Music theory

[mshilarious]

The old rules of voice leading and four part harmony are no longer valid in modern music, it might be for the better, or for the worse, but there would be no power chords if we were still following the rules of Mozart...

Rather I am talking about the application of that knowledge to any instrument, not just vocals. I guess you missed that sentence of my post. Ideally, everybody would study orchestration and read Schoenberg, but I don't live in Fantasyland. The basics of four-part harmony are a quick and dirty introduction to the world of thinking about music rather than hearing for the nth time that third harmonies are neato keen.

Whether or not an artist chooses to use that knowledge creatively is entirely up to them . . .

Let's face it, the world does not need another lead guitarist that thinks he's the $%#@ because he knows the modes of harmonic minor.

 

[amethyst_fan]

haha, true enough. And I was definately not referring to vocals at all. I was referring to entire songs. I wouldn't exactly call what Christina Aguilera does singing...more like doing karaoke to a title that happens to have her own name on it...kind of funny actually.

Hmm, well as you and me know, once you study theory too much, you will realize there is nothing new to be done anyways, four part harmony was used to the extreme limits of tonal music hundreds of years ago, atonal music was already pretty much used to it's limits as well, and died publically due to lack of interest by the general population. Hmm, only thing left is quarter tone music, and you pretty have to grow up in China to appreciate that...

What is a musician to do...

 

[ez_willis]

What is a musician to do...

Play music and let the thinkers do the thinking.

 

[beezelbubba]

Someone negative repped me for this and signed it from telepaul, but it ain't from him. If you guys get the same thing, don't uncork on telepaul.

I got the identical rep in a completely unrelated thread in the computer/soundcard forum.

 

[Sirnothingness]

How do you guys get so lucky?

 

[mshilarious]

Hmm, well as you and me know, once you study theory too much, you will realize there is nothing new to be done anyways

That's right! That would be a good starting point for a musician: what you are doing isn't new, so stop pretending it is, and get on with it.

That said, there is a difference between having been done, and having been done ad nauseum to death if I hear it one more time I will return from the dead and puke again!

 

[beezelbubba]

Hmm, well as you and me know, once you study theory too much, you will realize there is nothing new to be done anyways,

I'm glad Stravinski didn't worry about this!

 

[fraserhutch]

I'm glad Stravinski didn't worry about this!

Agreed.

I for one don't ascribe to this fallacy that everything's already been done, and I absolutely don't believe you can know too much, even reagarding theory. The more tools you have, the better.

Classical compositional techniques, including 4 part harmony, have served me well. The whole rock and pop world doesn't revolve around power chords.

 

[metalhead28]

But they are not just major and minor scales. They are pentatonic scales (5 notes).
Although the 2nd one is written strangely, starting on Bb. Major Pentatonic scales remove the 4th and the 7th.

C Major Pentatonic Scale: C-D-E-G-A-(C)
C Minor Pentatonic Scale: C-Eb-F-G-Bb-(C) Notice this is the same as an Eb Major Pentatonic Scale, just starting on C (Eb is the relative Major to C Minor)
C Minor Blues Scale would be (as Sirnothingness said) something like: C-Eb-F-(Gb)-G-Bb-(C)

C Ionian Scale is a C major Scale C-D-E-F-G-A-B-(C)
C Aeolian is like a C natural minor Scale C-D-Eb-F-G-Ab-Bb-(C)
But I think modes are way beyond this discussion.

The reason I called his second picture A aeolian is specifically because he included Ab. That being the minor 6th, it would not be included in the minor pentatonic and it's also the same fingering as the major scale in a different position. I thought that was worth pointing out.

 

[metalhead28]

The reason I called his second picture A aeolian is specifically because he included Ab. That being the minor 6th, it would not be included in the minor pentatonic and it's also the same fingering as the major scale in a different position. I thought that was worth pointing out.

Holy shit, nevermind. When I saw his diagram it had an extra line on the bottom and I thought he was starting on the A string. When I re-read that you said he started on Bb, I said "wait a minute...."

Sorry.

 

[Big Kenny]

Wouldn't that take the "oog" out of boogie woogie. THat would totally descimate (is that a word?) Long John Baldry.
*who passed on July ,2005.

 

[amethyst_fan]

The first thing I thought of was Alice in Chains, probably because I was listening Sap last night. That record is full of beautiful harmonies.

And how in the hell can you even suggest that knowledgable musicians purposely avoid harmonies? The reason the bands that you're listening to aren't using vocal harmonies is because they're incapable of them.

Actually I was referring to (and specifically said) correctly doing four part harmonies. I can't think of many bands that correctly do four part harmony anymore....anymore as in the last hundred years, haha. Umm, I think you are just referring to harmonies in general. And just recording a singer with a root, third, and a fifth is not correctly doing four part harmonies, haha.

Hmm, well I guess Queen was pretty good at it...

 

[famous beagle]

Here's my 2 cents on the subject:

I think it's very important to avoid referring to the "rules" of music. There aren't "rules." There are conventions and traditions.

Music theory is an attempt to analyze what composers write when they compose music. The music came first, and the analysis (the theory) came after the fact.

Even the "rules" of 4-part harmony, or inverted counterpoint, etc. all stemmed from the analysis of the music of composers.


The reason I bring this up is because when I hear people refer to the "rules" of music, I think they're missing the boat. The MUSIC is the important thing --- not the "rules" or theory! The music is the thing we hear, not the Roman numerals on paper.

Having said that, I certainly don't argue that learning theory is very helpful, and I wouldn't take back my musical education for anything. But a sentence like "you have to know the rules before you break them" is false, because there are no rules. There are only conventions.

Of course, there are facts. A triad contains a root, 3rd, and 5th, and things like that. But when it comes to things like parallel 5ths and certain resolutions, those aren't rules. They're conventions based on what previous composers have done.

Music theory is (and should be) a changing and growing discipline to account for the conventions that gain popularity in recent works.

For example, I'd argue that, in pop music, it's now almost as common to follow a major II chord with IV instead of the "proper" V chord.

Anyway, music theory is great, but it's not rules!

 

[famous beagle]

Actually I was referring to (and specifically said) correctly doing four part harmonies. I can't think of many bands that correctly do four part harmony anymore....anymore as in the last hundred years, haha. Umm, I think you are just referring to harmonies in general. And just recording a singer with a root, third, and a fifth is not correctly doing four part harmonies, haha.

Hmm, well I guess Queen was pretty good at it...

ummm .. the beach boys?

 

[amethyst_fan]

I'm glad Stravinski didn't worry about this!

Well, I think I pretty much covered that with the "atonal" reference I made. So, actually, my comment would be post-Stravinski, that should be clear...

There are no more notes on the piano to create new ideas guys...anything done in the last hundred years or so is just making riffs on ideas people already came up with 300 years ago. If you want to get really in depth about it, you can analyse all tonal music down to 2 chords.

Metallica - Master of Puppets - 2 chords in the whole song
The Beatles - Yesterday - 2 chords
Rolling Stones - Paint it Black - 2 chords

etc, etc

trust me when I say, studying theory too much can do this to a guy, everything just all starts sounding the same, haha. But actually the previous things I said were true, all songs nowadays can be analysed down to 2 chords using schenker analysis (the most modern way to analyse tonal music).

I really think maybe micro tonal music is the only thing left to explore and people are already doing that, so maybe someone else knows?

And of course, this is all in good fun, it is extremely helpful to study theory as a musician, just don't become a theory major otherwise you'll never enjoy music quite the same, haha

 

[famous beagle]

Well, I think I pretty much covered that with the "atonal" reference I made. So, actually, my comment would be post-Stravinski, that should be clear...

There are no more notes on the piano to create new ideas guys...anything done in the last hundred years or so is just making riffs on ideas people already came up with 300 years ago. If you want to get really in depth about it, you can analyse all tonal music down to 2 chords.

Metallica - Master of Puppets - 2 chords in the whole song
The Beatles - Yesterday - 2 chords
Rolling Stones - Paint it Black - 2 chords

etc, etc

trust me when I say, studying theory too much can do this to a guy, everything just all starts sounding the same, haha. But actually the previous things I said were true, all songs nowadays can be analysed down to 2 chords using schenker analysis (the most modern way to analyse tonal music).

I really think maybe micro tonal music is the only thing left to explore and people are already doing that, so maybe someone else knows?

And of course, this is all in good fun, it is extremely helpful to study theory as a musician, just don't become a theory major otherwise you'll never enjoy music quite the same, haha

Again, this is, in my opinion, a way of thinking about theory as "rules." Schenkerian analysis is simply a way of thinking about music. Who's to say it's the "right" way? I find it kind of silly myself, but that's just me.

And I was a theory major, and I enjoy music much more now than ever. I have more appreciation for songwriters like the Beatles and Kurt Cobain and other "unschooled" musicians who were able to write the way they were without knowing any theory.

 

[RAK]

Holy shit, nevermind. When I saw his diagram it had an extra line on the bottom and I thought he was starting on the A string. When I re-read that you said he started on Bb, I said "wait a minute...."

Sorry.

Hey no problem. That wierd extra line confused me at first as well.

I'd also like to add, that Christina Aguiellera (or however you spell that) actually can sing. I'm not saying that the path she's chosen is a good one, or it actually features her voice, but she's actually got something there.

Britney on the other hand, I don't think can sing at all. But if you any of you have the chance to check out her album "In The Zone" it's actually pretty cool. Nothing about her performance or voice is great, but it's really well produced and has some cool stuff going on. She probably had very little to do with it, but it's good, particularly that song Toxic.

And for context, The last albums I've bought have been from people like Paul Simon, George Harrison, and David Grisman.

Also, about the Beatles being untrained in their songwriting, remember they had George Martin.

 

[RAK]

Even the "rules" of 4-part harmony, or inverted counterpoint, etc. all stemmed from the analysis of the music of composers.

This is an important point.

But as with any discipline, the more you understand the "rules" the more qualified you are to break them. (Or at least it won't just be a happy accident)

 

[amethyst_fan]

Right exactly. And most of the academics would prefer to disagree, and side that in fact, theory is well known before the significant music is made. Of course, anyone can make music without the knowledge, but in times past most people were taught and taught and taught theory, and practiced and practiced scales and useless nonsense exercises before they went on to write anything of significance. Actually the exact thing that famous beagle said is wrong "you have to know the rules before you break them" is still what most theorists stick by. And with good reason, most anyone who has "broke the rules" knew the rules already. So I guess you can look at it from the other side as well.

Also, even the four year old mozart writing pieces and shortly later symphonies, didn't necessarily write them correctly. He had to be corrected by his father before the pieces went to print

 

[famous beagle]

Also, even the four year old mozart writing pieces and shortly later symphonies, didn't necessarily write them correctly. He had to be corrected by his father before the pieces went to print

What an awful thing to say! Are you suggesting there's such a thing as "incorrect" music??!!