If Mikael knew music theory

[cuntface]

de_aztec you must be the biggest dumbass on this forum, we just make it clear that there were no rules to follow... why why are you agreeing with someone who said something that was obviously wrong

 

[CadenZ]

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.

Yup precisely, it comes down to the teacher. Some know how to use the rules to stimulate creativity, some just use them to quench creativity.

Composing without using instruments is a great thing; as is composing for instruments you don't know how to play, as you suddenly have to come up with new solutions for the restrictions of that particular instrument, and also have new possibilities opened up. For the last composition class I took at college I wrote my main assignment, a violin sonata, at my family's summer cabin with no instruments and no violinist to consult. Writing the music (structure, rhythms, melodies, harmonies) was easy; what gave me some head-ache was trying to arrange it for the violin all the time during writing, keeping in mind the tuning, what kind of double stops are feasible to play in succession or with vibrato or at all etc etc. The piece turned out quite nice, though, and didn't need more than a few minor edits upon testing it with a violinist. And no, this couldn't have been done without theory knowledge either.

 

[de_aztec]

de_aztec you must be the biggest dumbass on this forum, we just make it clear that there were no rules to follow... why why are you agreeing with someone who said something that was obviously wrong

look carefully

 

[cuntface]

Made* =)

 

[de_aztec]

so am i still the biggest dumbass on the forum

 

[cuntface]

pretty much the most boring person on the forum

 

[de_aztec]

oh yeah

 

[Lateralus14]

Vai and Satriani are at least more creative than Yngwie and MAB

 

[truhlo]

I dont know how Mikael's songwriting would sound like if he by magic got academic level theory knowledge. I suppose there have been many good enough guesses already and all possibilities were mentioned.

As for theory vs "by ear", i would say that what really matters is writing music organically and sensing whats best for you individually. Examples of both "illiterate" and highly accomplished musicians making brilliant music are copious, so "either-or" kind of logic does not satisfy. On one end we have great musicians who dont know the names of the things but write brilliant music, just as we have poor musicians who idealize "freedom" but would actually benefit from a lesson or two. On the other end there are musicians with high competence and intellectual capacity who use it all to stir up their natural talent, just as there are numerous craftsmen who write sterile and bland music and use theory knowledge as a bluff.

I just think some types of talents are actually better off without classical training and other types fully blossom only with theoretic proficiency. However my opinion is that even if you go through lots of theory, sooner or later, as you mature, you start to use it more "naturally" and intuitively and rely on sounds and emotional dynamics you have within you. Just as well, as you decay creatively you might be bound to push theory and formalism to the point of sclerosis. I reluctantly read all the posts where in rock music debate context all the Mozarts, Beethovens, Bachs... start to appear , but afore mentioned Stravinsky is a great example of a musician who had all the theory of the world in him but wrote genius music only as long as he had it in him, so to speak. You cant "decide" to push the boundaries of music, whether it be through perceived "freedom" or going after some concept. There are just those precious periods and moments when talented artists simply can.

 

[Nasty-Fire]

pretty much the most boring person on the forum

May I make you remember that he was Vuashke.

 

[Chinese Whispers]

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

I've already been there with different tunings and it did help a lot. Came up with a lot of interesting stuff particularly for solo acoustic guitar.

 

[cuntface]

May I make you remember that he was Vuashke.

never read his old posts but obv he's not being a badass anymore and has turned boring, so my post stands

 

[cuntface]

Yup precisely, it comes down to the teacher. Some know how to use the rules to stimulate creativity, some just use them to quench creativity.

Composing without using instruments is a great thing; as is composing for instruments you don't know how to play, as you suddenly have to come up with new solutions for the restrictions of that particular instrument, and also have new possibilities opened up. For the last composition class I took at college I wrote my main assignment, a violin sonata, at my family's summer cabin with no instruments and no violinist to consult. Writing the music (structure, rhythms, melodies, harmonies) was easy; what gave me some head-ache was trying to arrange it for the violin all the time during writing, keeping in mind the tuning, what kind of double stops are feasible to play in succession or with vibrato or at all etc etc. The piece turned out quite nice, though, and didn't need more than a few minor edits upon testing it with a violinist. And no, this couldn't have been done without theory knowledge either.

and back to posts worth reading..

i'd really like to be able to go away somewhere quiet in the country cabin/cottage to write music but i live in a city centre , i just end up only writing at night when it's peaceful.. which seems to be so familiar for most composers.

on my course it's also composition for screen so we generally writing for orchestra or smaller ensembles/quintets as that's what most modern films demand so unless my piece includes piano i'll be writing all for instruments i can't play, but as you know you don't need to be able to play them to be able to understand them. But it's working with live players is by far the best way to get the feel and understand the instruments, at the moment we've only worked with string/woodwind quintets and a couple of small ensembles live, next year will be working with the orchestra which is obv going to dominate.

 

[embrace.random]

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

I said he's immense, which he undoubtedly is, as a guitarist.
I also said he's an absolute idol, which he is, to me.

I'd never go down the Instrumental Rock route, but I take influence from his technique and amazing ability and aim to transfer what I learn from his, and Satch's playing, into my music writing, Progressive Metal, lyrical and band-based, not Lead Guitar instrumental rock.

Get me?

 

[cuntface]

no i just don't get what you're saying

 

[embrace.random]

Lol he's clearly a very talented, amazing guitarist, which you concede;

no doubt he is a skilled player

...and I'm saying that the reason why he's an idol to me is not for his instrumental rock music, but rather his technique and ability, which I take influence from.
And I aim to transfer what I learn from this, to my own Progressive Metal project (which doesn't just consist of a Lead Guitar and backing band, it will be a full band)

 

[cuntface]

lol i know, don't take anything i say to heart

 

[embrace.random]

lol noted.

 

[O P E T H]

This is a very interesting thread, as I have a music theory background. I recently talked with Mikael about theory, and, like in many of his interviews, he said that he really doesn't know theory but very much respects those who do, including Per and Fredrik. As I said to him, even though he doesn't know theory, he just has an innate sense of melody and structure with the right amount of harmony and dissonance that makes him an incredible songwriter who can just come up with beautiful songs right off the top of his head, unlike the geek egghead nerd theorists like me. It's incredible, really. The man is truly a genius. No amount of music theory can make a person a genius. He can't articulate music theory by verbally explaining it, but he has music theory going on all the time in his head, and when he goes to put it into an actual recording, he just knows it. As I listen again and again to his compositions, I just keep getting blown away at their depth, richness, and beauty. Opeth is one band that I cannot get tired of listening to. If Mikael ever went to any music theory classes, he'd probably end up saying, "I knew that. I just didn't know how to say it."

 

[Iki-ilkkuja]

^ that's probably very true indeed. Theory's all about giving names for things and to enhance abstract thinking, opening new doors, etc.