If Mikael knew music theory

[Fields Of Sorrow]

^this is pretty much the post I was waiting for.

 

[cuntface]

I guess all the sweet disharmonics would transform into.. HARMONICS.. uugh, that'd suck.

lmao because music theory prohibits dissonance

well even without reading this thread fully it's clear that most of you just have no idea, music theory will never stop creativity. Just because some of you dumbass guitarists know the harmonic minor scale and then are too stupid to use anything else, THAT isn't music theory preventing you from being creative it simply YOU being a shit musician

 

[Taenim]

I've never been a huge fan of Music Theory as a concept. It implies a certain level of universality that I'd hesitate to apply to art in any form.
But, yeah, Mikael probably wouldn't change his music stylistically if he had any more or less background in Music Theory. I think that he writes the music that he likes

 

[de_aztec]

Learning new musical perspectives limits my music, guys!

 

[sotua]

I've never been a huge fan of Music Theory as a concept. It implies a certain level of universality that I'd hesitate to apply to art in any form.
But, yeah, Mikael probably wouldn't change his music stylistically if he had any more or less background in Music Theory. I think that he writes the music that he likes

It seems like there's a widespread misconception that music theory tells you what to play. What music theory does is tell you why, not what.

 

[cuntface]

^ yes for christ sake, lets get that clear

 

[cuntface]

Yup, many classically trained musicians with good theory knowledge have no clue on improvisation and/or composing - but that's not because of their theory knowledge, it's because they have been taught not to deviate from the form and/or use their theory knowledge in a creative manner. My fiancée is a classically trained violinist, and she's started to pick up improvisation and such only the last 3-4 years (after playing the violin for close to 20 years). Her teachers were, like classical music teachers mostly are, very clear on that you should always play by the rules. But now that she's been freed from that kind of stiff and narrow-minded attitude, she has great use for her theory skills in improvising and composing music.

very clear on that you should always play by the rules???

what are these rules? freed from what? But it is true that in modern day performance studies, composition skills are seen as less important and generally either not taught or taught very little yet they are the most important part of understanding music as musicians.

so as well as music theory (understanding why/what's going on) there IS of course composition study.

but this isn't anything along the lines of learn this and you will be able to write great music! generally composition cannot be taught, there is no rules for writing great music, but elements of composition can be taught such as counterpoint, harmony, orchestration etc.. but these are still open to interpretation, different composers use them differently there is no standard set of rules, the books written on these areas of study do differ. Studying composition isn't about learning how, it's about self development to build your own understanding of writing music.. no two minds will see composition the same obviously.. that why people sound different.

Go listen to Stravinsky's rite of spring that obliterated all of the standard concepts of writing, a sound that is far more complex and creative than anything opeth will come up with.

though in Stravinsky's later days he took a turn for Schönberg's serial composition techniques as many other mid 20th century composers did, the 12-tone technique which gives all 12 notes equal importance (creating atonality) does have that sound that was 'pushing the boundaries of music' at the time. But the theory behind it is somewhat a creative dead end, well depending how it is used.

but in a whole there are no musical theories that will restrict a composers ability to be creative. END OF FUCKING STORY so no if Mike knew music theory the music probably wouldn't change other than maybe picking up different influences because of studying it.

 

[embrace.random]

Opeth have already written acclaimed material. So if Mikael was to learn theory it would only better him as a musician. Of course he's not going to learn something and go 'Shit, I can't do that anymore!' because clearly it already works. He'd just be more equipped to do even more. It annoys me when people doubt music theory, seeing as it as a hinderance. It only serves to better musicians, not wipe their memory of unjustified creativity.

 

[CadenZ]

^^ Seems like you missed my point.

I was referring to the fact that many classical instrument teachers try to make sure that their students/pupils only reproduce music and others' interpretations, not that it was a good thing or that theory somehow would restrict these people in their creativity. The rules I'm talking about are the ways of common practice, that no one should deviate from the form and make too much of an own interpretation of the classical piece. This is a BAD thing. Just like you said, composition skills are being seen as less important today than they were a century or two ago. The piano tuition of Liszt, Beethoven, Mozart etc always incorporated composition studies as an integral part, as it is the most important part - just like you said. If you don't understand the music, how can you make your own interpretation of it? And what is the meaning of not making the music your own? That's not in the least bit creative. Of course composing can be learned and done by ear, it doesn't have to be taught with theory - but it sure makes it a goddamn lot easier and opens lots of doors that would've been shut otherwise. I myself am a music college graduate with a major in classical piano, and lots of composition, form and harmony analysis, improvisation and theory classes in the luggage as well. Still, I consider myself a guitarist at heart and play most things by ear. But when composing and/or improvising (or learning others' songs of course), I have GREAT help of my theory knowledge. That being said, I had to push my piano teacher's boundaries a bit at college; she taught me to always learn to first play by "the rules", so I would know them before I break them - and when I eventually broke the rules, we'd have some heated arguments on what was "proper". In my mind "proper" isn't an option - that's compromising your art. If I don't wanna play by the rules at all, I won't - and this is generally frowned upon in the classical music community today. A complete 180 turn from Beethoven's day. This is a very common situation today on virtually every instrument and school/institute, and judging by the info I've gathered, my piano teacher is a very liberal one when it comes to interpretation.

 

[embrace.random]

Exactly. I prefer to see Music Theory as guidelines and potential compositional ammunition, as opposed to rules that must be followed. I'm not wearing a wig and sat at a harpsichord, I have a mohican and an Ibanez RG lol. Mtul.
I'm pursuing my theory grades at the moment, with ABRSM. I just think that it will make me a lot more informed with the musical choices I make, and understood the ones I had been making all along, whether Mozart agreed with them or not.

 

[cuntface]

^^ Seems like you missed my point.

I was referring to the fact that many classical instrument teachers try to make sure that their students/pupils only reproduce music and others' interpretations, not that it was a good thing or that theory somehow would restrict these people in their creativity. The rules I'm talking about are the ways of common practice, that no one should deviate from the form and make too much of an own interpretation of the classical piece. This is a BAD thing. Just like you said, composition skills are being seen as less important today than they were a century or two ago. The piano tuition of Liszt, Beethoven, Mozart etc always incorporated composition studies as an integral part, as it is the most important part - just like you said. If you don't understand the music, how can you make your own interpretation of it? And what is the meaning of not making the music your own? That's not in the least bit creative. Of course composing can be learned and done by ear, it doesn't have to be taught with theory - but it sure makes it a goddamn lot easier and opens lots of doors that would've been shut otherwise. I myself am a music college graduate with a major in classical piano, and lots of composition, form and harmony analysis, improvisation and theory classes in the luggage as well. Still, I consider myself a guitarist at heart and play most things by ear. But when composing and/or improvising (or learning others' songs of course), I have GREAT help of my theory knowledge. That being said, I had to push my piano teacher's boundaries a bit at college; she taught me to always learn to first play by "the rules", so I would know them before I break them - and when I eventually broke the rules, we'd have some heated arguments on what was "proper". In my mind "proper" isn't an option - that's compromising your art. If I don't wanna play by the rules at all, I won't - and this is generally frowned upon in the classical music community today. A complete 180 turn from Beethoven's day. This is a very common situation today on virtually every instrument and school/institute, and judging by the info I've gathered, my piano teacher is a very liberal one when it comes to interpretation.

Okay yes, i get you, but those rules should never stop anyone from being creative, it's just performing a piece how it was intended. But my teachers have always been completely opposite always pushing to make things my own, i guess it all comes down to the tutor. I'm also a pianist (though no longer have any tutoring) currently studying for a BA in composition, we are very much encouraged to write music without using instruments canceling out the whole fingers following familiar patterns and such, leaving the mind to all of the creativity. Obviously this cannot be done without theory knowledge and is (debatably) the most creatively free way to compose.

 

[Chinese Whispers]

we are very much encouraged to write music without using instruments canceling out the whole fingers following familiar patterns and such, leaving the mind to all of the creativity. Obviously this cannot be done without theory knowledge and is (debatably) the most creatively free way to compose.

That sounds like an interesting concept and a good way to get out of old patterns. I may give it a go.

 

[embrace.random]

I used to do that, but like you said, without a good theoretical grounding the results are usually less than brilliant. Although I'm quite proud of some of the things I wrote without touching an instrument, even today.

 

[Kamel]

The only possible reason I can see for people bringing up the argument is because of the likes of Yngwie or MAB who just whip out a few sweeps at 200 bpm and call it a song, but to be honest those guys probably never had a chance to begin with if you ask me...

i.e.: Steve Vai songs' suck hard. Predictable and monotonous. Boring as heaven.
The guy is a good player, though.

 

[embrace.random]

Steve Vai is immense. No question. An absolute idol.

 

[sotua]

That sounds like an interesting concept and a good way to get out of old patterns. I may give it a go.

Another fun concept to break out of old patterns, which I've used in bass with moderate success: change the tuning and try the old patterns, see where they take you. The only caveat is that you have to make sure the tuning is to actual notes (it won't do any good if you detune a string 3/4 of a step )

Most of the times it sounds like crap, but sometimes really interesting stuff comes out, which eventually you transpose back to standard tuning, and turn it into new patterns... to run into the ground again

 

[cuntface]

WRONG.

Edit: @ embrace

 

[embrace.random]

WRONG.

Edit: @ embrace

Ok he's clearly wank at guitar. And that Satriani noob as well

 

[cuntface]

he shreds for the sake of shredding and impressive playing, which imo is a complete butchery of music. no doubt he is a skilled player

 

[de_aztec]

Exactly. I prefer to see Music Theory as guidelines and potential compositional ammunition, as opposed to rules that must be followed. I'm not wearing a wig and sat at a harpsichord, I have a mohican and an Ibanez RG lol. Mtul.
I'm pursuing my theory grades at the moment, with ABRSM. I just think that it will make me a lot more informed with the musical choices I make, and understood the ones I had been making all along, whether Mozart agreed with them or not.

Fuck yes!