theory: help

[Renato]

I've posted this at another forum, I didn't even know this one existed...

please check so you can read the feedback and possibly add some more. feel free to ask anything, not sure I explained myself properly.

 

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=630986#post630986

[Wayrockin1]

I'm not sure I understand the question, but if you're asking how to expand a short melodic idea, there are lots of ways!

 

As you mentioned, transposing the same idea up or down a few steps has always been popular. Another thing that happens often is 'call and response' , where the first melodic ends unresolved and then the phrase is repeated only with the resolution. One example would be the military cadence that goes, 'I don't know but I've been told...'

 

Classical composers also take the original phrase and reverse the order of notes, or flip it upside down, etc.

 

Hope this helps!

[Renato]

 

Originally posted by Wayrockin1 I'm not sure I understand the question, but if you're asking how to expand a short melodic idea, there are lots of ways! As you mentioned, transposing the same idea up or down a few steps has always been popular. Another thing that happens often is 'call and response' , where the first melodic ends unresolved and then the phrase is repeated only with the resolution. One example would be the military cadence that goes, 'I don't know but I've been told...' Classical composers also take the original phrase and reverse the order of notes, or flip it upside down, etc. Hope this helps!

 

 

I'dd still classify those tricks as those "natural" tools, that we use without much effort, as it's so widely used in music.

I had a feeling it was going to be hard to explain and I was right...

 

ok, think dream theater, or frank gambale. frank may be an extreme example of what I want but just to give more than one example: I hear to a music of them and I know I couldn't write one like that. It has a level of musical complexity, and I'm not talking about the technical part, that can't be made just by throwing chords one after another. what are the theory concepts that were used?

 

clearer? not at all? feel free to keep asking...

[Wayrockin1]

It can be hard to analyze some progressions, that's for sure. Sometimes that stuff IS just based on a concept; like, 'let's make all the chords a min 3rd apart'. That to me is pretty much what I imagine you mean by 'stringing one chord after another'. Other times they might do that for one section and then use conventional rules of harmony for the rest. The trick is make it all sound like music, not just an exercize. Sometimes those kind of experiments work out, if the players have enough skill, but sometimes they sound terrible.

 

Miles Davis and John Coltrane come to mind as two who could pull it off.

[SirGarrote]

Applied chords are a sure way to spice up your music, and thusly expand a melodic idea. Now if you dont know what applied chords are, I'm not about to try and teach you them in a post They're covered in every theory book known to man. Picking up a book like that would be a great place to start. They're pretty straight-forward for the most part, so you should be on your way in a week or 2.

 

Good luck to ya!

 

-Garrett

[WattsUrizen]

I'm sorry, and I don't really mean any offense, but this is the downright most stupid post I've ever come across. It seems to me like you are struggling to write music that you feel happy with. Asking people how to fix this is like asking them to take that big {censored} that has been headbutting your jocks for hours. They can't do it for you.

 

I'll make it simple. YOU, and only you can write your music. If you know some theory, just pick up your guitar/piano/kazoo/whatever, and write some music. The truth is, music is NOT hard to write. Yes, it is hard to write great music, but you can't just do that straight away. All the great composers go through tough times, even when they are seemingly at the height of their powers. And they all have to go through an education.

 

The reality is, you just need time to find a niche in the great expansive world of music, and use it to speak a language that is your own, that expresses what you feel, and says what you want to say.

 

The thing about theory is that is overrated. I've learnt pretty much all there is to know about music theory. But it doesn't really make composing any easier. Sure, you might have a couple of nifty tricks your sleeve when you are short of ideas. But nothing beats cold hard inspiration. All composers would kill for that great melody, not an abstract bit of theory.

 

So, my advice is: Write some music, and try to forget about theory as much as you can, it won't help you much.

[Renato]

 

Originally posted by Anomandaris I'm sorry, and I don't really mean any offense, but this is the downright most stupid post I've ever come across.

 

 

glad you didn't mean any offense. can't imagine if you would.

[WattsUrizen]

 

Originally posted by Renato glad you didn't mean any offense. can't imagine if you would.

 

 

It's funny, because seems like a reasonable question, how do I write music? But the thing is, there isn't any definite answer. All artists need to know that as their first and most fundamental lesson. It just so happens, that I've given you a baptism of fire here.

 

Good luck, and I hope that you write some music you enjoy.

[Renato]

 

Originally posted by Anomandaris It's funny, because seems like a reasonable question, how do I write music? But the thing is, there isn't any definite answer. All artists need to know that as their first and most fundamental lesson. It just so happens, that I've given you a baptism of fire here. Good luck, and I hope that you write some music you enjoy.

 

 

I didn't ask how to write my music. I asked what theory should I look for to do what I want, wich I tried to explain. And don't tell me theory isn't usefull. Maybe not indispensable, and there's music that doesn't invlove much theory that I like. But there's music you can't write without theory.

[WattsUrizen]

 

Originally posted by Renato I didn't ask how to write my music. I asked what theory should I look for to do what I want, wich I tried to explain. And don't tell me theory isn't usefull. Maybe not indispensable, and there's music that doesn't invlove much theory that I like. But there's music you can't write without theory.

 

 

It seemed to me you were asking about modulations. Writing modulations is writing music. There is no definitive way to modulate between keys. You can just jump between them if you want, or you can go through a measured buildup. You need to find your own way.

 

So if you want some guidance? Any book that explains tonality should look at modulation. But like I said, don't take any theory you read to be compositional tools. There is a very big distinction there.

 

And there is absolutely NO music you can't write without good knowledge of theory. Anybody who tells you that only people with good theoretical knowledge are good composers are liars. Good composers are those who communicate emotion well through music. And you can't learn that through theory. Only experience.

[mrtasty]

I kind of agree with both of you Rento, and Anomandaris...

 

Music theory, to me, is a tool in which I use every day in my writing, but it's almost like it's a program running in the background. I don't really say to myself "well, what comes after a IV chord?" and things like that, but there are things that you just KNOW after a while...tricks that you learn, like Anom said. But, I don't think it's useless.

 

If you're writing just for the art of writing, completely removed from what's "expected" in 20th (or 21st) century tonality, then yeah! Ditch theory, why use it? You're only conforming to the norm by continually using the same old progressions and chords...BUT - if you're writing for other people, with any sort of hopes for commercial appeal in your future, you'd better find your niche in the world of music. I think audiences only want what's safe, and a little beyond that. How far you want to push it is up to you...at any rate, you need theory to understand what the audience likes, and expects.

 

Sure you can stumble in the dark, and try chord after chord after chord after chord, finally getting that ONE song that works. Sure, you didn't use theory to write it, but it took you a year and a half to get a good hook, right? Theory just makes it faster, to me. I don't spend months or even weeks writing songs, and although I know that's just me, I attribute my knowledge of theory to my speed, and ability to come up with (what I feel) are quality hooks, melodies, and progressions...

 

I don't know if that helped at all, but I was really interested in where you two were going with that discussion...

 

- J

[WattsUrizen]

I do agree with you mrtasty. My knowledge of theory does help me. I suppose it's easy to take it for granted like you say, as it tends to run on autopilot and you use it subconciously. I suppose you could sit there trying endless chords before one clicks. But I think the chances of that are slim. If you can hear what you want to write, then it doesn't take that long to find the chord/melody/whatever. If it does, then it's probably writers block.

 

But I still hold to the view that relying on theory tends to restrict you. You can't look to theory for inspiration. You need to find it elsewhere. Just use the theory tricks to spice things up. But theory won't hide a lack of good ideas.

[Renato]

Well, I'm just surprised because I thought I was making a really objective question. Someone said that theory is suposed to be learned and then forgotten. I think that's a simpler version of what you two are saying. I agree, but I think that learning and "forgetting" is not the same as not learning.

 

Another thing that confuses me is, why do people some spend so much time learning theory? Classic music, a symphony, involves such complexity that I can't believe a composer just goes to a piano and says to the orquestra "Let's jam and see what we come up with". I mentioned modulation just as an example. I'm sure that there are other concepts as important. In a pop/rock music with vocals, if the guy sings great and comes up with a catchy chorus, the song is almost done. I'm talking about a more global view of a song, where a modulation would be used as a pontual tool, if ever. And the fact that I'm into instrumental musicgets things a bit harder. A vocal melody is usually not nearly as complex as an intrumental one.

 

Dream Theater, for example, wich I used to like better than now by the way, most people like those fast guitar and keys soloes, but there's more into it. And the proof is that they all studied music. Anyone with time to spare can achieve good technique, there's loads of information about that everywhere. But I don't want to come up with a song on paper, theory would provide tools to develop an idea I'dd have to hear in my head, that's the least for it to be musical.

 

Well, it was a nice exchange of points of view.

 

What do you discuss in this forum, by the way?

[WattsUrizen]

Originally posted by Renato I agree, but I think that learning and "forgetting" is not the same as not learning.

 

True. The point is to keep an open mind, and to try not to write with any restrictions. If your mind hovers over theory too much, you will worry too much about whether your music is 'correct' or 'technical' or whatever. You should only worry about whether it communicates emotion.

 

Another thing that confuses me is, why do people some spend so much time learning theory?

 

So they can understand music. Yes it may help you write better music. But it is totally possible to write good music without much theoretical knowledge.

 

Most of the classical musicians who learn theory mostly do so to understand the composers better, so they can give better interpretations. Not necessarily to compose themselves.

 

As to what we talk about? Just look at the threads, that should give you a fair idea