd, but that does not mean a grounding in at least some aspects of music theory has not proved to be very helpfull to musicians from Mozart to Keith Richards. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I think that the origins of the term 'Music Theory' lie in how Classical Music was traditionally taught in Europe. The student was taught and examined in eight grades. Grade one was the simplest. There were two exams for each grade. One was practical. and the student was judged on their ability to play music, and the other was 'theoretical', not involving playing, and for grades one to five mostly about reading notation. The theory part of grades six to eight covered stuff like the characteristics of Classical Composers and had very little to do with what is now called Music Theory.
The complexities in jazz harmonies may have something to do with making modern music theory the subject it is today but really it's all just putting labels on things people notice in music. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
it would be interesting to learn some more details on what you mean by the 'characteristics of Classical Composers' ? It seems to me that Classical composers were quite aware of what we now call music theory , key signatures time signatures use of scales accidentals intervals and chord progressions are all obvious features of what we call classical music and would have been taught to young aspiring composers. I have never formally studied this subject through grades or anything like that but it is quite clear from a few minutes study on the internet that knowledge of certain modes and the intervals they contain was a mandatory requirement for those composing music to be offered as a prayer to God in medieval monesteries. I don't think anyone needs to be a qualified historian to imagine how lay people would have heard this music and copied the scales and melodies for the secular music we now call ' traditional'. In the 14th century plolyphony came into use in church music and no one can compose for a choir without being aware of what notes choristers must sing to form harmonious sounding intervals and chords, no one would have tollerated a so called composer who did not know this stuff otherwise the result would have been chaos. Knowledge of harmony melody and time signatures from church music would have been the core ' curriculum' for secular students of composition in the classical era. Several classical composers have demonstrated their awareness of what we now call music theory not just by their use of harmony but their easy ability to abandon harmony and use drones to emulate the folk music of the 'common people' so just by this they demonstrated an awareness that different genres of music are characterised by different approaches to how notes are harmonised together or not, this is all the stuff of what we mean by music theory. Jazz music is just a development from what had come before , really what's the difference? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Andyrondack
I'm pretty sure that an awful lot of what is now considered to be 'Music Theory' didn't exist before the nineteenth century, maybe even before the twentieth century. You could say that notation hasn't changed much over the centuries but in Manchester (UK) Central Library I came across a book of tunes published in 1730 where the key signatures were far more complex than they are today. Today the key of G has one sharp. In the 1730 book G had two sharps. The F on the top line had a sharp as it does today, but the F in the bottom space also had a sharp. Imagine how the keys of A and E appear following this convention. I don't know if this approach was common back then or an anomaly but it is a change. Instruments have developed over the years and as a result the music that can be played has developed as well. Valves in brass, keys in woodwind and hammers in keyboards have all led to developments in the music that can be played. It's not unreasonable to assume that ideas about, and observations of music will have developed at the same time. My understanding is that early Christian music was monophonic and the idea has been put forward that harmony only developed after hearing the effects of long reverberation on monophonic lines. ABRSM stands for the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music. It was proposed in 1889 and formed by 1890. You can read more details here; https://gb.abrsm.org/en/about-us/our-history/ Grades 1 to 5 are mostly about notation. The summary of Grades 6 to 8 can be seen here; https://us.abrsm.org/en/our-exams/mu...labus-summary/ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It's known, e.g, that in the modal era, and the early Renaissance, Ionian mode was considered "licentious" because of its association with the troubadours. Ionian mode was not accepted into the "official" pantheon (along with Aeolian) until the mid-16th century, as the older modes were becoming more and more altered with chromatics which brought them closer to Ionian. So the influence certainly worked the other way: popular music finding its way into "academic" music. Quote:
Quote:
The question is how they learn it. It's a mix of aural and written, for sure, but that mix varies hugely from culture to culture - even within western culture. The big difference with jazz - and all popular music since - is the role of African music, brought to the US with the slaves. African music has a vastly different system of education, mostly if not entirely aural. Based on known traditions, of course, but those traditions are passed on by ear, not by books. Certainly once in the USA, the African traditions would have been handed down in a completely aural way. As well as vocal and drumming traditions, there were instrumental melodic ones from Islamic cultures of the Sudan. The blues grew largely from that mix, assisted by influences from imported European folk musics - many of which had modal melodic traditions not unlike the Islamic ones. (The neutral "blue 3rd" and the flattened 7th were common occurrences in English folk music, well before any contact with the blues, well before audio recording.) The early jazz musicians were trained on western instruments, of course, so naturally learned a fair amount of classical theory: notation, keys, chords and chord sequences. And they learned to play music written using European principles But the way they played owed more to African folk traditions. So yes - "theory" is a crucial element, and forms part of all music learning. The differences from genre to genre are simply in how that theory is learned. Sometimes it's from books. Sometimes it's by ear. Sometimes it's entirely learned by ear. Even when books play a part, aural learning is essential for making sense of the books. You can't understand music by reading books. You have to hear it.
__________________
"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." - Leonard Cohen. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I do find it very strange that those who decry the value of learning some music theory to the musical development of students seem to not hesitate when responding to queries on how to play this chord or that scale by posting pictures or diagrams which amount to no more than instructions to put this finger there and that finger here. How does that fit with a philosophy based on 'aural' learning ? I have yet to see any of the people who profess to believe in the primacy of aural learning post a sound clip of a chord or scale and leave the student to work it out by ear, why is that? But they are certainly very quick to twist words round and make out that somehow learning music theory means students can't be listening to music. I have never sugested that learning music from books is a rewarding experience but the reality is that's exactly what most students of music are expected to do. I had music lessons for years where I was taught to play music from books of notation and it just became an unrewarding experience for me , only when by sheer luck I encountered a teacher who taught me some music theory was I able to start the progress of creating music without having to rely on instructions in a book amounting to nothing more meaningfull than put that finger here and that finger there. |
#27
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Quote:
I'm just questioning what we mean by the word "understanding" here. I've read a whole ton of music theory in my time - I like it, and I certainly like the feeling of understanding that I get from it. But really it's just that same feeling we get from learning the name of anything. When we know what something is called - especially if the name sounds technical - it gives us a handle on it. We can talk about it and share our experiences of the thing - which is the real value of the naming, because it can broaden our experience of the thing, give us different perspectives. Music theory has certainly introduced me to music I would not normally have bothered with, and has often given me different ways to think about the music I do know. That's all good, obviously. But what I can honestly say is that it has not helped me understand music, deep down. The way music works is still mysterious. Describing the various types of mode, or cadence, or how a composition develops, is just talking about what's happening; but not why it's happening. Other than that the composer liked those sounds. For me, knowing what's happening is not any kind of "explanation". It doesn't lead to any understanding. I mean, except in those cases where the theory helps me play the music, and it's the playing that leads to understanding, because it helps me appreciate the sounds more. The meanings of music are all in the sounds, 100%. Quote:
Quote:
Music theory names the sounds, and those names are used in technical instruction to help us play instruments. That's important obviously. All I'm saying is the music theory does not explain music. The reason I say that is that we see questions all the time from beginners who expect theory to explain music. They want to know why a certain song sounds good - some of them even ask why they like a song! - and they think theory has the answers. (It's as common as those who ask if they "can" do this or that, or why a song has a "wrong" note or chord in it, as if theory is some kind of system of laws that justifies music) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Theory - too - was something I also taught myself, as I began reading theory books after I'd been playing for a few years, just out of curiosity. (By this time I was playing in bands, composing and improvising.) The theory was certainly interesting, but only up to a point. As soon as it started talking about sounds I hadn't heard, I stopped reading. And I found that the songs I was learning actually taught me all the really useful aspects of theory. The usual process was I'd discover a cool sound in a song, and then some time later read what the theoretical term for it was. My advantage - all the way - was that I was teaching myself the whole time. So I only ever learned what I liked. I never had to do "lessons" that someone had given me. My goal all the time was to (a) learn songs and (b) write songs. No theory book ever helped me do that. The songs I learned helped me do that. What theory sometimes did do was helped me polish the results. E.g., if I'd written a strange and complicated chord progression, that was a little ahead of what my ear could properly assess, theory could help me focus, by offering options for conventional changes that were what my ear was really searching for. A weird chord might just need one note changed - and then it flowed the way I meant it to. I never suffered from the notion that theory was rules that music had to follow, because I learned the music first. The music was obviously all correct; it sounded right! So if I found theory seemed to suggest something else, I knew that was only because I hadn't yet found theory that dealt with the music I knew. The music was always right, and the theory was always right - but the theory was always incomplete - because I didn't know it all - and that's why it sometimes didn't add up. (And if it didn't add up, so what? Not my problem... I know all I need to know.) I do remember one question I had when I first started getting serious with theory: "why does a maj7 chord sound sad?" This is just the kind of beginners' question I mentioned above. I soon found out theory was not interested in such questions. But I wasn't disappointed, because the subject was fascinating enough in its own right - although it was a lot more interesting when I opened it out into musicology, history, acoustics and so on.
__________________
"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." - Leonard Cohen. Last edited by JonPR; 01-20-2022 at 06:02 PM. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
When you say "books" you mean written notation, correct? I can't imagine that "most" students are expected to learn music from reading books. This ties into one of my pet peeves, alluded to by my earlier comment in this thread: too much "learning" of music theory is now done on the internet, with results often being that concepts are distorted and in some cases just plain wrong, without the necessary context.
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
We all break rules. When geniuses break rules, amazing things can happen. The rest of us, not so much….
Even though Beato’s videos are FAR beyond me, I find them fascinating, and have burned more time watching than I care to admit!
__________________
Dave F ************* Martins Guilds Gibsons A few others 2020 macbook pro i5 8GB Scarlett 18i20 Reaper 7 |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Exactly. Geniuses just do it. Really really smart people explain just WHAT they did to the rest of us!
__________________
Dave F ************* Martins Guilds Gibsons A few others 2020 macbook pro i5 8GB Scarlett 18i20 Reaper 7 |