Most music theory sounds horrible

[buddastrat]

Interesting thread. Very interesting chord progression too. To sit there and analyze would be pointless. A good song is a good song. If you like it, it's good.

I never heard this song btw. Was it a hit back in the day?

I too like the writers who go outside traditional music theory. But theory are just guidelines and it's very helpful to know. It's not a law though.

Do you ever drive over the speed limit?


I thought Kurt Cobain wrote some fantastic chord progressions and melodies, they were often against the "rules". Like the Beatles, he wasn't a technician on the instrument. They were artists and had their vision. I'm not a huge Nirvana fan, but I respect any true artist like that.

I love how Eddie Van Halen would play a lot of his solos not staying in one key. Just using a symmetrical patterns and making it fit. Playing almost simultaneously in several keys. Like shoving a square peg in a round hole. Sure you could over analyze every note and disect it to the point of total bore. But why? It was not created like that at the source.

To really analyze it, is to delve into the creativity side and learn how to do that. That's something that know book can teach.

[outtahand4now]

Originally posted by stephjeff I thought Kurt Cobain wrote some fantastic chord progressions and melodies, they were often against the "rules". Like the Beatles, he wasn't a technician on the instrument. They were artists and had their vision. I'm not a huge Nirvana fan, but I respect any true artist like that. I love how Eddie Van Halen would play a lot of his solos not staying in one key. Just using a symmetrical patterns and making it fit. Playing almost simultaneously in several keys. Like shoving a square peg in a round hole. Sure you could over analyze every note and disect it to the point of total bore. But why? It was not created like that at the source. To really analyze it, is to delve into the creativity side and learn how to do that. That's something that know book can teach.

 

 

Careful now Jeff, you're gonna get wacked across the knuckles by a narrow-minded, bitter, self-absorbed ruler.

[Poparad]

Originally posted by stephjeff Interesting thread. Very interesting chord progression too. To sit there and analyze would be pointless. A good song is a good song. If you like it, it's good.

 

 

A good song is a good song if your ears tell you so. No rule or guideline will determine that for you... it's just personal taste.

 

However, there is value to analyzing things. Say you hear something you think is cool, and you want to be able to do it too. The only way you can figure it out and apply it to the music you create is to analyze it. Once you know what it is, then you can choose to use it in your music. There's nothing more to analyzing than that. Understanding what something is so you can do it too.

 

 

 

I too like the writers who go outside traditional music theory. But theory are just guidelines and it's very helpful to know. It's not a law though.

 

 

You're right. It is a guideline. It's just a tool. It's not a law.

 

The only people who seem to think it's law are the ones who are opposed to it. Those who understand it know that it is just a tool. It is merely a means to an end, and not an end in and of itself.

 

I thought Kurt Cobain wrote some fantastic chord progressions and melodies, they were often against the "rules". Like the Beatles, he wasn't a technician on the instrument. They were artists and had their vision. I'm not a huge Nirvana fan, but I respect any true artist like that.

 

 

There is a difference between undrestanding the vocabulary to music (theory) and understanding how to use it (craft). The thing that made so many of the greats great is because they understood the craft.

 

Theory will just allow you to have more options available to you when making music. You must still learn the craft of composing or improvising or whatever it is you are doing. Theory will just give you more sounds to choose from when writting. It doesn't dictate what you will write.

 

I love how Eddie Van Halen would play a lot of his solos not staying in one key. Just using a symmetrical patterns and making it fit. Playing almost simultaneously in several keys. Like shoving a square peg in a round hole. Sure you could over analyze every note and disect it to the point of total bore. But why? It was not created like that at the source. To really analyze it, is to delve into the creativity side and learn how to do that. That's something that know book can teach.

 

 

I think that's taking Van Halen's music to a bit of an extreme. He used the same scales and notes and chords as just about everyone around him. It's how he used them that made it unique.

 

If you want to know what specific sounds he used, then it is good to figure them out and learn them. What you do with them and what he did with them are more determined bu individual taste, creativity, and approach.

 

There is benefit in understanding the theory behind what someone is doing musically. But to those that do understand theory, they know that it isn't everything. Once again, it is often those who don't understand or don't want to learn it, that think that to do so is to ignore all other aspects of music. Any good musician will take all aspects of music into consideration when composing. Not just the harmonic or melodic theory behind it.

 

Knowledge merely expands your options and possibilities. Knowing more has never boxed anyone into sounding a certain way. On the contrary, it merely allows you to explore more possibilities than would otherwise be available to you. I can't imagine anyone who would be opposed to that.

[eclipse0]

I'm not sure who said it first but...theory has little to do with making good music (although it can certainly help), it's more about communicating it to other musicians.

Can you imagine Miles Davis (or EVH or David Gilmour or Shawn Lane, whoever) sitting down with his band and saying, "Well, uh, it kinda goes like 'doo doo doo...'"?

[buddastrat]

Originally posted by Poparad A good song is a good song if your ears tell you so. No rule or guideline will determine that for you... it's just personal taste. However, there is value to analyzing things. Say you hear something you think is cool, and you want to be able to do it too. The only way you can figure it out and apply it to the music you create is to analyze it. Once you know what it is, then you can choose to use it in your music. There's nothing more to analyzing than that. Understanding what something is so you can do it too. You're right. It is a guideline. It's just a tool. It's not a law. The only people who seem to think it's law are the ones who are opposed to it. Those who understand it know that it is just a tool. It is merely a means to an end, and not an end in and of itself. There is a difference between undrestanding the vocabulary to music (theory) and understanding how to use it (craft). The thing that made so many of the greats great is because they understood the craft. Theory will just allow you to have more options available to you when making music. You must still learn the craft of composing or improvising or whatever it is you are doing. Theory will just give you more sounds to choose from when writting. It doesn't dictate what you will write. I think that's taking Van Halen's music to a bit of an extreme. He used the same scales and notes and chords as just about everyone around him. It's how he used them that made it unique. If you want to know what specific sounds he used, then it is good to figure them out and learn them. What you do with them and what he did with them are more determined bu individual taste, creativity, and approach. There is benefit in understanding the theory behind what someone is doing musically. But to those that do understand theory, they know that it isn't everything. Once again, it is often those who don't understand or don't want to learn it, that think that to do so is to ignore all other aspects of music. Any good musician will take all aspects of music into consideration when composing. Not just the harmonic or melodic theory behind it. Knowledge merely expands your options and possibilities. Knowing more has never boxed anyone into sounding a certain way. On the contrary, it merely allows you to explore more possibilities than would otherwise be available to you. I can't imagine anyone who would be opposed to that.

 

 

 

Oh sure I believe in all that. Remember the Steve Morse ad in Guitar Player that said, "you have to learn the rules before you can break them" ? There ya go.

 

But the EVH thing, is very true as well. He bent so many things to fit and came up with some ingenious sounding licks back in the day. Sure he did a lot of box scales but some of his patterns and shapes went way outside and he made them sound inside.

 

He's a shape player. He'd take a finger pattern, and mold that into music. Lots of metal guys do it nowadays. Look at the beginning of Hot For Teacher by VH. You think he was thinking Am-DM-Dm-GM-Gm-CM etc...

 

I guess there could be a II-V going on from the Mixolydian perspective, but you think he was thinking about that?!! ha. Should I be thinking that? No way. It takes the fun right out of it.

 

He found a cool lick and he just kept moving it up, cuz it sounded cool. It ain't rocket science! That's why I love it. And you can come up with some very cool sounding stuff that way.

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by stephjeff But the EVH thing, is very true as well. He bent so many things to fit and came up with some ingenious sounding licks back in the day. Sure he did a lot of box scales but some of his patterns and shapes went way outside and he made them sound inside. Hence the intangible aspect of Eddie's playing: his uncanny ability to play all the wrong notes and somehow make them sound right. His phrasing is nothing short of astonishing in that regard. He's a shape player. He'd take a finger pattern, and mold that into music. Which is why, when studying/analyzing Eddie's more 'off the cuff' playing, you have to take an instrument-specific approach. Those notes would look absolutely bizarre to someone playing a flute or a cello, for example, and would be VERY difficult to play. In terms of harmonic analysis, you'd have to wonder 'what the hell is this guy thinking? He's either a complete genius or a deranged idiot!' Or maybe a little of both. He found a cool lick and he just kept moving it up, cuz it sounded cool. It ain't rocket science! That's why I love it. And you can come up with some very cool sounding stuff that way.

Yes...he stumbled across something (or 'found' it, if you prefer). That's an expected result from experimentation. ONE of the uses of theory is to be able to deconstruct what he did and figure out why it worked...or why it didn't.

Theory tells you what something IS. It defines...it predicts...but it does not dictate. The closest it gets to 'rules' involves concepts like voiceleading and species counterpoint exercises, but even then there are always many possible solutions to a musical problem. Adopting certain principles into your natural musical thought processes is an INCREDIBLE help, especially when composing and arranging. There are many genres and forms where 'winging it' just won't cut it, no matter HOW 'gifted' a musician may be. And even if a musician doesn't delve into those types of things, added knowledge is NEVER a detriment.

A comprehensive study of the many aspects of theory involves a great deal of listening...although I suspect that there are many students who overlook that part, and as such they fail to integrate that sonic vocabulary into their own. They then assume that theory is useless, or at least not particularly valuable, and that is a false conclusion based on the fact that they haven't yet assimilated what it is they're trying to learn, and very often they give up learning as a result. Theory then becomes villified...user error is never considered.

[buddastrat]

Well. um..like I said, Eddie was able to take a square peg and fit it any hole. Which is why love the old EVH, when the passion and fire was there.


But I don't know about instrument specific, at least the intangible aspect of creativity (not finger shapes on the guitar). I remember the story about EVH taking music in college and the instructor said his composition on the piano was "all wrong yet somehow worked". That's from a few of his interviews where he tells that story.

[tlester]

Originally posted by outtahand4now I absolutely agree with you, Black Cobra....sorta. I mean Mozart didn't sit down to compose and say, "lets see, I think I'll start with an elision and establish a retrogression to a secondary dominant, maybe a French Augmented 6th, as a pivot chord into a tonal cell, pivoting back on a neoplitan chord to the vi to establish a deceptive cadence." He just heard it. We analyzed it. Use your ear. Only a "mindless talentless hack" writes music from a text book.

 

 

You are wrong... Motzart did sit down and think like that. There were very established "rules of theory" back in those days that were to be adheard to. Things like not having parallel 5th's and 8va's, contrary motion, secondary dominanents, etc. Certain modes were frowned upon (they caused immorality).

 

Motzart and his peers of those days gave great thought to theory when they wrote music.

 

-Tom

[outtahand4now]

Originally posted by tlester You are wrong... Motzart did sit down and think like that. There were very established "rules of theory" back in those days that were to be adheard to. Things like not having parallel 5th's and 8va's, contrary motion, secondary dominanents, etc. Certain modes were frowned upon (they caused immorality). -Tom

 

 

With all do respect Tom, did you read what you just wrote?

 

If you really believe that Mozart, or anyone else for that matter, composes music by recalling musical figures from a glossary of terms, you should seriously consider quitting music and taking up accounting.

 

I can't wait to finish the piece that I'm working on right now, because I'm already developing the next one in my head. I can give analysis of what I hear, but that plays no part in the inspiration that leads to a musical idea. Nor does it come into play anywhere during the development process. The names of musical figures (theory), only enter the process when it becomes necessary to communicate about the piece.

 

You can be a Music Theory genius, and not be a musician at all. However, you CAN be a good musician with little or no theory background. Just because you don't know the proper name of a musical figure, doesn't mean that you don't understand its proper function musically (jesus, I'm getting tired of making that point). Can theory be helpful? Yes, it's helpful in communicating with other musicians.

 

The rules in Mozart's day played into the composition process about as much as they do today

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by stephjeff But I don't know about instrument specific, at least the intangible aspect of creativity (not finger shapes on the guitar). I remember the story about EVH taking music in college and the instructor said his composition on the piano was "all wrong yet somehow worked". That's from a few of his interviews where he tells that story.

 

 

I think that's the point Auggie was talking about...an instrument can be conducive to certain approaches because they generally aren't symmetrical with regard to "what comes next" if that makes sense. Each instrument can impart a "sensibility" which may not be the saame sensibility for other instruments.

This is a lot more common in non -"Western" musics where the instruments may not even be constructed to a tuning at all, but "Western" music has this as well (though, I think there is a certain amount of an attempt to make the music somewhat instrument general) we can see this through the development of temperament, the development of chromatic instruments from diatonic instruments (valved horns, double horns, pedal harps, etc)

 

The instrument and the technique can feed back to one another..the instrument can alter the technique and the technique can lead to alterations in the instrument..and back again

 

It's a synergistic relationship...which is I suppose why we call them instruments

[Poparad]

Originally posted by outtahand4now You can be a Music Theory genius, and not be a musician at all. However, you CAN be a good musician with little or no theory background.

 

 

But, just as assuredly, you can be a theory genius and be a good musician, and you can be a bad musician and not know any theory. There isn't a correllation.

 

Motzart certainly knew what he was doing, and used theory as a tool to make good sounding music, and make it quickly without a lot of guesswork (although there were still plenty of aesthetic rewrites).

 

You're implying that if music theory is used when composing, it becomes rule or a law that cannot be broken, and results in bad music. Anyone who truly understands theory and how to use it, knows that it is nothing more than a tool that allows you to have various sounds and options readily available to you as you compose. It is absolutely possible to write good music, while knowing what you are doing, and using some guidelines as a reference in order to improve the music, and not hinder it.

[outtahand4now]

Originally posted by outtahand4now Just because you don't know the proper name of a musical figure, doesn't mean that you don't understand its proper function musically (jesus, I'm getting tired of making that point).

 

 

Just because you don't know the proper name of a musical figure, doesn't mean that you don't understand its proper function musically (jesus, I'm getting tired of making that point).

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by outtahand4now


The names of musical figures (theory), only enter the process when it becomes necessary to communicate about the piece.


I think it's important to note that nomenclature doesn't really contain the underlying priciples of a theroy.
If anyone's read "Surely you must be joking Mr Feynman" they might remember the little anecdote where, as a child" Richard was talking with aa childhood associate who could give the name of a particular bird in 3 or 4 languages...to which Feynman replied to the effect "but you don't know what it eats, how it behaves, etc"
I think that anecdote is an apt example that speaks to the concept


However, you CAN be a good musician with little or no theory background. Just because you don't know the proper name of a musical figure, doesn't mean that you don't understand its proper function musically (jesus, I'm getting tired of making that point).


That's the heart of the matter there - the nomenclature isn't the theory. It's merely a lexicon

I assert that the individual musician internalizes a theory (remember, there are >1 music theories in the world)..."this goes with that in a very smooth way", "ooh, this makes a sad sound"
Now, often one will find that, an informal theory that we have internalized may have been formalized at some point "Oh, that sound is such and such a scale"...why would this happen?

Well, we don't really groww up in a vacuum...we aurally pick up a lot...the number of tones in our musical system, cultural tonal centers, meters and rhtymic sense, there is even evidence absolute pitch discretion ("perfect pitch") is influenced by culture-specific aural/verbal exposure in formative years
we actually get theory training just by listening within our culture and this theory training affects our actual musical perception!

[mukuzi]

Originally posted by black cobra Have you ever thought about this? Arpeggios sound awful and boring. Secondary dominants sound so bad. The jazz circle of fifths does not a good song make, jazz or otherwise. Diminished 7th chords and scales are pretty much useless for music and the same goes for whole tone scales. I could go on and on. The only things that have proved useful are the chords and modes of the major scale, and the minor pentatonic scale. Everything else that the Beatles, Bowie, Kinks and the Who have developed they have discovered on their own. You cannot find it in a theory book. And fellows, they are not sharing their secrets and neither am I. I am not a troll, just a music lover who is now standing on his own two feet.

[Little Dreamer]

All I know is that learning the little bit of theory that I know has improved my playing tremendously, and made practicing about 100 times more interesting. If other people don't want to take advantage of learning, hey, why should anybody else care?

[buddastrat]

Originally posted by MorePaul I think that's the point Auggie was talking about...an instrument can be conducive to certain approaches because they generally aren't symmetrical with regard to "what comes next" if that makes sense. Each instrument can impart a "sensibility" which may not be the saame sensibility for other instruments. This is a lot more common in non -"Western" musics where the instruments may not even be constructed to a tuning at all, but "Western" music has this as well (though, I think there is a certain amount of an attempt to make the music somewhat instrument general) we can see this through the development of temperament, the development of chromatic instruments from diatonic instruments (valved horns, double horns, pedal harps, etc) The instrument and the technique can feed back to one another..the instrument can alter the technique and the technique can lead to alterations in the instrument..and back again It's a synergistic relationship...which is I suppose why we call them instruments

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but who's arguing this?!@!! OF COURSE it's instrument specific for certain lines for many players. That's pretty much for everyone, I was beyond that in my first post. Lots of really good players has his bag and it's that feedback of their style with the particular instrument and it's "shapes". Some build all their chops around specific licks that are particular to the instrument. It's been known for years.

 

Try to understand what I'M saying.

 

The EVH fitting the square peg thing goes further though, if you could TRY and understand this, it transcends the particular instrument.

 

The piano thing was to say that his playing style is very similar to the guitar stuff he did/does. If you've ever listened to some of his piano/keyboard stuff, he plays much the same way. Even the same type of licks, could just as well be on the guitar.

 

He wrote Unchained on piano. The chord progression is not in one key at all. In fact a lot of his stuff is very symetrical whether it's keyboard, guitar or whatever. He says in one interview, if he played cello, it'd still sound like him. I believe it. I've been pretty lucky to hear some EVH keyboard stuff and it's very similar to his guitar style. While every instrument is conducive to certain runs or particulars, some people just truly use it as an "instrument"

 

So there ya go.

[bobthemerciful]

Hmm. Arpeggios are boring. So House of the rising sun is crap then? Don't Fear the Reaper is Crap? Jesu joy of mans desiring by JS Bach is crap?
Hmmmmm...................

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by stephjeff I'm sorry but who's arguing this?!@!! OF COURSE it's instrument specific for certain lines for many players. That's pretty much for everyone, I was beyond that in my first post. Lots of really good players has his bag and it's that feedback of their style with the particular instrument and it's "shapes". Some build all their chops around specific licks that are particular to the instrument. It's been known for years. Try to understand what I'M saying. The EVH fitting the square peg thing goes further though, if you could TRY and understand this, it transcends the particular instrument. The piano thing was to say that his playing style is very similar to the guitar stuff he did/does. If you've ever listened to some of his piano/keyboard stuff, he plays much the same way. Even the same type of licks, could just as well be on the guitar. He wrote Unchained on piano. The chord progression is not in one key at all. In fact a lot of his stuff is very symetrical whether it's keyboard, guitar or whatever. He says in one interview, if he played cello, it'd still sound like him. I believe it. I've been pretty lucky to hear some EVH keyboard stuff and it's very similar to his guitar style. While every instrument is conducive to certain runs or particulars, some people just truly use it as an "instrument" So there ya go.

 

 

wowwee, didn't mean to touch a nerve there Elvis. Nobody is arguing this we are simply discussing.

 

 

It's the

But I don't know about instrument specific, at least the intangible aspect of creativity (not finger shapes on the guitar).

thing that I was addressing. I was forwarding the concept that the 2 are interrelated as opposed to separate. The piano thing is an extension to that...moving from one instrument to another, a player will often bring the sensibilities one one instrument TO the second instrument - that affects the creative process and can be conducive to a player putting "round pegs in square holes" as they come from a different perspective partially generated by a different instrument.

[black cobra]

I'm not sure if anyone understands my post. I believe in learning music theory; I have over a hundred guitar books at home, from Troy Stetina to Ted Greene.

It's just that I've finally realized that most of what I've been reading is useless. For example, practicing arpeggios that go all the way up the fingerboard.

Most of what I've found practical and pleasant sounding on the guitar, inasmuch as nondiatonic music is concerned, has not been found in theory books.

For example, take this chord progression: A to Bbm, to D. Can anyone tell me why this sounds good even though it shouldn't? Even though it's "wrong"?

Hint: it's not in any of your classes or books.

[edeltorus]

Originally posted by black cobra For example, take this chord progression: A to Bbm, to D. Can anyone tell me why this sounds good even though it shouldn't? Even though it's "wrong"? Hint: it's not in any of your classes or books.

 

 

Just a guess.. I'm not an expert...

 

A is I

 

Bbm is the parallel minor chord of a I -> III movement (there was a special word for these movements.. same as for i->biii movements). Adding a 6th gives it a subdominant character. Leave out the root and you'll get a minor chord on the b2.

 

D is in key again.

[Little Dreamer]

Theory is just a bunch of stuff that musicians have come up with over the centuries that they thought was pleasing to the ear. Learning it tends to be very helpful to people who want to play music. It's not like there's a ruling body issuing declarations as far as what can and cannot be played. It's not like they are running for re-election and asking for your vote, and therefore need to convince you that anything sounds good or doesn't sound good. Obviously, since musicians came up with this stuff, you may like or dislike various parts of it. And equally as obviously, not everything that sounds good has been written down in a book somewhere.

[black cobra]

Originally posted by edeltorus Just a guess.. I'm not an expert... A is I Bbm is the parallel minor chord of a I -> III movement (there was a special word for these movements.. same as for i->biii movements). Adding a 6th gives it a subdominant character. Leave out the root and you'll get a minor chord on the b2. D is in key again.

 

 

I understand your guess, but the answer is much simpler than that. Fortunately, the real breakthroughs have been easy to understand yet very solid.

 

However, I have studied hard and don't want to give my answers away. What sorcerer wants to give out his spells and formulas?

 

Let me propose another wonderful chord progression: Am, Cm, G, F.

[black cobra]

Originally posted by Little Dreamer Obviously, since musicians came up with this stuff, you may like or dislike various parts of it.

 

 

What my thread is about is the lack of critical thinking regarding the common theories in the books. For example, most on this forum will read about the dim 7th chord used in passing without considering if it sounds good or not.

[Poparad]

Originally posted by black cobra What my thread is about is the lack of critical thinking regarding the common theories in the books. For example, most on this forum will read about the dim 7th chord used in passing without considering if it sounds good or not.

 

 

That's really the fault of the student and not the book or music theory in general.

 

Whenever I read anything about theory, whether it be chord types, scales, chord voicings, progressions, etc, I always try it out and see how it sounds.

 

If I can't get it to work right away and sound good, I'll toy with it until I can.

[Poparad]

Originally posted by black cobra I understand your guess, but the answer is much simpler than that. Fortunately, the real breakthroughs have been easy to understand yet very solid. However, I have studied hard and don't want to give my answers away. What sorcerer wants to give out his spells and formulas? Let me propose another wonderful chord progression: Am, Cm, G, F.

 

 

Here's a simple answer: It's not really diatonic so there isn't much point in doing a roman numeral analysis. I would just tread it as a minor chord sound, and then a major chord sound. The first two chords are the beginning of "Recordame." I just play in A dorian for the first four bars, and then it modulates up a minor 3rd and I play in C dorian for 4 bars.

 

I'm not saying roman numeral anaylis isn't benificial, because it is; but to diatonic music. It helps you see right away how a progression is functioning, so you can quickly understand it and use it in your own music.

 

In this case, I would just see it as a minor chord that is moved to a new root, then down to a major chord that is then moved to a new root. It could have very well been Am Gm F# E using the same principals.