Myths

[brendandwyer]

well dang i was hoping to be "schooled"

 

[BigRay]

And I'm not an AE! The theory behind recording all this mayhem is an entire other lifetime. Like Jerry Garcia said about pedal steel.

Listen to Phil Lesh. He has it down cold. His band can turn on a dime on a good night. Everything eventually melts into the goo and then they somehow resurrect it in another form. The energy doesn't get used up-- it transforms into another kind of energy. Phil makes it obvious with his jams that all great music comes from the same place. I'd love for someone to explain to me how Phil does what he does. It's beyond theory. It's waves and physics and endorphins. It's Zen. It's dropping the bomb! It's just like he says-- completing the circuit.

Oh Jay-sus, not another jambander!
( I do despise the noodlenation oh so much, but I was just messin)
Now go listen to some punk rock and beat up a phish fan.

 

[Zed10R]

How could anyone claim that having deeper knowledge of music hurts the creative process? If there is one thing that i've learned it's that understanding music theory allows me to communicate with artists more efficiently. THe process of working on songs is easier when i can tell you what key a song is in instead of walking out the door of the control room, up to you on guitar and pointing to the neck.

This is not a complex argument at all. Edan claims that music theory hurts the creative process, and nearly everyone else on this board has stated that theory is helpful to the creative process. I don't care about recording contracts, or royalty checks or impressing any of you guys with my songs. I love music and i want to understand it on every level. KNowledge doesn't hurt, and anyone that has to spend 30 posts to convince us that the "it" factor is only present in those musicians who are ignorant, either by choice or by chance, doesn't get it. That fact that you would mention that you are rich as a way to enhance your point should have been enough for all you guys on this board to lock this post and move on to something else. Hopefully this thread gets dumped into the digital toilet because this shit stinks!

For the most part I agree, but I like this thread!!

One thing that I can't get out of my head is - earlier we talked about innate talent vs learned skill, or artist vs crasftsman. I want to hear what you peeps out there think is most useful....if you could only have one. Would you rather be naturally gifted in all things to do with musicianship and recording but no musical education, or would you rather be tecnological wonder with a great understanding of the hows and whys, but not be able to come up with even a simple melody of your own?

What would you choose and why?

I'd rather have the talent but no technical knowledge. You can't learn talent, but anyone can learn the technical aspect. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Zed10R]

Oh Jay-sus, not another jambander!
( I do despise the noodlenation oh so much, but I was just messin)
Now go listen to some punk rock and beat up a phish fan.

I hate jam bands too. I find them annoying. But I admit - it takes a lot of talent AND skill to SUCK THAT BAD!!! ON PURPOSE!!

 

[brendandwyer]

i'm not entirely sure i believe in talent. I mean, truly gifted people will excel far beyond their closet rivals in their craft/art. But for most people, practice and dilligence are the keys to success.

Writing songs for me is a craft. When i began writing songs, they were horrible, through understanding and learning about music and the history of music, my craft of writing has gotten better.

I don't consider myself talented. And i don't consider myself technically advanced.

So instead of choosing talent over technical prowess, i would hope that i would be passionate enough to work hard and get better.

Talent is a wierd concept in general to me.

 

[mshilarious]

I'd rather have the talent but no technical knowledge. You can't learn talent, but anyone can learn the technical aspect. Just my opinion, of course.

Sure I'd pick talent, for the reason you stated: it's comparatively easy to learn the technical side.

But then I'd learn the technical side. Especially with respect to recording--it's a technical discipline.

We can talk about nontechnical musician success stories all we like, but when we look at well-known engineers, these guys and gals all know their stuff.

 

[EDAN]

EDAN, I was about half in your camp on this whole theory vs no theory, chops vs feel, and schooled vs self taught thing, but then you posted that. You are one arrogant sonofabitch. I have NEVER met an egomaniac that could justify his arrogance with superior talent and skill. Never.

You need to put things in context. What's the smiley for "how can anyone take this stuff seriously"? The funny part is, the post of mine you quoted was in response to yet another Silly post putting me down. Do you and others actually believe I am rich? If so, This is grade school stuff, I'm just reliving my youth! I sure hope tht others who are playing along, are actually playing.

 

[EDAN]

Whew!

I just needed some sleep. I like it again!

Hey Edan, your stuff sucks.

You're just saying that because your a poor old black man who can't get another job in television and who hates whitey.

 

[EDAN]

i'm not entirely sure i believe in talent.

I don't consider myself talented. And i don't consider myself technically advanced.

So instead of choosing talent over technical prowess, i would hope that i would be passionate enough to work hard and get better.

Talent is a wierd concept in general to me.

This says all I need to know. No wonder you said the things you did in your rant.

 

[EddieRay]

I took music theory in high school and college. I got some natural talent, as did most of the others in my theory classes. There were a few exceptions - people who just didn't "get it".

Since then I've played with a few good musicians who never had a minute of music schooling. Some were so proud of it. But when you have to tell them basic stuff like "please count off the song in the same tempo you wish to play it", their pride just makes them sillier than they already were.

If you ain't been schooled, that's okay. Just don't go braggin about it. In fact, just keep it to yourself.

 

[famous beagle]

This says all I need to know. No wonder you said the things you did in your rant.

You know how I know you don't have "it" EDAN?

Because most all of those people you talked about having "it" (Hendrix, Stevie Ray, etc.) are very modest and don't insist on talking about how much they have "it." They don't feel the need to compensate for something they lack.

 

[Zed10R]

i'm not entirely sure i believe in talent. I mean, truly gifted people will excel far beyond their closet rivals in their craft/art. But for most people, practice and dilligence are the keys to success.

Writing songs for me is a craft. When i began writing songs, they were horrible, through understanding and learning about music and the history of music, my craft of writing has gotten better.

I don't consider myself talented. And i don't consider myself technically advanced.

So instead of choosing talent over technical prowess, i would hope that i would be passionate enough to work hard and get better.

Talent is a wierd concept in general to me.

Interesting....what are some songs that you feel are good examples of what you are striving to achieve?

 

[Zed10R]

Sure I'd pick talent, for the reason you stated: it's comparatively easy to learn the technical side.

But then I'd learn the technical side. Especially with respect to recording--it's a technical discipline.

We can talk about nontechnical musician success stories all we like, but when we look at well-known engineers, these guys and gals all know their stuff.

I agree....If I knew 10% of what Bob Rock knows my songs would pump, sparkle, kick, and scream....even the sucky ones. Production is important, and you CAN polish a turd...to a point. But can't over production be as destructive to a songs musicality as distasteful application of music theory? My point is, in the end, talent trumps all.....the technical aspects are the bells and whitles that decorate the object. The car is more important than the paint job, right? Yes? No?

 

[famous beagle]

I agree....If I knew 10% of what Bob Rock knows my songs would pump, sparkle, kick, and scream....even the sucky ones. Production is important, and you CAN polish a turd...to a point. But can't over production be as destructive to a songs musicality as distasteful application of music theory? My point is, in the end, talent trumps all.....the technical aspects are the bells and whitles that decorate the object. The car is more important than the paint job, right? Yes? No?

Hmmm .. I'm not sure it's as cut-and-dried as that.

In music, the changing of one little note could make a huge difference, and sometimes a little theoretical knowledge could lead to that one note.

I'll try to think of an example of this and get back.

 

[mshilarious]

You need to put things in context. What's the smiley for "how can anyone take this stuff seriously"? The funny part is, the post of mine you quoted was in response to yet another Silly post putting me down. Do you and others actually believe I am rich? If so, This is grade school stuff, I'm just reliving my youth! I sure hope tht others who are playing along, are actually playing.

So you have a job?

I wasn't kidding.

 

[mshilarious]

I agree....If I knew 10% of what Bob Rock knows my songs would pump, sparkle, kick, and scream....even the sucky ones. Production is important, and you CAN polish a turd...to a point. But can't over production be as destructive to a songs musicality as distasteful application of music theory? My point is, in the end, talent trumps all.....the technical aspects are the bells and whitles that decorate the object. The car is more important than the paint job, right? Yes? No?

Sure. But the biggest difference is that engineers are hired to do a job. Except for maybe Alan Parsons and a couple others, famous engineers don't sit down to cut their own music for popular release.

So it might be they need to overproduce to get paid on a particular job. Maybe they shouldn't, but that's a different thread entirely.

 

[Zed10R]

But when you have to tell them basic stuff like "please count off the song in the same tempo you wish to play it", their pride just makes them sillier than they already were.QUOTE]

I have personal experience with exactly that kind of person. How frustrating...and silly...that is.

Ahhh....I just remembered the guys who sound different every time they set up their gear to play but swear everything is the same.....and the guys who just don't stop soloing...even after the song is OVER....they just wank on and on and on......OH......and the drummers who do a 5 minute drum solo after every song, while everyone else just stands around staring..(I know a few who don't....they are the good ones... )

But none of that has anything to do with theory or the technical side of musicianship. Those issues are of a far more basic nature.

 

[eraos]

.OH......and the drummers who do a 5 minute drum solo after every song, while everyone else just stands around staring.

c'mon, be reasonable here. everyone loves a big ending. drummers are just giving the people what they want!

 

[famous beagle]

Hmmm .. I'm not sure it's as cut-and-dried as that.

In music, the changing of one little note could make a huge difference, and sometimes a little theoretical knowledge could lead to that one note.

I'll try to think of an example of this and get back.

Well ... I was going to give some examples of Beethoven, Sting, Paul Simon, etc. using some interesting note choices for a certain effect, but I suppose those things could be discovered by trial and error as well. The point is, however, some theoretical knowledge will allow you to arrive at what you hear in your head much sooner.


The thing that's so funny about this debate is that music is a language. Sure, it's art as well, but so is poetry. The type of music theory most of us are talking about is probably on par with the level of grammar knowledge most people are using to communicate their ideas on this board.

I think that's the big misconception about music theory. People see it as "learning the rules," so they think they'll sound like everyone else. But we're all forced (or most of us anyway) to "learn the rules" of grammar in grade school, yet we have no problem disregarding them when we want and taking from them what we like.

Music theory is the same thing. Just because you learn it doesn't mean you have to use it. There are many times I don't use it and stumble upon a particular chord or something by pure accident. However, there are also a lot of times when I'm playing something and hear another idea in my head. My knowledge of theory allows me to quickly implement what I'm hearing rather than spending a few minutes hunting and pecking to figure it out.

 

[Zed10R]

Well ... I was going to give some examples of Beethoven, Sting, Paul Simon, etc. using some interesting note choices for a certain effect, but I suppose those things could be discovered by trial and error as well. The point is, however, some theoretical knowledge will allow you to arrive at what you hear in your head much sooner.


The thing that's so funny about this debate is that music is a language. Sure, it's art as well, but so is poetry. The type of music theory most of us are talking about is probably on par with the level of grammar knowledge most people are using to communicate their ideas on this board.

I think that's the big misconception about music theory. People see it as "learning the rules," so they think they'll sound like everyone else. But we're all forced (or most of us anyway) to "learn the rules" of grammar in grade school, yet we have no problem disregarding them when we want and taking from them what we like.

Music theory is the same thing. Just because you learn it doesn't mean you have to use it. There are many times I don't use it and stumble upon a particular chord or something by pure accident. However, there are also a lot of times when I'm playing something and hear another idea in my head. My knowledge of theory allows me to quickly implement what I'm hearing rather than spending a few minutes hunting and pecking to figure it out.

Well...explain Ebonics then mister smarty pants....The only rule that applies to that form of communication is that the speaker use words..not even PROPER words....or WHOLE words.....

Actually I agree with you 100%. No reservations about that. You said it well. But because I am the difficult PITA that I am, I am still curious about the inner workings of those who have a good handle on their instrument of choice, then learn theory, and POOF...instant cheeseball.