Dubstepforum.com

Fauster wrote:Hold on, are some people in this thread actually suggesting it might be detrimental to learn music theory?

lol

Mad EP wrote:

kidkunjer wrote: just in terms of statistics, the best musicians IMHO are almost always completely self taught, can't read music, don't really know what a scale is escept as to what sounds good. training is in some sense lazyness, the desire to not have to re-invent the wheel (perhaps in a better shape).

Sorry - but this is absolute crap. What statistics - care to share?

Training is laziness?



You have no idea what you are talking about.

Yeah I'd love to hear him share some names haha. I doubt there's one seriously notable western musician that doesn't know what a scale is. This is a ridiculous debate akin to telling someone not to read any advice on how to mix or produce their music.

And seriously, this shit's based on frequencies, no one's reinventing the wheel and coming up with a better system than what already exists based on basic scientific characteristics. Generally what I see are people who ignore theory will work way harder to make something mediocre. Like one of my producer buddies probably logs more hours into the studio than I do, but still uses the same scale and progression in nearly every song because he doesn't know any better.

People who say they don't learn theory because they don't want to "stifle their (obvious boundless) creativity" are using it as a lazy excuse not to put the work in to make their music the best it can be. I know because me and my friends used to say that shit back in high school. But as soon as I took a genuine interest in how music is composed, the quality of my work increased immediately and dramatically. IMHO people who are truly serious about the music they're making should WANT to learn as much as possible about their craft.

If you're looking for a place to be unique, do it in a place where the rules still haven't been written...post processing and general sound design seem to be a good place for most of us. You can't destroy the basics of music and expect to create something that sounds coherent as roughly 100% of the music we listen to is based on the same system you're trying to denounce.

ljk32 wrote:Yeah I know, but if somebody has studied theory their entire life, they may feel like they can only stick to anything that works musically. I'm not saying it's true, just putting it out as a possiblility.

You've clearly never heard of Jazz

if you're the sort of person who wants training because you are too lazy to develop your own understanding of music and how it works, then learning about how others think about it wont help you be a better artist.

Yes it will, this is hundreds of years of passed down knowledge were talking here. This isn't some hot tip, it's the basis of the THEORY of music. That's like saying going to school is for lazy people who don't want to develop there own understanding of English or mathematics.

As a person pretty much trained in musical theory I can only guess at what it must be like to have not been.

It's not like if you learn theory it magically stops you from playing random notes and getting lucky.
You just experiment in different ways.

Music theory is a tool to aid your writing. Can you be a fantastic musician without having technical theory knowledge? Sure, just ask Jimi Hendrix. Is it possible write amazing music with heavy music theory knowledge? Sure, just ask every single classical composer.

Theory and technical skills let you work faster and more efficiently transcribe your ideas into sounds. You can totally produce without good music theory training if you have outstanding taste and a good ear, but putting your ideas into any audible form will be that much more difficult.

Attila wrote: Yeah I'd love to hear him share some names haha. I doubt there's one seriously notable western musician that doesn't know what a scale is.

that's just silly now:
jimi hendrix, john lennon, kurt cobain, robert johnson (the inventor of music) and on and on.

don't assume that because an artist uses a scale its because they know what its called and have been taught it by somebody else.

Attila wrote: And seriously, this shit's based on frequencies, no one's reinventing the wheel and coming up with a better system than what already exists based on basic scientific characteristics

if its based on how it sounds then you know it anyway. learning what it's called helps nothing.
for me its like art school; you can train a bunch of people how to draw, you can get them all to pump out OK paintings like a factory that will sell and people will buy them and stick them on the wall and think that's nice background. then every so often a genius comes along who just instinctively knows what to do. the first are the true artists, and who i personally look up to. no amount of training will turn the first into the second, but training might turn the second into the first.

the further away the sound is from the feeling, the crapper it will be. the true artists describe their music making as they have a feeling, then they play the feeling out in sound form, they don't say, "well i was feeling like x so i decided that i would concentrate on the dorian scale but then switch the key up a couple of semitones to create a jarring blah blah blah". to me that's not music, its sonic masturbation.

for me technical accomplishment does not great music make. it just leaves me absolutely cold.

kidkunjer wrote:

Attila wrote: Yeah I'd love to hear him share some names haha. I doubt there's one seriously notable western musician that doesn't know what a scale is.

that's just silly now:
jimi hendrix, john lennon, kurt cobain, robert johnson (the inventor of music) and on and on.

don't assume that because an artist uses a scale its because they know what its called and have been taught it by somebody else.

lmao really? Atilla is being silly? Do you actually believe the shit you're saying or are you just spewing random shit out of your mouth to make yourself look like more of a moron?

First off, I have no idea why you called Robert Johnson the inventor of music. That doesn't make any damn sense. And second, he definitely knew his scales. As did Hendrix. As did Lennon.

kidkunjer wrote:

Attila wrote: And seriously, this shit's based on frequencies, no one's reinventing the wheel and coming up with a better system than what already exists based on basic scientific characteristics

if its based on how it sounds then you know it anyway. learning what it's called helps nothing.

Learning what it's called isn't the point. If you already know music theory it doesn't matter what you're calling it. Understanding why it works, and how it works, is what's important.

kidkunjer wrote:"well i was feeling like x so i decided that i would concentrate on the dorian scale but then switch the key up a couple of semitones to create a jarring blah blah blah". to me that's not music, its sonic masturbation.

You honestly have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

kidkunjer wrote:for me technical accomplishment does not great music make. it just leaves me absolutely cold.

1. Your dumbass syntax isn't impressing anyone.
2. Knowing music theory is a tool. It's used to help you express your feelings, to help you convey those feelings in the best/most creative way possible. No great artist will ever tell you that knowing music theory is stifling to the creative process. Because that is just silly.

Detrimental, maybe not. Is it so far-fetched to consider it changes ones perspective though? Music is after all highly subjective so some if it changes the outlook on music and thus the music itself, it also changes how people percieve it. For better or worse.

I have a lot of friends who are very trained in music theory. They're all extremely talented, but I keep seeing this pattern where they're always surpassed by people much less talented than them. It seems as though their music is too complex and experimental, they're always trying to find something that no one has ever done before. While some people enjoy this style, most - and this I present as a fact in regards to the crap that is played on radios etc (look at Nicki Minaj and her 100+ million plays on YouTube for instance) - do not care for it. I'm not saying one style is better or worse, but from what I've seen, people with less training and more ambition have far succeeded their classically trained counterpart, at least commercially. With that said though, I'm sure that a classically trained musician could probably emulate these styles and also do well commercially, as I'm sure most professional songwrites for these superstars do. The question is whether or not they would enjoy it, and if that would impact their music. For better or worse.

On professional musicians not knowing scales, maybe not the majority of them but they certainly do exist. I don't know if I could name any among the giants but I know there are a lot of musicians who are self taught. Although, just because noone pointed at it in a book doesn't mean that you don't know the scale. They'd still know the patterns etc.

Fauster wrote: lmao really? Atilla is being silly? Do you actually believe the shit you're saying or are you just spewing random shit out of your mouth to make yourself look like more of a moron?

yes, please make some more personal attacks. they really help you to be more well reasoned

Fauster wrote: First off, I have no idea why you called Robert Johnson the inventor of music. That doesn't make any damn sense. And second, he definitely knew his scales. As did Hendrix. As did Lennon.

well, of course its a matter of opinion. Johnson took blues into rock and roll for the first time, read up on him if you don't know why i said it. I'm not saying you'll agree, i'm saying you might understand my position better.

Fauster wrote: Learning what it's called isn't the point. If you already know music theory it doesn't matter what you're calling it. Understanding why it works, and how it works, is what's important.

That's exactly what i mean to say. yes i agree with that entirely. i think we actually agree but are using different language to express the same fundamental idea. what i mean to say is that there is a fundamental difference between "knowledge of" an "training in". If you confuse the two, well, you just wont be correct.

kidkunjer wrote:"well i was feeling like x so i decided that i would concentrate on the dorian scale but then switch the key up a couple of semitones to create a jarring blah blah blah". to me that's not music, its sonic masturbation.

Fauster wrote: You honestly have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

i have heard the first sentence directly out of musicians i admire's mouth. last summer i went to see a live preformance of Buffy Saint Marie, one of the greatest song writers of our time IMHO. that's exactly what she said. when discussing how she made music. In a documentary series about hendrix he too said the same thing. the subject was looked at again in his song "manic depression". I'm only repeating what i've heard.

Its all a matter of opinion. i personally don't like jazz. i find it far to technical, too unemotional. it doesn't ring my bell, maybe it does yours i don't know.

Fauster wrote: 1. Your dumbass syntax isn't impressing anyone.

i write the way i speak. if you find that annoying i really really don't care, but as you're getting personal, i would say this; you're very agressive and come off as quite bitter. I'm not sure why you're bitter, perhaps its time and money invested in something that has produced little measurable results, or perhaps its just you find the idea of dissent upsetting? that others might disagree with your opinions or hold those that threaten the foundation of your ideas. A rational person would have just ignored my idiot ideas and assumed i was just wrong or trolling. you fed the troll and invested emotionally in it, which i find curious, or at least i would find curious if it wasn't so sadly predictable and cliched which it is.

a discussion can only occur if there are some differing opinions explored, otherwise its just a big circle-jerk.

kidkunjer wrote:

Fauster wrote: 1. Your dumbass syntax isn't impressing anyone.

i write the way i speak. if you find that annoying i really really don't care, but as you're getting personal, i would say this; you're very agressive and come off as quite bitter. I'm not sure why you're bitter, perhaps its time and money invested in something that has produced little measurable results, or perhaps its just you find the idea of dissent upsetting? that others might disagree with your opinions or hold those that threaten the foundation of your ideas. A rational person would have just ignored my idiot ideas and assumed i was just wrong or trolling. you fed the troll and invested emotionally in it, which i find curious, or at least i would find curious if it wasn't so sadly predictable and cliched which it is.

a discussion can only occur if there are some differing opinions explored, otherwise its just a big circle-jerk.

snap

I'd have to say though that in some cases it might be helpful to have a certain scale to refer to when looking for a certain mood. Maybe you shouldn't treat it as absolute facts since it's all about the applications, but if you're stumped for inspiration alternative scales can definately be a good place to search for inspiration imo.

There are some people who are natively 'fluent' in music. Others are not blessed with such good ears, and then scales serve a useful purpose. Depending on how you use it I wouldn't say it's good or bad though.

kidkunjer wrote:a discussion can only occur if there are some differing opinions explored, otherwise its just a big circle-jerk.

If we can move away from accusing people with a different opinion to our own of 'trolling' that'd be lovely

kidkunjer wrote:

Fauster wrote: First off, I have no idea why you called Robert Johnson the inventor of music. That doesn't make any damn sense. And second, he definitely knew his scales. As did Hendrix. As did Lennon.

well, of course its a matter of opinion. Johnson took blues into rock and roll for the first time, read up on him if you don't know why i said it. I'm not saying you'll agree, i'm saying you might understand my position better.

But claiming Robert Johnson is the inventor of music is just plain wrong though - everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but people aren't entitled to make stuff up.

One could say that Robert Johnson was one of the most influential Blues musicians of all time - that would be an opinion... and a well supported opinion at that. One could also say that he helped pave the way for Rock n Roll - which would continue to influence people for the next 100 years. That is another opinion. One could say they like or don't like his music - again, opinions.

Calling him the inventor of music, when music has existed for centuries, if not thousands of years before.. is just factually incorrect.

Mad EP wrote:

But claiming Robert Johnson is the inventor of music is just plain wrong though - everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but people aren't entitled to make stuff up.

One could say that Robert Johnson was one of the most influential Blues musicians of all time - that would be an opinion... and a well supported opinion at that. One could also say that he helped pave the way for Rock n Roll - which would continue to influence people for the next 100 years. That is another opinion. One could say they like or don't like his music - again, opinions.

Calling him the inventor of music, when music has existed for centuries, if not thousands of years before.. is just factually incorrect.

I don't think he actually meant that Robert Johnson invented all music, and in any case that really doesn't have anything to do with his actual point.

I'll give you that it is indeed very much factually incorrect though

This thread got retarded quickly.

Stop making excuses to not learn music theory and learn the shit.

Technique and creativity are complimentary. Becoming more technical does not make you less creative. You can also train to be creative; it's not some "natural talent" that some random lucky few have, and that you can forget about.

Here's a poll tallying those who learned music theory and regretted it.
http://www.idmforums.com/showthread.php?t=81695

I understand where kidkunjer is coming from, but I think you're making your point a little to matter of fact. Not knowing your scales and what not gives you some more room to go places that someone may consider to be 'wrong'. However music theory isn't like processing a gnarly bass sound where countless hours of random experimentation is going to lead to something new and different. Chances are the stuff you come up with via experimenting could have been achieved a lot quicker had you just known what you were doing in the first place, if that makes sense?

I know fuck all concerning music theory, I've got a little chord sheet and an understanding of which key is which on the keyboard. Writing melodies, leads, hooks is all a task because I have constantly play around until I stumble upon some sequence of keys that gets the feeling in my head across. When it comes to synthesizing a sound however, I can get things down relatively quick. I'd rather have that same proficiency when it comes to music theory than 'experimenting' to come up with mediocre melodies

jonahmann wrote:This thread got retarded quickly.

Stop making excuses to not learn music theory and learn the shit.

Technique and creativity are complimentary. Becoming more technical does not make you less creative. You can also train to be creative; it's not some "natural talent" that some random lucky few have, and that you can forget about.

Here's a poll tallying those who learned music theory and regretted it.
http://www.idmforums.com/showthread.php?t=81695

Yeah, I wasn't saying that it did, I was asking what people think. But anyway, I was actually thinking of looking into theory, I've done so before, but it got really confusing and I gave up after not too long. It obviously is different for every person, but is there a rough time it takes someone to learn theory(I've never played any instruments, but I'm pretty decent on my MIDI keyboard. I can play a lot of melodies, but don't know why it works and doesn't and stuff)? And, would you be able to give me a good guide to music theory for beginners that's easy to understand, not the first Google link. Sorry, that's kinda asking for a lot.

This is the first google result. That isn't what you're looking for? That site is great for learning/practicing beginning music theory.

Fauster wrote:This is the first google result. That isn't what you're looking for? That site is great for learning/practicing beginning music theory.

Haha, I'm not too sure, anything that helps me with composing melodies really. Like, I can still get nice melodies by playing on my MIDI keyboard, but most of it is luck, like I hit random keys and eventually a combination works.

My opinion iw rhat ir is sreally really gayyyyu!!!

holy fuck so much quoting