Members sinew1958 Posted February 8, 2007 Members Share Posted February 8, 2007 Are there persons who has a breeding in music,and is it necessary to make music,especially to make elektronic music? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pogo97 Posted February 8, 2007 Members Share Posted February 8, 2007 I have a Bachelor, Masters and part of a Ph.D. in music--music theory and ethnomusicology, not performance. And no, none of it is necessary for electronic (or any) music (unless you mean the 'classical' academic version of electronic music which seems to be made nowhere else but academia). What's necessary is ears to hear, eyes to read, a brain to think, and time time time to learn and practise. At some points a teacher might come in handy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bruto Posted February 8, 2007 Members Share Posted February 8, 2007 You can understand and create music with or without formalized training. Still, it helps to have a basic knowledge of music and the best way to get that is through music theory classes. You'd be supprised at how many seemingly self tought musicians have had at least some formal music training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sleepin' Deeper Posted February 8, 2007 Members Share Posted February 8, 2007 Theory schmeary...you can learn that as you go! It's do, do, do, practice, practice, practice....just ask muh man Jimi Hendrix!! If you want the low-down on scales, chords and whatnot, the internet is full of free info. BOU! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members axe2 2001 Posted February 8, 2007 Members Share Posted February 8, 2007 I can't read a note but I was writing songs when I was 10 years old. Sure they were about the cookie monster or some {censored} but I was playing songs I wrote on guitar and singing my own lyrics. No i'm not some prodigy, just a guy with a day job that loves music. Over 43 years of life I believe I do have all kinds of music theory. It's just not somthing I could write down and explain to someone else. Over the years I have considered looking into training but I chose to put my efforts into other areas. Writing, production and recording, all which take up alot of time. It's all about conveying emotion. That can be done as simply as a 3 chord blues song or a full symphony orchestra piece. But I believe all musicians have theory, it's a question of weather or not you can write down or explain what you know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sinew1958 Posted February 8, 2007 Author Members Share Posted February 8, 2007 What i find out,i hear a lot of the same programme on synth's.The grandeur is just the same.Why?No knowledge of chords,scales,no basic notations,no knowledge of rhythm,beat and groove? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Yoozer Posted February 8, 2007 Members Share Posted February 8, 2007 Are there persons who has a breeding in music I tend to keep fornication and synthesizing strictly separated. For one thing, most electronics can't stand any other juices than those coming out of the wall socket. and is it necessary to make music Eventually that all boils down to the ugly and tired question of "Is it art?", preceded by "Is it music?". especially to make elektronic music? What do you mean with "especially"? A guitar can be just as forgiving, and a piano, too - just hit the black notes and you'll avoid dissonance. If you approach any instrument without any prejudice (which is impossible since you'll probably hear music from the moment you're born - no way to avoid that) the results you can achieve can be vastly different from those compared to someone who already knows the rules. You'll be less inclined to play something you'd think to be "wrong" (atonal, dissonant, off-key, off-beat, etc.) because there's no fixed concept that defines wrong and right. This can lead to interesting results. It can also lead to major frustration because once you've heard the music and you can't reproduce it, any failed attempt is going to be well, annoying. Just ask anyone who's wanted to do Giant Steps . What electronic music (or more correctly, electronic gear) allows you to do is to is that you do not have to be bound to a certain instrument with a typical sonic range. Furthermore, electronic music as we know it is still relatively young and while most genres/boxes have a strict set of rules there's territory enough to explore - and you can get away with doing so. Do you need musical skill for musique concrete? No, just the inventiveness to get going with tape, record natural sounds, treat 'm and put these in a composition. Certainly, for composition there are rules - but why stick to them if what you're creating is entirely new? I tend to use the following axiomas: - to break the rules you've got to know 'm first - if it sounds good, it is good The first avoids the frustration because by learning you can innovate. You don't spend time on reinventing the (square) wheel. Nobody's going to sit behind a computer and mash on random keys - you have a goal, a target, and to achieve that, you must know how to program. Then you can go cause BSODs and segfaults. The second dismisses every pretension towards "but it's ART, you're just too much of a barbarian to appreciate it! (which can often be a ruse to confuse avant garde with sheer randomness and lazyness)". {censored} in a blender may be art too (deux objets trouvees), but that doesn't mean I'm obliged feel joyful to look at it. The same thing that made electronic music so accessible - the planned obsolescence and the synthesizer arms race that devalued last year's models, as well as the software that does not even require you to have more than a modestly powerful computer and a set of headphones - is also one of its problems. A band requires social skills and musical skills - the guy who plays the bass generally does so because he's doing a better job of it than the guitarist or the vocalist. You have a producer who's keeping the whole together and an engineer behind the mixing desk - everyone has their specialized job. If you don't need anyone around to do those jobs, you'll have to take those duties on yourself - and this is usually with mixed results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members electrobaby Posted February 8, 2007 Members Share Posted February 8, 2007 for electronic music, whatever the defintion is, I guess you may not need so much theory as the actual structure of most electronic music (as well as rock) is fairly simple. But it is neccessary to know some theory to play say jazz or something....I mean if your looking at a lead sheet and the chord changes say Db-9 to Eb7-9...well in order to make those chords then you have to understand basic chord construction. And no a Db is not the same as a Db-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khazul Posted February 8, 2007 Members Share Posted February 8, 2007 Hmmm... Music training helps alot - think of it as a form of communication. If you have a really crappy knowlege of a language and your trying to speak in that language, getting what you want to say out is going to be very hard work and half of it will be missing... If you speak fluently, then you dont get distracted by translations and the mechanics of a language, you just speak it without thinking. Thats the advantage of training in music - simple less distraction and thinking in the way of getting your ideas out of your head and into a form that be be shared. You may say you can get melodies out no trouble - OK - no go find a 'cool' basline that fits instantly, or chord prgression that will just fit - easy if you know music theory behind it as applicable to the musical style, and so what works, what doesnt etc in the context - otherwise upir probably going to end up spending alot fo time in trial and error, by which time you forget the rest of the associated ideas... I have found that alot of the more deeply musically educated people I know seem to be less inclined to be creative with it - tend to be very good at playing whats allready been created by someone else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Teoman Posted February 8, 2007 Members Share Posted February 8, 2007 I think a 4 year conservatory education is not really needed, but at least a one-year light music theory study is a big advantage. There are lots of good sources on the web as well as the printed documents. ''How music really works'' is a book that changed my view a lot. Also, at least some degree of instrumentalist capability helps a lot. Even entry level classical piano education books like Czerny 100/30 and some Hannon work keeps one in a musical discipline. I always find especially ''electronic music'' as a multidisciplinary work. Being a composer, arranger, instrumentalist, synth programmer, mixing/mastering engineer at the same time is a big advantage for electronic music making. I'm not perfect at any of those disciplines, but am trying to sinergistically combine enough level of each component to reach my personal goals. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members skuller Posted February 8, 2007 Members Share Posted February 8, 2007 I've heard some people state that their unorthodox (or, un-trained) ways of learning to play have inspired their creativity. While they struggle to adjust to progressions that are called, or even written, the music they write on their own shines because of that unorthodox upbringing. I'm classically trained, and improvise well, especially with others who are trained, but I enjoy writing parts to pieces that unorthodox methods have brought around. One thing I find funny, is that Dave Mustaine from Megadeth never took any lessons, or tried to learn any theory, until much later in his (albeit diminishing) career. His music (as well as thousands of other musicians music) has many happenings that can be explained by theory, and his teacher showed him why his songs sounded the way they did. Why a minor third sounds darker than a major third, or why voicing them in reverse makes it sound 'that' way. A light clicked on for him when it was explained. Anyway, if you play at all, you probably know more than you think. You just don't know it. heh. # Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OPEN OCEAN Posted February 8, 2007 Members Share Posted February 8, 2007 no education really all i know is after many many hours of trial and error and reading...btw at least in composition either you have it or not...maybe education can polish your ideas though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MuzikB Posted February 8, 2007 Members Share Posted February 8, 2007 A little formal training here but I have lots of books. Even the music business degree I'm after requires some music theory training. The more you know always helps but I don't think it's as needed today with the technology at hand and a good deal of creativity. There are several avenues one can take to express themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members T-Bot Posted February 9, 2007 Members Share Posted February 9, 2007 If you approach any instrument without any prejudice (which is impossible since you'll probably hear music from the moment you're born - no way to avoid that) the results you can achieve can be vastly different from those compared to someone who already knows the rules. You'll be less inclined to play something you'd think to be "wrong" (atonal, dissonant, off-key, off-beat, etc.) because there's no fixed concept that defines wrong and right. This can lead to interesting results. I've done a masters in composition and I have to chime in and say I completely disagree (I am aware that you elaborated, but I'll just add my two cents anyway ). While I agree that people with no musical training my find some interesting sounds, people with musical training (atleast proper musical training) will approach atonality, dissonants, etc, etc with the same lack of prejudice. Music theory is unique in that it builds up to a certian point then suddenly backpedals rapidly and actually ends up at a point far, far behind where you originally started learning. From my experience, the biggest difference between those musically trained, and not trained people is not prejudice, its intent and purpose. A musically trained person will be able to explain why those sounds are interesting, how intentions lead to the creation of those sounds and what the purpose of those sounds are in the music. A person with no training couldn't answer any of those with anything more than "because it sounds cool". I think the biggest thing that comes from such a degree as composition isn't theory, its perspective and real creative thinking. Its also something that can't be accurately described to people who haven't done a similar degree because they either think they have broad tastes in music, think they are creative thinkers, or are just plain locked into their own ways that its like talking to a brickwall. They really aren't creative or broad listens compared to what they really could be, I was one of those people before I completed my degree. The "original" and "creative" ideas that I had before I studied fast became boring, mundane and lifeless. We aren't talking about little suggestions either, we are talking about being submersed at such a depth that the idea of "orthodox" and "unorthodox" approaches, methods, styles, genres, etc is absolutely laughable. The only word of advice I have for people planning to study is to find a institution that is going to help you find where you are going with music, not an institution aimed at creating replica's of lecturers and other composers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ElectricPuppy Posted February 9, 2007 Members Share Posted February 9, 2007 A musically trained person will be able to explain why those sounds are interesting, how intentions lead to the creation of those sounds and what the purpose of those sounds are in the music. A person with no training couldn't answer any of those with anything more than "because it sounds cool". Reading this I instant got the impression of "trained musicians can create music that only trained musicians can appreciate." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members T-Bot Posted February 9, 2007 Members Share Posted February 9, 2007 Reading this I instant got the impression of "trained musicians can create music that only trained musicians can appreciate." Thats because you fit into the group of people that I mentioned in my previous post to who its not worth trying to explain because you are so fixed in your ways or narrow-minded. You have an awfully introverted view of what a musical education can do... the majority of people who I studied with left the degree writing much much simplier music than when they arrived because they learnt how to better apply the simple aspects of music that many people overlook, like dynamics for example. How, or why do you equate intent or purpose behind the composition of a piece of music, with the final piece of music being in anyway academically geared? Or better yet, why would you think that a piece of music that I create in my head then pen straight to paper will appeal only to trained musicians? Its like you are implying that there are only two levels of musicians, the musically ignorant and the musicially elitist. It is nothing like that. If you want to keep equating the process with the final piece of music you should do some reseach because the vast majority of todays music is drenched in the processes and methods established by the academia you seem to want to avoid... including electronic music as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mwalthius Posted February 9, 2007 Members Share Posted February 9, 2007 I can't imagine that learning more about something that interests you could ever be a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mwalthius Posted February 9, 2007 Members Share Posted February 9, 2007 Its also something that can't be accurately described to people who haven't done a similar degree because they either think they have broad tastes in music, think they are creative thinkers, or are just plain locked into their own ways that its like talking to a brickwall. They really aren't creative or broad listens compared to what they really could be, I was one of those people before I completed my degree. I studied classical piano, theory, and composition formally for 15 years. With all due respect, thank you for reminding me why I left music school, and why I am glad I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mwalthius Posted February 9, 2007 Members Share Posted February 9, 2007 Thats because you fit into the group of people that I mentioned in my previous post to who its not worth trying to explain because you are so fixed in your ways or narrow-minded. Wow. That's intense. I don't know ElectricPuppy, nor do I imagine that you do, but golly, I sure do hope you enjoy splendid success with your master's degree. Sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ElectricPuppy Posted February 9, 2007 Members Share Posted February 9, 2007 It's fascinating that you can know so much about my level of musical education and willingness to learn from just one sentence. I was merely pointing out that your statement was elitist. As to dividing everyone into 2 levels, you did that yourself: "those who can explain it, and those that just think it sounds cool". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mildbill Posted February 9, 2007 Members Share Posted February 9, 2007 Practice and experimentation are important, but training will allow you to know what to practice, and what's available to experiment with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bruto Posted February 9, 2007 Members Share Posted February 9, 2007 The Beatles wrote brilliantly without formal training, but that's not to say that they didn't study music. Lennon and McCartney listened quite carefully and studied chord progressions, changes, timing, and song structure - from playing American rock and roll which they avidly loved. There were other influences as well, and there's no denying that they were born with tremendous talent, but they applied what they learned through experience as performers to their songwriting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members T-Bot Posted February 9, 2007 Members Share Posted February 9, 2007 It's fascinating that you can know so much about my level of musical education and willingness to learn from just one sentence. I was merely pointing out that your statement was elitist. As to dividing everyone into 2 levels, you did that yourself: "those who can explain it, and those that just think it sounds cool". No, I divided the example already given into people who right with intend and purpose and people who don't. I wasn't the one that implied it had any relevance at all on the listener, because it doesn't. The only alternative to music written with intent or purpose is music written just for the sake of being written... thats like bouncing a ball against the wall day in, day out... it quickly grows old, repetitive, monotonous and boring... It doesn't even fit in with music as an artform and a method of self expression. The words used to describe that would be much more derogatory than "elitist". I always knew I'd cop some flak for my original post because people are going to fight to the death to reinforce the false security they get by reassuring themselves that ignoring music education will somehow make them an exception or less bound to the rules, creatively speaking. What they don't realise is that the rules have been a shattered mess on the floor for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members T-Bot Posted February 9, 2007 Members Share Posted February 9, 2007 Practice and experimentation are important, but training will allow you to know what to practice, and what's available to experiment with. I like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members T-Bot Posted February 10, 2007 Members Share Posted February 10, 2007 I have a Bachelor, Masters and part of a Ph.D. in music--music theory and ethnomusicology, not performance. And no, none of it is necessary for electronic (or any) music (unless you mean the 'classical' academic version of electronic music which seems to be made nowhere else but academia). What's necessary is ears to hear, eyes to read, a brain to think, and time time time to learn and practise. At some points a teacher might come in handy. The "classical" academic version of electronic music and "other" electronic music are one and the same. The same ideas, the same methods, the processes, the same approaches. Studying "classical" electronic music outlines the progression of electronic music through time to the point its at today... the "other" electronic music. Gaining a broader perspective can't be a bad thing For example, tape splicing... originally a method created in electronic music composition. As well as a teacher, I'd recommend collaborating or jamming with out people. In a group, ideas can be generated that you'd previously never think of when working by yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.