Knowledge Of Compositional Theory

[no country for old wainds]

Does it go hand in hand with one's ability to analyse what the music is doing and how well it's doing it, or is it only a way of defining and understanding the techniques used to do what it is doing?

Obviously, what could be described as 'scientific patterns' are present in music, but music is by nature abstract. Can you tell me a reason for a sound-progression being objectively 'logical' without using a subjective, abstract adjective, as well as using context?

To be more clear:

"Why is that good?"
"'cause it revolves around a tonal centre"
"why is that good?"
"because it makes it flow"
"why does it flow?"
"because ____"
"why"
"____"
"why"
"Because it's warm, and this is a warm piece"
"It's no warmer than any other piece, unless the disc is spinning twice as fast as usual and creating more friction"
"you know what I mean"
"You mean it sounds warm, and yes, it does, whether it's through social conditioning or chemical development of our minds it does sound 'warm' and it fits this warm piece, but neither of us can prove it in the slightest because at the end of the day we're using abstract terms to describe it. Theory is very, very useful for knowing what to do to create a particular sound/composition, and very useful for realising what techniques were used to create particular sounds/compositions, but it is NOT a way of objectively defining the quality of any given composition"

(Just incase you're thinking 'omg, wtf is Mr Objectivity saying?' I'll tell you this as somewhat of a side-note: My view is that all sound-progressions are meaningful in some abstract sense, it's an expression of the abstract put into sound. I consider my values 'better' than anybody else's because having looked at the available reality/history for what it is/was, I've defined what I love and believe, and I trust myself more than anybody else. If warmth was my value, I'd consider the 'warmest' piece the best. This would remain until something is made known to me that changes my worldview. As it is, the inherent aspects of BM and DM (and some classical) are most congruent with my values, so I consider those the best genres of music.)

Now, I've listened to enough music along with analysing its expressive aims to hear quite easily what sounds go hand in hand with what concepts/values/'tever, and I have developed almost sub-consciously a series of structural rules for deciding which do it 'best', such as how it flows and whether the melodic ideas (let's say a riff) seem to progress logically or to be built upon, and whether the tempo changes have structure or seem to not serve a purpose etc etc, and this will always be the case (though I'll be using more complex terms in the future because I'll have more understanding of the musical techniques used).

But, at the end of the day, the fact that it does such'n'such in the harmony with such'n'such cadences in such'n'such keys accompanied by such'n'such tempo changes says nothing about what's 'logical' or 'flowing', just what's done to make it so - even music professors only say something is 'logical' because it fits the music in the abstract sense. Asking someone to empirically prove the abstract is always 100% pointless.

Therefore my view is that compositional theory knowledge doesn't affect the value of one's argument that something is composed effectively.

Discuss.

 

[Necro Joe]

But, at the end of the day, the fact that it does such'n'such in the harmony with such'n'such cadences in such'n'such keys accompanied by such'n'such tempo changes says nothing about what's 'logical' or 'flowing', just what's done to make it so - even music professors only say something is 'logical' because it fits the music in the abstract sense. Asking someone to empirically prove the abstract is always 100% pointless.

Well this thread just looks like an awfully elaborate way to avoid defining what makes something 'logical' or 'flowing'. Either there is a standard to which all music can be held and against which it can be analysed, or there isn't. Your argument is entirely built around what you believe to be logical and what you have decided is the function of good music. Everything you have described or touched on is subjective and meaningful to you alone.

 

[Jean-Pierre]

You'd have to be somewhat versed (like myself) to pretty much know what the hell is going on in a song...but next to that, I don't know how vast knowlege of music technique and theory warrants someone to be 100% right about the effectiveness of any certain pieces. It's all about opinion, but of course, it does help to have some musical prowess in describing music.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Then again JP, many of the reviewers more widely praised on m-a don't seem to know much about music theory.

A thought relevant to the objective/subjective discussion that I'm expecting to follow (it always does): Those who have the most understanding of the evolution of sound's meaning contextually can analyse best what a piece of music is. Its 'quality' as an expression can then be deducted by whether the piece is purely something, or whether it self-contradicts etc etc. If it's a pure representation of something, it's perfect if you value that particular something. Subjectivity comes in there, but...

Those people with the greatest knowledge and understanding of reality and history will have arrived at the most logical worldview out of anybody, and can objectively decide how congruent that such-and-such is to their values and rate it accordingly. This is as close as one gets to objectively rating. Those people who claim to have prowess in objective evaluation, relatively speaking at least, are those who believe themselves to have the most understanding of how the world works and what is most important. This, generally speaking, applies to those who have the most well-defined and strong values.

 

[Cythraul]

There are certain chord progressions which naturally flow from one to the next because they are related tonally. Let's take the most common chord progression ever: I IV V I. This chord progression works from the basic and rudimentary principle of a tonic chord (the key center), sub-dominant (which shares two notes with the tonic chord, in theory and in reality it leads away from the tonic chord and towards the dominant), and the dominant chord (it's root note is the 5th degree of the tonic chord, it's the most distant from the tonic chord in the progression but it naturally leads back into the tonic chord because in theory and in reality it's 3rd degree pulls back towards the 1st degree of the tonic chord because they're only a half-step apart and it's 5th degree is only a full-step up to the 3rd degree of the tonic chord). This chord progression could be played in a few different ways using chord inversions or using chords that are tonally related and function in the same way as the respective sub-dominant and tonic chords. In most music that sounds "flowing" you won't find many chord progressions that are jumping all over the place from one chord to a completely unrelated chord although that may be utilized to add a sense of variation or surprise at times. Certain things sound more "flowing" or "logical" to the ear. Take what I explained above as a suitable explanation for why that is. You'll find that in classical music there is a methodological way to go about writing music that contains themes (melodies, phrases) which are thematically related. They often do this using a number of techniques which I don't care to elaborate on. Pasting riff after riff next to eachother in no coherent sequence is just bad writing, from the perspective of pure music. It's not enough to just write riffs that are in the same or related keys. They should be thematically related with the most unrelated theme appearing in the developmental section of a piece. Otherwise it's just cut & paste.

 

[Cythraul]

I'll agree with you GoD on your observation that the ultimate value or worth of a piece of music is dependent upon the truth or falsity of the worldview it's expressing. That is what you mean, right?

 

[Jean-Pierre]

the ultimate value or worth of a piece of music is dependent upon the truth or falsity of the worldview it's expressing.

Excrement.

 

[Cythraul]

Excrement.

Not excrement if the piece of music is interpreted as art and not just as pure sound. That doesn't preclude one from enjoying a piece apart from value judgments such as that.

 

[genocide roach]

it can go either way. i have studied music theory and it helps me from time to time. it helps with understanding, it helps with composition, it helps with general listening skills. once you are presented the tools to understand music from a more mathematical/scientific/textbook way, it helps you delve deeper into the music and understand it in a different way. it shows you another side to whats going on

is it required? no. but i do think it helps in fully understanding the fine details of the music.

and the same goes with writing. say you have a riff you wanna use in a song, but you cant think of somthing to follow it. so you sit down, look at what key and scale your using, you look at the timbre and the goals you are trying to reach. then you tinker with stuff in the same key, perhaps try different harmonies, and other stuff like that. and once again, if you know what makes things sound the way they do, it will help you in your writing

obviously some great bands have written some great music without a formal education. but i dont think you can deny that a educational understanding of music can help you out
~gR~

 

[no country for old wainds]

There are certain chord progressions which naturally flow from one to the next because they are related tonally. Let's take the most common chord progression ever: I IV V I. This chord progression works from the basic and rudimentary principle of a tonic chord (the key center), sub-dominant (which shares two notes with the tonic chord, in theory and in reality it leads away from the tonic chord and towards the dominant), and the dominant chord (it's root note is the 5th degree of the tonic chord, it's the most distant from the tonic chord in the progression but it naturally leads back into the tonic chord because in theory and in reality it's 3rd degree pulls back towards the 1st degree of the tonic chord because they're only a half-step apart and it's 5th degree is only a full-step up to the 3rd degree of the tonic chord). This chord progression could be played in a few different ways using chord inversions or using chords that are tonally related and function in the same way as the respective sub-dominant and tonic chords. In most music that sounds "flowing" you won't find many chord progressions that are jumping all over the place from one chord to a completely unrelated chord although that may be utilized to add a sense of variation or surprise at times. Certain things sound more "flowing" or "logical" to the ear. Take what I explained above as a suitable explanation for why that is. You'll find that in classical music there is a methodological way to go about writing music that contains themes (melodies, phrases) which are thematically related. They often do this using a number of techniques which I don't care to elaborate on. Pasting riff after riff next to eachother in no coherent sequence is just bad writing, from the perspective of pure music. It's not enough to just write riffs that are in the same or related keys. They should be thematically related with the most unrelated theme appearing in the developmental section of a piece. Otherwise it's just cut & paste.

My suggestion is that this explains 'why', not 'what' or 'how well'.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

I'll agree with you GoD on your observation that the ultimate value or worth of a piece of music is dependent upon the truth or falsity of the worldview it's expressing. That is what you mean, right?

That's one of the stupidest music-related statements I've ever read. I don't even want to comment on it....it's that stupid.

 

[Cythraul]

That's one of the stupidest music-related statements I've ever read. I don't even want to comment on it....it's that stupid.

Nice little cop-out there, shithead. Call my statement stupid yet provide no rebuttal against it. Please get off of your high-horse. Looking back at it I'm realizing that I don't really agree with what I said there. It's not stupid if you understand where I'm coming from. GoD explained that he prefers music that coheres with his ideology, his worldview (what he's sees as the truest way of seeing the world). So logically, if GoD is correct about all his assumptions about the world then that would mean that the music or art which expresses said assumptions is of more value than other music/art. Get it?

 

[anonymousnick2001]

I consider my values 'better' than anybody else's because having looked at the available reality/history for what it is/was, I've defined what I love and believe, and I trust myself more than anybody else. If warmth was my value, I'd consider the 'warmest' piece the best. This would remain until something is made known to me that changes my worldview. As it is, the inherent aspects of BM and DM (and some classical) are most congruent with my values, so I consider those the best genres of music.

For someone who's considered elitist, that seems like a rather logical and "human" way of expressing the reasons behind personal taste. I don't know where I'm going with this...just to make everyone aware that this statement defines the crux of opinion.

My personal worldview is something akin to "Aceept almost everything." My musical taste reflects that. Interestingly, I can't say my musical taste is better than anyone else's, because then I wouldn't be accepting all opinions on an equal level. I conclude by saying that my tastes suit me personally, and nothing more, as each person's tastes should do them, and nothing more.

There are certain chord progressions which naturally flow from one to the next because they are related tonally. Let's take the most common chord progression ever: I IV V I. This chord progression works from the basic and rudimentary principle of a tonic chord (the key center), sub-dominant (which shares two notes with the tonic chord, in theory and in reality it leads away from the tonic chord and towards the dominant), and the dominant chord (it's root note is the 5th degree of the tonic chord, it's the most distant from the tonic chord in the progression but it naturally leads back into the tonic chord because in theory and in reality it's 3rd degree pulls back towards the 1st degree of the tonic chord because they're only a half-step apart and it's 5th degree is only a full-step up to the 3rd degree of the tonic chord). This chord progression could be played in a few different ways using chord inversions or using chords that are tonally related and function in the same way as the respective sub-dominant and tonic chords. In most music that sounds "flowing" you won't find many chord progressions that are jumping all over the place from one chord to a completely unrelated chord although that may be utilized to add a sense of variation or surprise at times. Certain things sound more "flowing" or "logical" to the ear. Take what I explained above as a suitable explanation for why that is. You'll find that in classical music there is a methodological way to go about writing music that contains themes (melodies, phrases) which are thematically related. They often do this using a number of techniques which I don't care to elaborate on. Pasting riff after riff next to eachother in no coherent sequence is just bad writing, from the perspective of pure music. It's not enough to just write riffs that are in the same or related keys. They should be thematically related with the most unrelated theme appearing in the developmental section of a piece. Otherwise it's just cut & paste.

My musical knowledge isn't nearly as accomplished or as impressive as yours seems to be, Cyth, but I'm with GoD on this one. Musical theory is a scientific attempt to define rules and systems by which to compose music through logic and study. In reality, it is farcical in application. Not all music needs to adhere to the dogmatic regulation required by classical technique. Folk music, for one.

Music is defined by intuition, not by logic. It is about feeling, not thinking.

You yourself said that riff after riff in incoherent sequence is bad writing. Incoherent sequence is undefined. A coherent sequence of riffs under the definition of musical theory rules may not be what is needed. PErhaps a better colection of riffs can be created through random attempts or improvisation. Perhaps intense and seemingly unnecessary technicality. It all depends on what works in the context of the composer's mind and the listener's experience. Sometimes theory cannot be used to explain why pieces of music work or do not work. Sometimes, development is unnecessary, akin to a sentence fragment used for dramatic effect.

Those people with the greatest knowledge and understanding of reality and history will have arrived at the most logical worldview out of anybody, and can objectively decide how congruent that such-and-such is to their values and rate it accordingly. This is as close as one gets to objectively rating.

Yes and no. It may be as close to objective rating as one can get, but it is still as subjective as can be. The greatest knowledge of reality and history is an abstract concept in itself. The phenomenon cannot exist. Such an individual cannot exist. Even if they did, their opinion would be a reflection of their self, and not purely of the accumulation of their knowledge. The congruency of worldview and music, for example, is for each individual to decide. There is no ultimate authority. The most uninformed and illiterate person has the same right to judge music as the wisest sage or student of history.

It's all about opinion, but of course, it does help to have some musical prowess in describing music.

Yes, sir. Knowledge of theory only aids in description of what is theoretically happening and why that is happening. Nothing more.

Well this thread just looks like an awfully elaborate way to avoid defining what makes something 'logical' or 'flowing'.

They, quite simply, cannot be defined.

Either there is a standard to which all music can be held and against which it can be analysed, or there isn't.

There isn't.

the ultimate value or worth of a piece of music is dependent upon the truth or falsity of the worldview it's expressing

No. Music reflecting Judeo-Christian pride and faith in Allah isn't always the best or most valuable music.

 

[Cynical]

No. Music reflecting Judeo-Christian pride and faith in Allah isn't always the best or most valuable music.

Read closer. He's asserting that it never is.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

If you think I missed his actual intent/assertion, you need to read closer. And learn sarcasm.

 

[Cythraul]

My musical knowledge isn't nearly as accomplished or as impressive as yours seems to be, Cyth, but I'm with GoD on this one. Musical theory is a scientific attempt to define rules and systems by which to compose music through logic and study. In reality, it is farcical in application. Not all music needs to adhere to the dogmatic regulation required by classical technique. Folk music, for one.

Music is defined by intuition, not by logic. It is about feeling, not thinking.

You yourself said that riff after riff in incoherent sequence is bad writing. Incoherent sequence is undefined. A coherent sequence of riffs under the definition of musical theory rules may not be what is needed. PErhaps a better colection of riffs can be created through random attempts or improvisation. Perhaps intense and seemingly unnecessary technicality. It all depends on what works in the context of the composer's mind and the listener's experience. Sometimes theory cannot be used to explain why pieces of music work or do not work. Sometimes, development is unnecessary, akin to a sentence fragment used for dramatic effect.

Nick, I have a lot of respect for your opinion as it appears to be very well thought out and genuine. You've given me some good food for thought about the whole subjectivity thing. As far as classical methodology goes, one may be hard pressed to actually prove that it's a better way to make music over all. However, I still stand by my view that it's a much more sophisticated and highly developed way of composing. As for analysis of that chord progression that I went through in my first post, it was a way of showing 1. why certain things sound more pleasing or "flowing" to the ear and 2. that there are legitimate explanations for why certain sounds affect the listener. In that particular case I was showing that the close tonal proximity between those chords gave the progression a more flowing sound. In contrast, the further apart any two chords are in tonal relation, the more jarring the progression sounds. I can't explain why that is. I think it just has something to do with human physiology. Also, I think this is a phenomenon that is unique, but not entirely so, to Western ears.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

Nick, I have a lot of respect for your opinion as it appears to be very well thought out and genuine. You've given me some good food for thought about the whole subjectivity thing. As far as classical methodology goes, one may be hard pressed to actually prove that it's a better way to make music over all. However, I still stand by my view that it's a much more sophisticated and highly developed way of composing. As for analysis of that chord progression that I went through in my first post, it was a way of showing 1. why certain things sound more pleasing or "flowing" to the ear and 2. that there are legitimate explanations for why certain sounds affect the listener. In that particular case I was showing that the close tonal proximity between those chords gave the progression a more flowing sound. In contrast, the further apart any two chords are in tonal relation, the more jarring the progression sounds. I can't explain why that is. I think it just has something to do with human physiology. Also, I think this is a phenomenon that is unique, but not entirely so, to Western ears.

I totally agree. Classical method is the most sophisticated and developed way of composing by far. It's just not always necessary for sophistication or even good music. In the case of Psycroptic, I suppose we disagree. I think their method works, regardless of classical thoery. You think it doesn't work, because of classical thoery. In reality, we're both right. The music works or doesn't work for each of us due to our approach in evaluation. The beauty of music itself, no?

And your point on Western ears is intriguing. However, I think all humans are wired more or less the same way, and the jarring intervals apply all over. Tibetan monks, Inuits, and African bushmen will all recognize atonality. It's only the common meter and key which seems to differ. Indians like 7/4, Turks like 9/8, Southwest Asia loves A harmonic minor, Korea loves D-donal (sp?), the West enjoys C/G/D major, and Louisiana fell in love with chords I can't fathom or pronounce (jazz stuff). An interesting treatise on world music could arise from that very statment. Perhaps music theory isn't even absolute. Perhaps theory changes with the hemispheres.

 

[byrne]

Woah.

Therefore my view is that compositional theory knowledge doesn't affect the value of one's argument that something is composed effectively.

They are not totally unrelated, as I guess most people have alluded to. However, I guess if you argue from the standpoint which defines 'effectively composed' as something someone enjoys listening to, then I guess no knowledge of compositional theory can help you argue something is ineffective, as essentially, if someone enjoys it, it is effective, no matter what their logic, or illogical conclusions (as they may be).

Taking one step back, clearly songs which are written in a way that is congruent with what they are trying to convey, are more effectively composed - as they will reach a more stimulated audience. Music, thus written without compositional quality is just less effective.

I guess, musical knowledge at the end of the day, just make someone at the other end of the computer, just look less intelligent, as their theoretically 'illogical' conclusions can be proved wrong, as right as they may be to them.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

Okay.....first of all I apologize for being an ass. I may have misunderstood your message a bit.....or not.....in which case I would probably not apologize....^_^

There are a lot of views expressed here which I'm not quite sure I understand.....or I understand and would like to provide an argument of my own.

Now, I've listened to enough music along with analysing its expressive aims to hear quite easily what sounds go hand in hand with what concepts/values/'tever, and I have developed almost sub-consciously a series of structural rules for deciding which do it 'best', such as how it flows and whether the melodic ideas (let's say a riff) seem to progress logically or to be built upon, and whether the tempo changes have structure or seem to not serve a purpose etc etc, and this will always be the case (though I'll be using more complex terms in the future because I'll have more understanding of the musical techniques used).

So are you basically saying that any set of values has a certain set of musical expressions.....formulas, methods, etc. that go with it? As in satanist ideology....which is what I assume you're referring to in your own beliefs, uses minor scales and has "hateful" sounding music?

This is where I don't understand. Why do "satanist" values go with "hateful" music. I understand that much of Black Metal is hateful music, but the music of Black Metal doesn't define the values of Satanism, or any set of beliefs, it just is music made, and many bands who make it hold a certain set of beliefs, which they try to connect to their music as much as possible. As far as I understand that concept of Satanism, they have no hateful values. In fact, as I understand it, Satanism is supposedly a positive way of seeing the world and should make an individual happy. So why do you say that certain ideologies are defined by certain musical patterns? Do you mean instead that this is how these ideologies are most commonly expressed, or something else? And on the same token, since Satanism is supposed to reflect the opposite of values as Christianity, would this make music reflecting Christian beliefs have to be happy? Much of Christian "metal" is certainly not this way.

In fact, it would seem that the so-called "values" reflected in music are defined by people on the opposite end of the spectrum. While Satanists contend that their beliefs lead to a happy and free lifestyle, full of "individualism," many Christians would contend that Satanists follow an immoral set of values and are hateful, while defining themselves basically the same way that Satanists define themselves ("in a positive light"). Satanists define Christians as being hateful, oppresive, etc. So if values are being expressed in music, who is defining those values? I'm basically just brainstorming as I write here, I'm still forming my beliefs on these subjects.

And I guess I belief the opposite of you in terms of good music. An artists beliefs as a person will make me choose whether or not to respect that person as an individual, but it really has no bearing on my respect for their music. If you know what "black metal" sounds like, I believe you can write it just as well no matter what your ideologies are. Since we are all people, everyone experiences the same emotions at various points, and it seems to me that these "sounds" are not really expressions of ideology, but of emotions. A band can express their ideology at points, but the music is written based on emotion. Lyrics seem to throw a screwdriver into this, and I'm not sure what to think now. But it seems that lyrics may be the ideological point of the "music." The lyrics and music would then be separate entities in this case, if you view it from my presented argument that music is defined by emotion, not by ideology. Here's the difference I think I"m seeing. There are lyrics based on emotion and lyrics based on ideologies. If you hear a song that expresses "hate," or some other similar emotion, how do you know what the ideology is if there are no lyrics and you do not already know the band's ideology?

Those people with the greatest knowledge and understanding of reality and history will have arrived at the most logical worldview out of anybody, and can objectively decide how congruent that such-and-such is to their values and rate it accordingly. This is as close as one gets to objectively rating. Those people who claim to have prowess in objective evaluation, relatively speaking at least, are those who believe themselves to have the most understanding of how the world works and what is most important. This, generally speaking, applies to those who have the most well-defined and strong values.

But doesn't everyone with strong beliefs think they have the greatest knowledge and understanding of reality. Everyone with strong beliefs thinks that they have the most logical worldview. I guess this is what you meant. But again, I don't see how you can hear something that doesn't lyrically express an ideology and decide if it is congruent with your own ideology. Maybe you could elaborate on this?

I'll agree with you GoD on your observation that the ultimate value or worth of a piece of music is dependent upon the truth or falsity of the worldview it's expressing. That is what you mean, right?

Again, sorry for being an ass, but this statement extremely differentiates with my views on music.

Do you or Guardian of Darkness really mean that Bach's music means less to you because he had beliefs different from you and viewed the world differently than you do? And I don't mean Bach as a person, but Bach completely as a musical entity. Of course, your argument contends that ideology and music are inseparable, which certainly clashes with my argument. An artist's ideological beliefs certainly do not affect my views on their music, only possibly on them as people. Only an artist's music or musical views can change my opinion on them as a musical artist. Of course your argument states that musical and ideology are always together, but I won't mention that again.

Another issue is the difference between theory knowledge while listening to music, and theory knowledge while making music.....I don't think it is debatable whether or not theory knowledge allows an artist to compose more efficiently, but what we're discussion is it's effect on the listener. I didn't really discuss that, just the connection between "ideology" and "music."

Sorry if that was poorly formed, I'm not nearly as good a writer as you are.

 

[Cythraul]

Do you or Guardian of Darkness really mean that Bach's music means less to you because he had beliefs different from you and viewed the world differently than you do?

Well, I'm starting to kind of agree with what you're saying so I guess I don't have much to say in defense of GoDs point of view. Btw, I love Bach's music...so fucking much.