If Mikael knew music theory

[Kamel]

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.

maybe you got the wrong forum...

 

[Fields Of Sorrow]

At least I was replying to someone who made a comment with some relevance to my original post. wtf was the point in your contribution?

 

[Antyman]

maybe you got the wrong forum...

he's on the wrong forum because he likes more than one band?

Then I'm waay off..

 

[Kamel]

My contribution was to help you realise that your comment has nothing to do with the thread.

 

[Nasty-Fire]

Conclusion : you're not good at helping others.

 

[Realturka]

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.

Word.

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.

Also word, but not everyone has the same talents they had.

 

[Windward]

Easier but not better.

 

[Crepuscularia]

As others have stated, I think Mike knows more about theory than we realize. He may not be able to say 'this suspension in this chord resolves via half step to blah blah blah' or whatever, but really what is music theory other than a set of guidelines about establishing tension and offering resolution to that tension?

I do think theory can be helpful for establishing coherence in longer compositions. The only criticism I have of Opeth is that some of their songs seem 'stitched together' and I think could benefit more from thematic development, rather than brushing aside themes to never be heard again. But that is a conscious compositional choice that would probably not change even if Mike was a theory expert.

 

[Arasmas]

you people are dunces, you don't need any theory to write rock or metal, besides maybe like knowing which notes are in the major and minor scales. music theory is for writing classical music, you have to know about counterpoint, figured bass, etc. very very few rock musicians have more than the most vague concept of music theory, because it doesn't matter

 

[babymilk]

I think we should certainly heed Arasmas' words on music theory. *recalls when Mikael FACED him on the forums not long ago*

 

[Kamel]

you people are dunces, you don't need any theory to write rock or metal, besides maybe like knowing which notes are in the major and minor scales. music theory is for writing classical music, you have to know about counterpoint, figured bass, etc. very very few rock musicians have more than the most vague concept of music theory, because it doesn't matter

You certainly know nothing about composition. musical figures are present in every style of music, not only in classical music.

 

[Sefeed]

Mikael knows a ton of music theory. He just plays dumb.

 

[Lateralus14]

You certainly know nothing about composition. musical figures are present in every style of music, not only in classical music.

That doesn't mean you need to know said figures to write said music.

 

[Chinese Whispers]

I also think there doesn't have to be two exclusive clubs either. Take Ihsahn for example - he uses some more traditional compositional ideas, but also writes more along the lines of a typical rock/metal band as well. Just because you know or have studied theory doesn't mean you stirctly adhere to it.

 

[de_aztec]

Music theory isn't just about some arbitrary principles and rules being applied to certain notes and phrases, It does have some merit. Music theory also deals with giving names to things and the reason those things have names. Think about chords and the different names for intervals. If Mike played a power chord, it might just be known as a power chord OR it could be a root note stacked with a perfect fifth. They are the same thing, but the latter explains it a bit more thoroughly.

Also, there are some generally accepted music theory ideas even outside the field of musicology. As an example, dissonant intervals. I'm sure alot of people will agree that the diminished 5th is a particular dissonant interval, and also the minor 2nd. They are used in all styles of music to create dissonance, but It is true you don't need to know It's name or how it works to be able to put it into a song.

What it boils down to is, metal is not a genre that relies on music theory. You don't need it to make metal music. However, if you were playing something like jazz, it's required for it to be jazz music. If you were a metal band and you used jazz music theory in your playing, then I guess you would be a more diverse band but It doesn't mean you will make better music.

IMO yes music theory is something that will help in composition and impovising

 

[antipunx13]

As far as the chord he played, it wasn't a real chord. It was a cluster of notes that just sounded good together, which work perfectly fine (find "Sleep" by Eric Whitacre, a very dissonant piece, but very very pretty). No one would have a name on that chord. So basing the fact that he doesn't know any theory at all on something like that isn't very logical.

lol can I base the fact that you don't know any theory at all on this paragraph?

 

[Nasty-Fire]

The only point that I can agree with Arasmas (though the argument has been modified by me) is that classical music does, in fact, need a lot of, a big fucking lot of theory (having many friends in these programs). I agree that most rock and stuff like that don't require so much knowledge, but there are still many bands that try to use a lot of it. As someone said, it's present everywhere, but it's necessery for classical.

 

[de_aztec]

The only point that I can agree with Arasmas (though the argument has been modified by me) is that classical music does, in fact, need a lot of, a big fucking lot of theory (having many friends in these programs). I agree that most rock and stuff like that don't require so much knowledge, but there are still many bands that try to use a lot of it. As someone said, it's present everywhere, but it's necessery for classical.

It's not an intrinsic requirement of metal to use theory. Whether or not bands use theory is irrelevant to alot of people, and many bands use none at all or use a fair bit.

I agree styles like classical and jazz do have theory requirements. In jazz, improvising requires extensive knowledge of theory because the scale used to solo is based on the tones that are sounded in the chord.

I like theory because i enjoy analysis and other' peoples analysis of musical works, I like listening to how people break down the music and what techniques they used. But there are plenty of good bands that don't really follow alot of theory (Opeth) in metal.

 

[CadenZ]

No music style requires theory knowledge, you can always play or compose by ear. Anyone can write rock, metal, classical, jazz, pop, country, whatever songs without a drop of theory knowledge, the point is that theory may help you find the sounds you want or come up with something different entirely and thereby aid you in the process of evolving as a musician/composer.

Anyone who says that theory limits their musical creativity clearly doesn't know theory well enough. If you know all the rules, it's much easier to break them - if you want. Or follow them. It's your choice, not the theory's.

 

[hexwind]

No

This is a nice music dude in the link of signature !!! do you play with that band?? I loved it tbh ^^ keep it up