Myths

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fletcher
  • Start date Start date
Sillyhat said:
Who told you that you can't do those things? Music theory (and physics) explains why they sound like they do. It's nothing more than that.

Ok, look. I'm not against learning theory. I'm not boasting, but I'm just saying this to point it out. I know just about all the theory there is, from diatonic harmony to Schenkerian anaylsis to Neapolitan 6 chords to Figured Bass to 16th or 18th-century counterpoint, to whatever. I've got a degree in Music Theory from UNT, and I'm a published author with over 25 books to my credit (Hal Leonard is the publisher).

And this is what I'm saying: Any "rule" that may exist only exists in a textbook. There is ALWAYS an example of someone not following it. Music is NOT math. Sure, there's physics involved, and that's what creates the overtone series, which is why major sounds consonant or happy and minor sounds more dissonant or sad. So what? That doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove that I (or anyone) can't walk over to my guitar, play whatever the hell I damn please, and like it.

There are CONVENTIONS and CONVENTIONS only.
 
famous beagle said:
Ok, look. I'm not against learning theory. I'm not boasting, but I'm just saying this to point it out. I know just about all the theory there is, from diatonic harmony to Schenkerian anaylsis to Neapolitan 6 chords to Figured Bass to 16th or 18th-century counterpoint, to whatever. I've got a degree in Music Theory from UNT, and I'm a published author with over 25 books to my credit (Hal Leonard is the publisher).

And this is what I'm saying: Any "rule" that may exist only exists in a textbook. There is ALWAYS an example of someone not following it. Music is NOT math. Sure, there's physics involved, and that's what creates the overtone series, which is why major sounds consonant or happy and minor sounds more dissonant or sad. So what? That doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove that I (or anyone) can't walk over to my guitar, play whatever the hell I damn please, and like it.

There are CONVENTIONS and CONVENTIONS only.
If they are conventions and not rules, what are you on about?
 
Last edited:
raising cables off the floor will make the cables sound better

a 3,000 dollar AC Cable sounds better than a 20 dollar one.

10,000 dollar XLRs sound better than well built 30 dollar XLRs

if "so and so" big name engineer said it it has to be true.


your cock is bigger than mine
 
Ok, I just got this from soundclick:

your page has been deleted due to copyright infringement.

Please see our page about some common violations of our TOS at
http://www.soundclick.com/docs/bandViolations.cfm
-SoundClick Admin


LOL, I must have done something wrong. Maybe because the account was in my name and the song in the writers (who gave me permission)? Who knows. It took me 30 minutes to uplaod that song!
 
famous beagle said:
Give me ONE rule in music. And I will show you how it's been broken.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Theory is not rules. It's just names we assign things because of CONVENTIONS or TENDENCIES. But there are NO rules, period.

Can't play a minor 3rd over a major triad? BS, people do it all the time.

Can't play an Ab note over a song in G major? BS, people do it all the time.

Can't play a Db major arpeggio over a C major chord? BS, jazzers and fusioners do it all the time.

Like I said ... name one RULE regarding music.

Neal Young would agree 100% even if he was in tune... And he sounds great. That's the soul part.
 
EDAN said:
Ok, I just got this from soundclick:

your page has been deleted due to copyright infringement.

Please see our page about some common violations of our TOS at
http://www.soundclick.com/docs/bandViolations.cfm
-SoundClick Admin


LOL, I must have done something wrong. Maybe because the account was in my name and the song in the writers (who gave me permission)? Who knows. It took me 30 minutes to uplaod that song!

Heard back form them, but I'm not uploading it again today, I'm too tired!

We do apologize. Sometimes mistakes are made. Please reupload it and we will get it approved.

Best Regards,
Ally Byrd
support@soundclick.com
 
Sillyhat said:
If they are conventions and not rules, what are you on about?

It seems that you and Fraserhutch have a different idea of what music theory is. I agree with you, that it's a system for explaining what's commonly done in music, but it's not a set of rules. Fraserhutch seems to think it's a set of rules.
 
famous beagle said:
It seems that you and Fraserhutch have a different idea of what music theory is. I agree with you, that it's a system for explaining what's commonly done in music, but it's not a set of rules. Fraserhutch seems to think it's a set of rules.
You yourself stated a set of rules above, that were broken. You're stuck in the mindset that a rule is hard and fast. It's not.
Ok, look. I'm not against learning theory. I'm not boasting, but I'm just saying this to point it out. I know just about all the theory there is, from diatonic harmony to Schenkerian anaylsis to Neapolitan 6 chords to Figured Bass to 16th or 18th-century counterpoint, to whatever. I've got a degree in Music Theory from UNT, and I'm a published author with over 25 books to my credit (Hal Leonard is the publisher).
You're not alone. I have a degree in theory and composition. Big deal.

I haven't published any books, though.
And this is what I'm saying: Any "rule" that may exist only exists in a textbook.
It's still a rule, which is a formalized means of communicating something. So you're really not saying anything here.
There is ALWAYS an example of someone not following it. Music is NOT math. Sure, there's physics involved, and that's what creates the overtone series, which is why major sounds consonant or happy and minor sounds more dissonant or sad. So what? That doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove that I (or anyone) can't walk over to my guitar, play whatever the hell I damn please, and like it
No shit sherlock. Isn't that what everyone's been saying all along?

No one ever said that you HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES to create music. Actually, music is much closer to math than your post implies.

However, consider this: music is a mean of communication, a language if you will. It constantly evolves, as does language. When you communicate something with music, its comprehension depends on both sharing a common set of rules. Deviate from them too far, and you've lost the listener. Deviate from them a bit, and they'll say "hey, that's cool!"
But it's all relative to the set of rules that you both go into it with.

So, the fact that you could even cite the examples above indicate that some rule previously existed that was broken by someone. It's done all the time.

So, I think you're wrong.
 
Fletcher said:
This response came up yesterday in the thread "Recreating a classic album???"... and while I was kind of unnecessarily harsh in my original response... it was because it struck a nerve.

There are so many myths and so much bullshit that flies around, especially in the "Home Recording" areas that it just kinda got to me.

I started this thread with the hope that other "myths" could be discussed and put to sleep once and for all [like the bullshit myth that you can't plug a ribbon mic into anything running phantom power or the world will end]...

After you get done skipping over my diatribe from hell... maybe y'all could come up with some of the other mythological crap started by some of the half trained idiots of our industry and we can put some of them to bed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


With all due respect Rico you haven't got the remotest clue of what the fuck you're talking about.

Beggar's Banquet was made in Olympic Studios in London on the second deck made for Olympic by their tech at the time; Dick Swettenham. Dick Swettenham was subsequently bankrolled by Chris Blackwell [Island Records] to start the console manufacturing company called "Helios".

The desk at Olympic was 24 channels with 8 busses. The equalizer was a 3 band that featured a 10kHz shelf boost only, 6 selectable midrange frequencies [which were also boost only but switchable between "peak" (additive EQ) or "trough" (subtractive EQ)] with a 50Hz boost only feature on the low end or a stepped 12db per octave hi pass filter that had half a dozen positions and started as high as 400Hz [this is all from memory... I haven't seen one of these damn things in well over 10 years].

I actually owned the console for a while. Jimmy Miller was actually at my house when it showed up. There I was all proud of my latest purchase... and as we were rolling it off the truck Jimmy looked at me and said "that's my desk!!". I smiled and said "yes it is". He scowled and said "that thing was a piece of shit in 1968, what the hell would you want with it now?".

The desk ran on negative 24volt Germanium transistors and was quite noisey. Jimmy was right, the desk was a pig... and my options were to restore it to it's original glory or break it up and sell it for the bits. Part of the frame is holding up the pile of fire wood behind my house so I guess you can figure which direction I took.

Now... with all that nostalgia bullshit put to the side... let's talk about this horseshit toob fetish especially as it applies to the cheap toob crap you can find in your local Banjo Mart for mere pennies of what it should cost. OK, the Brick is somewhat of an exception as it's low price is a direct result of it being built where you could blindfold the assemblers with dental floss... but there's more to this "cheapassed tubemania" than using Chinese factories.

First... you guys need to understand that the people building "tube" stuff back in the day were going for the highest possible fidelity attainable... they were going for the lowest distortion possible, they were trying to get the stuff to sound "neutral". They were not going for the "toob" sound, they were trying to get away from the toob sound.

Now one of the nice things about tube circuits is that if they're designed well they'll have headroom for days [things that the cheapassed shit with glowy things inside... even "the Brick" doesn't have]. You're into D.W. Fearn and Thermionic Culture and Pendulum Audio and even Manley Labs before you're talking about real tube equipment... that TL Audio bullshit doesn't make the grade.

One of the other things that you really have to understand about tube equipment is that the majority of "the sound" was created by the 'phase shift' as well as the 'ringing and overshoot' of the transformers involved in the circuits. It wasn't necessarily the tubes [though they did add some musically pleasing distortions and a little natural tube compression when driven... but I'm not writing 15,000 words on the subject so let's just leave it at most of "the sound" you're hearing is transformers... not the tubes].

Desks like the Olympic desk were also chock full of pretty cool transformers [which they haven't gotten close to recreating in the current "Helios reissue" crap]... as was Neve stuff from that era, and Raindirk stuff from that era, and MCI stuff from that era, and API stuff from that era, and Sphere, and even Soundcraft [who at one time made a pretty outstanding sounding console called the Series One which is about the last desk they built that was actually worth a flying fuck from a sonic perspective].

Yes, the Stones could afford whatever they wanted from a technical perspective... which is why they had state of the art stuff like this custom Olympic desk [which just happened to be attached to one of the coolest sounding rooms in London that just happened to be in Olympic Studios]... and 3M M-56 16 track machines [also transistor machines... but 'class A/discrete' and also full of (gasp) really good sounding transformers].

Look Rico... I know it looks like I'm ragging on you a bit... probably because I am, but really I'm ragging more on the bullshit half truths and horseshit myths that incompetent know nothing jag offs who write for jag off magazines because they can't get a real gig or worse work as a floor mook in the local Banjo Mart so they can use their employee discount to buy themselves some of that there cool assed toob gear so they can sound just like that Lenny Kravitz fellow.

Dude... don't believe the bullshit... believe your ears. Learn basic electronic theory, learn music theory, learn about rhythm and harmony... learn about harmonic structure and phase shift and shit like that and all of a sudden you'll find yourself making way better recordings than if you listen to some fucking moron who can spew dumbass hype about some cockamamie half truths he learned from someone only slightly less dumb than him.

Best of luck with all you do... and please pay the morons no mind. Listen for yourself and the world will really open itself up to you in ways you never imagined.

Peace.

Gee wiz Fletcher..........you really take this stuff seriously huh?
The guy just asked a ? about how he might get that sound and I have actually done that with my limited equipment and insight.....pretty much the way I described it. Just keep in mind that because you say I'm clueless about recording doesn't make it so. I'm not concerned with whatever else you feel is important. I mean I like the recording of "The Surfing Bird " and often use it as the benchmark of what a truly great recording should sound like. Remember..............the guy was interested in how he might get this sound in general.......... and I thought my response might be helpful. The only morons I ever listen too are also my best friends.

Welcome to Homerecording.com/bbs ...................thanks.........seems like a real friendly place!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way ............isn't that the Boston Strangler, Albert DeSalvo...........
nice fellow

Rico
 
Last edited:
I think this thread may need some help about now.........

I got some new headphones from TimboZ....... :D
 

Attachments

  • LightenUp.webp
    LightenUp.webp
    20.5 KB · Views: 109
fraserhutch said:
You yourself stated a set of rules above, that were broken. You're stuck in the mindset that a rule is hard and fast. It's not.

You're not alone. I have a degree in theory and composition. Big deal.

I haven't published any books, though.

It's still a rule, which is a formalized means of communicating something. So you're really not saying anything here.

No shit sherlock. Isn't that what everyone's been saying all along?

No one ever said that you HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES to create music. Actually, music is much closer to math than your post implies.

However, consider this: music is a mean of communication, a language if you will. It constantly evolves, as does language. When you communicate something with music, its comprehension depends on both sharing a common set of rules. Deviate from them too far, and you've lost the listener. Deviate from them a bit, and they'll say "hey, that's cool!"
But it's all relative to the set of rules that you both go into it with.

So, the fact that you could even cite the examples above indicate that some rule previously existed that was broken by someone. It's done all the time.

So, I think you're wrong.

Ok, well we'll just agree to disagree. This is getting silly and pedantic.
 
Man, this thread got way off topic. I'm sure you guys felt much better but I ended up skimming a lot and read a bunch of "You don't need theory to be good, you have or you don't," and "The tools will help you." It was entertaining for a while, in a lame sort of reality tv sort of way. I'm just glad I couldn't think up a new myth, I'd hate to be part of some of these heated "debates."
 
famous beagle said:
Music is NOT math.
Music is not math, but music is the product of math. If math did not "work" (so to speak), music would not work. Music may not have the rigid rules that math has, but without the undelying math, music would not have any more meaning or emotion than random notes from sample and hold extractions from pink noise.

famous beagle said:
It doesn't prove that I (or anyone) can't walk over to my guitar, play whatever the hell I damn please, and like it.
You can't play what the instrument isn't designed to reproduce. Guitars and pianos and piccalos all have western music "rules" hard-coded into them. The fact that one is playing a guitar by definition means that one is playing by a set of rules. Can those rules be bent? Sure, bending the string will bend the rules, in a fashon. One can even tune a guitar flat or sharp so that the guitar is playing non-standard notes, i.e. "breaking the rules".

And then there's fretless bases, trombones, harps and the like. Sure, those have less rules hard-coded into them, but there are still rules in the spacing of the frequencies between strings (whatever their tuning) and in the resonant design of the trombone body. And those rules are defined mathematically.

Yes the "rules" can be broken. One can tune or detune an instrument to their heart's desire or play "in-between" notes that are not standard and so forth.

But "breaking the rules", as I interpret the way you mean it simply means defying convention as to what role the fundamental rules play in the application of technique. But the underlying fundamental rules remain intact: A dissonant chord remains a dissonant chord whether one uses it in his or her compososition in a "conventional way" or not.

G.
 
Let's break it down: let's assume you are a musician who is neither Eddie Van Halen nor Arnold Schoenberg. You'd like to earn a living, however modest, playing music. Are you slightly less likely to go hungry if you learn enough theory to read and transpose a chart? Are you even more prone not to starve if you can sightread standard notation? I say yes.

What to y'all think :confused:
 
mshilarious said:
Let's break it down: let's assume you are a musician who is neither Eddie Van Halen nor Arnold Schoenberg. You'd like to earn a living, however modest, playing music. Are you slightly less likely to go hungry if you learn enough theory to read and transpose a chart? Are you even more prone not to starve if you can sightread standard notation? I say yes.

What to y'all think :confused:
I think "why don't I get singers like timboz's to record??????"
and "are they inflatable?"
:D
 
mshilarious said:
Let's break it down: let's assume you are a musician who is neither Eddie Van Halen nor Arnold Schoenberg. You'd like to earn a living, however modest, playing music. Are you slightly less likely to go hungry if you learn enough theory to read and transpose a chart? Are you even more prone not to starve if you can sightread standard notation? I say yes.

What to y'all think :confused:

Sure, but then you are just a worker bee, not really an artist like the person who wrote the music on the chart you learned to read. If you want to earn a living as a musician, small time like, play in a good cover band, you'll make more than most studio musicians (actually there are only a hand full of pro studio musicians that make a living at it) and you wont have to learn theory!
 
EDAN said:
Sure, but then you are just a worker bee, not really an artist like the person who wrote the music on the chart you learned to read. If you want to earn a living as a musician, small time like, play in a good cover band, you'll make more than most studio musicians (actually there are only a hand full of pro studio musicians that make a living at it) and you wont have to learn theory!

Sorry I've played in cover bands, and it's a pain in the ass rewriting the chart for the one member who can't transpose. I would have fired such people if I had the authority.

You also continually assume that composers cannot read music or even simple chord charts, but you neglect that until about 1950 or so, the only way for a composer to make money was to sell sheet music.

So modern ignorant composers are successful in spite of their laziness, not because of it.
 
EDAN said:
Sure, but then you are just a worker bee, not really an artist like the person who wrote the music on the chart you learned to read. If you want to earn a living as a musician, small time like, play in a good cover band, you'll make more than most studio musicians (actually there are only a hand full of pro studio musicians that make a living at it) and you wont have to learn theory!
And that is total bs, again asserting that those who have the skills you lack are not creative, and are just "worker bees".

I would bet that working in a small cover band in no way competes with what true studio musicians can make. And they can be (not necessarily are, because once again you are confusing skill with creativity and talent) more creative than you are.

but whatever lets you sleep at night :)
 
mshilarious said:
So modern ignorant composers are successful in spite of their laziness, not because of it.

+10. Totally correct :)
 
Back
Top