If Mikael knew music theory
- Thread starter Fields Of Sorrow
- Start date
The Porcelain Eater
Member
To start off, I think Mike knows more about music theory than some people think.
Music theory is often talked about as being obscure wizardry. Yet, it is nothing more than a result of people trying to find out what sounds good and writing it down. And they've been doing that for some 1200 years or so.
So of course, you could try to accomplish 1200 years of work done by millions of people yourself. But that would be like trying to invent math yourself. Granted, you might discover how some things work, but it's just easier to use the knowledge those millions of people have written down just for you.
Plus, it will most definitely be better too.
I see a lot of people talking about how music theory "limits your creativity".
Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc. all posessed an incredible amount of theoretical knowledge. 'Nuff said.
Music theory is often talked about as being obscure wizardry. Yet, it is nothing more than a result of people trying to find out what sounds good and writing it down. And they've been doing that for some 1200 years or so.
So of course, you could try to accomplish 1200 years of work done by millions of people yourself. But that would be like trying to invent math yourself. Granted, you might discover how some things work, but it's just easier to use the knowledge those millions of people have written down just for you.
Plus, it will most definitely be better too.
I see a lot of people talking about how music theory "limits your creativity".
Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc. all posessed an incredible amount of theoretical knowledge. 'Nuff said.
Bollehamster
meh
That would suck. Yes.
If I want harmonics, I'll listen to Hammerfall or almost any other metal band for that sake.
Chinese Whispers
Member
- Jan 6, 2009
- 570
- 0
- 16
They at least coupled that theoretical knowledge with some feel especially Beethoven - maybe not Bach, he was a lot more mathematical for my taste.
Slaydon
Member
Those people were geniuses. Great geniuses. We are talking about normal people. And I agree that theoretical knowledge can and does limit imagination. And if someone wanted to experiment and improvise, it would be difficult for him to make it all work on paper. Unless he were Zappa that is.
He is a good example, but a rare one, of a musician who used both theory and imagination to the ultimate.
Steve Vai is another example, altho he is more free-flowing type than Zappa.
He is a good example, but a rare one, of a musician who used both theory and imagination to the ultimate. Steve Vai is another example, altho he is more free-flowing type than Zappa.
Chinese Whispers
Member
- Jan 6, 2009
- 570
- 0
- 16
CadenZ
Son of Crom
In composing, music theory is merely a tool to help you find the sounds/arrangements/harmonies/chord progressions/rhythms/etc want or like. I have never, EVER, felt my creativity restrained or limited because of my theory knowledge. I live by the rule: "If it's good, it's good - no matter what the rules say." But what my theory knowledge does is make it easier and faster for me to find the sounds I hear in my head on an instrument, makes it easier to arrange many instruments all at once, and sometimes when I'm stuck in a song and can't come up with anything good, I can compose something by using only my theory knowledge...and then judge if it's good or not.
Summa summarum:
Theory = a great - but not essential - and helpful tool
Summa summarum:
Theory = a great - but not essential - and helpful tool
The Porcelain Eater
Member
I dare to say, if you know enough theory imagination becomes obsolete. This is because just about everything has been done in music today. So this means, if you think of a chord progression that sounds good without using any theory, it's been done before. If you choose a chord progression that sounds "bad" in your ears, it's probably been done before too.
The only thing a musician with sufficient knowledge needs to do is try to choose the right parts of musical theory and connect them. Like you mentioned, some people like Zappa are really good at that. Connecting those parts is what I would call imagination.
I do agree that a musician with a lot of theoretical knowledge can get stuck in certain patterns. Some popular musicians such as U2 choose to do just that, because there's a fair chance that they would lose a lot of their fans if they were to experiment.
Nasty-Fire
Discursion
What's wrong with the "musical knowledge limiting the creativity" !? It's totally the opposite. The more you know, the more you are able to do, unless you are stupidly focused on what you've theorically learnt and unable to write anything else. Oh and yeah, Mike knows a lot... well... just enough!
mexicola
Member
Why would Opeth's music be any different if he knew music theory?
I don't understand your talk of "justification" either.
HemeHaci
Ken Masters
- Jan 9, 2007
- 484
- 0
- 16
Dream Theater requires a lot of interest to grasp the music.. They are super and I mean it. Give it some more time, after all John Petrucci wrote the only instrumental songs that I can listen to.
But the more complex it gets the harder to sink it in..
I hate hatred comparisons, but imo opeth would sound pretty much like tool, if they used more theory when composing.
Theory is only necessary when you don't have the adequate criteria to analyze if a composition is good or not.
Theory is only necessary when you don't have the adequate criteria to analyze if a composition is good or not.
Slaydon
Member
To rid you disease
Member
- Jul 5, 2008
- 592
- 0
- 16
"use theory". do you think theory is like one way u could write music in, and if u go the "theory way" itll sound by-the-book-boring? if you hear a weird transition or a harmony that doesnt quite make sense, its because it isnt correct according to the "theory" itll either sound just bad or it might be intentionally and someone is playing with the disonnance and creating a cool sound. knowing your music theory means you know how music works and how to write good music, some can write without that, and that just means they know how music works period, and skipped the theory part, since its music youre hearing and not the pro tools arrangement log.
stravinsky studied theory and counterpoint (which im sure many of you would find absolutely disgusting due to the rules it contains) for years and then he wrote the rite of spring...enough said
I wasn't necessarily saying there would be any difference, just wondering what people around here thought. Sometimes in Opeth's music there's a feeling of certain motifs or ideas being unexplored fully, an aspect about them I actually love as I feel it allows the listener to play more of a part in the enjoyment of the music. All I was suggesting was that -perhaps- a working knowledge of music theory might obligate them to squeeze more out of a single idea than they already do. My question was simply whether this would be a good or a bad thing, and whether it would even happen.
As far as 'justification', it was possibly the wrong word to use, but all I meant was that there are some changes with literally no connection whatsoever (eg Dirge for November), and that knowledge may have made Mikael felt like he needed to connect them more. Or not. Hence the discussion.
I love old Dream Theater, they were my second favourite band for quite a while (behind Porcupine Tree, before I discovered Opeth). Octavarium was a travesty in my opinion though, as bad as St Anger (though I'm not a Metallica fan so I was a lot more let down by DT). Systematic Chaos was better but to be honest the only tracks I really like are In The Presence Of Enemies (both parts) and Forsaken. I used to like the Dark Eternal Night but got bored.
I'll still buy the new one, but my hopes aren't very high.
Similar threads
