The importance of music theory
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=99458
Printed Date: April 19 2024 at 05:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The importance of music theory
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Subject: The importance of music theory
Date Posted: August 26 2014 at 05:29
|
Time for another "issue I've never got really cleared up but mentioned fleetingly in quite a few previous discussions" thread. I used to play in an orchestra where I had to read sheet music, so I obviously know the basics of music theory. At the same time, much of the more advanced aspects involving things like melodic phrasing, texture, timbre, consonance/dissonance, counterpoint etc. I only have a novice understanding of patched together from music reviews written by people who know more of theory than I do. As a result, I sometimes wonder how much of the compositional content and details regarding performance I'm missing with more "out there" avantgarde/technical music. On the other hand, I'm also kind of worried that if I learn too much music theory there'll be a lot of music I currently enjoy I no longer will because it no longer matches up to those standards set by the theory. That has happened to me on a major scale, and I've also encountered quite a few people who were really into music theory but couldn't enjoy any music whose songwriting and performance didn't fit into mathematically perfect rhythmic/melodic patterns. Curiously enough, those types I've met tend to find most "classic" progressive rock's approximation of classical/folk/jazz influences incorporated into a rock framework somewhat kitschy but are much more positive towards Beefheart/Zappa-type "avantgarde rock" as well as the Zeuhl and RIO scenes. (often also the more abstract types of extreme metal too) Again, here I'm going by anecdotal experience but I'm curious to know how much I'm missing out on and how much analyzing music from an overtly formal/theoretical perspective in turn will actually limit your perspective. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Replies:
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: August 26 2014 at 07:40
 Your question/issue is pretty complex to unravel, but I'll just say that although my music theory knowledge is far from advanced, it has enhanced my enjoyment of music, whether or not the music in question is demonstrative of music theory concepts. Knowing the difference between different types of chords and scales makes a lot of music interesting to me because I'm the sort who likes trying to understand the intent of the composer (note I said "trying to"... I realize the composer's actual intent is something I can't ever really claim to know). However, on the other hand, lately I've been into a more avant garde type of music, and I really don't know any theory (if there is any) behind it, other than it does something pleasant to my brain. In that case, maybe it's better if I don't try too hard to understand it. So I guess my advice is to seek understanding insomuch as you're genuinely curious, but don't get fanatical about it or dig deeper than you really want, or some of the ineffable magic may be lost. But satisfying your own natural curiosity is almost always a good thing. ------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Toaster Mantis wrote:Posted By: The-Bullet
Date Posted: August 26 2014 at 08:07
|
To me, listening to music is an emotional experience not an analytical one. Improving your music theory knowledge can only have a positive effect, whether listing to or creating music. Rick Wakeman has said (paraphrasing)that you need to know the rules, before you can break them. -------------  "Why say it cannot be done.....they'd be better doing pop songs?" |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: August 26 2014 at 08:16
------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: August 26 2014 at 08:47
I totally agree with you.Learning theory makes you understand the music structure, in terms of composition, progressions, regressions, orchestration, arrangements, instrumentation, etc. But don't forget about the emotion, feelings, sentiments, etc around the music, that can not be expressed or limited by your knowledge of theory.
|
Posted By: JJMcBlaze
Date Posted: August 26 2014 at 09:02
|
Though, I agree that music is an 'emotional journey' for the listener, it must be more a more academic process for the musician. I've learnt (as an engineer and as musician) that immediate knowledge of theory a; saves hours of trying to explain other musicians how to play something, and b; that it helps in understanding what progression or individual chord can conjure the emotional leverage you're looking for. The levels of theoretical knowledge depend largely on the music one plays. I guess that 'the average grunge band' with three minute/three chord songs require a lot less theoretical knowledge than a jazz-fusion band or a symphonic orchestra. In the end, though, I am very sure that when one has learned his theory in such a way that it's like second nature, emotional baggage can come from that theoretical freedom, Regards, Len ------------- Still we're driving onward, moving steady as a plane. Moonbug cars flash past us as we head the other way. Across the dyke of worry to a Nederlander dream |
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: August 26 2014 at 11:11
This. This times all the this-es. Music for me is like cooking. You're absolutely free to experiment with different ingredients and textures, but if you have some sort of pre-knowledge of what constitutes the chemistry of those ingredients, you up your odds of producing something not only edible, but delicious as well. I used to feel that theory would inhibit creativity because of a certain line of thinking, but now I'm seeing how it actually enhances creativity in the long run. I think the main benefit of understanding theory is the communicative aspect, as someone has already mentioned. ------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: August 26 2014 at 12:40
|
If you just want to rock as a listener, you don't need any. If you want to rock as a player it helps to know some. If you are going to compose or perform anything reasonably complex or sophisticated, the level of your knowledge will reflect in your work. This does not necessarily require formal training but that can only enhance your control over what you create. As a listener, I have found that the little I know helps me to both appreciate good music of any genre. More study could only enhance my appreciation of jazz and classical. I understand what you mean about how knowledge of theory can interfere with music already enjoyed, but that is only music that is sub-standard. A former girlfriend was really into Green Day until she started to learn guitar. Then she realized they had done nothing that a first year student could not play. A similar thing has happened to me but now I have come full circle and can enjoy something that simply rocks out. Not Green Day, they are a bunch of posers, but I can get into the Ramones, and that music is not complex but boy does it rock. ------------- The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty" |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 26 2014 at 12:58
|
I'm of the opinion that learning something always, always helps. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: August 26 2014 at 13:18
|
Posted By: ProgMetaller2112
Date Posted: August 26 2014 at 13:36
^^^ Nah, All you need to do is play whatever comes to mind. Just pull a KC-like improv and you're good to go.  ------------- “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” ― George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four "Ignorance and Prejudice and Fear walk Hand in Hand"- Neil Peart |
Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: August 26 2014 at 14:13
|
Interesting ideas, but to me the best music comes from those who learned the rules first. By far. Vangelis was always musical, from a very early age, and just because someone doesn't know how to write music, doesn't mean their minds are not thinking of "music theory" -- but just not in a way that is formally trained. So, there are exceptions, but I think those are people of unique gifts and early environments. I think enough negative experiences with music teachers at colleges could probably overwhelm someone's innate gifts and directions to the point where they couldn't use them anymore because they wouldn't, kind of like a Pavlovian response to avoid the memories or introjects of pain. ------------- -- Robert Pearson Regenerative Music http://www.regenerativemusic.net Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net |
Posted By: Sumdeus
Date Posted: August 26 2014 at 14:37
|
just another tool, do what you will with it. knowing theory will not make your music better or worse, you will. in my mind, I've always differentiated between music theory and general knowledge of music. To me, music theory is specifically the rules made by Western society to dictate the 'correct' way to play Western music. The main use I see of it is for easy communication to other people of the Western world who are familiar with the same terminology. Beyond that, I think you could have a great idea of how music works and how to make the music you want to make and all the intricacies of it without knowing any 'theory', aka the 'correct' names and concepts. this is one reason why I find it so hard to motivate myself to 'learn' theory, I start it and feel like I am being taught concepts that I have known existed in music for years, but I just do not know the 'right' name for it. but I think general music knowledge is your understanding of music and that comes from just hearing it and thinking about it and playing it.
well to be fair if you can do KC-styled improvs you probably have a good grip on how music works ------------- http://sumdeus.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - Sumdeus - surreal space/psych/prog journeys |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: August 26 2014 at 20:17
| Music theory often gives me ideas, whether it's just exploring new directions or outright breaking the rules. Music theory is a useful backdrop. Sometimes when I am playing stuff that is comfortable for me, I actually get too comfortable and stuck in a rut, and it is nice to think my way through to something different. |
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: August 26 2014 at 20:37
90% of the time, I subscribe to this philosophy. The other 10% of the time, I wish I understood more theory  .------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: August 27 2014 at 02:54
|
Music does not necessarily need to be technically complex to be good and enjoyable. Once you have accepted this principle, there is no reason why knowing a lot of theory should reduce the appeal of good music which you have liked until now, even if the technical knowledge you have gained reveals that it is actually simple music following well-known rules. As it has already been said, knowing can never be a bad thing. It may, however, help you distinguish between music which is genuinely inspired and music which is excessively constructed 'by the numbers'. Well, that's my guess, I know little theory myself. A bit like I may find a lot of paintings good, but someone who knows a lot about painting will be able to discern those which can be considered as genuine art and those which do not.
|
Posted By: prog4evr
Date Posted: August 27 2014 at 03:06
^^ What they said ^^ |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: August 27 2014 at 03:13
|
Posted By: infocat
Date Posted: August 27 2014 at 22:10
|
I've got a theory; it could be bunnies...
------------- -- Frank Swarbrick Belief is not Truth. |
Posted By: Kazza3
Date Posted: August 28 2014 at 06:48
| I don't think it matters a great deal. I'm studying classical music performance at uni, and certainly knowledge of music theory hasn't adversely affected how I like listening to any music. The classical influence is probably what led me to prog in the first place. |
Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: August 28 2014 at 11:05
What an excellent post. I have to agree with it all. Nice read. Thank you. ------------- Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣 |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 14:36
|
I think this is over ... thinking ... or over ... reaching ... things. It "might" and "might not" have compositional elements that you would be missing, but in general, this is very difficult to determine in the 20th century music development, since there is no fine line for helping clear up where "mental" exercises (my word for compostion!!!) or experimental/improvisational music start and end. RECORDING, over the past 50 years, has shown us that in concert, or just plain live in the studio, that improvisational material is also very good and then later becomes highly defined and valuable, although I have yet to see ANYONE try to do Tangerine Dream!!! Which adds another element to composition ... sound effects! In the late 50's all the way to the late 60's and early 70's, all the improvisational and experimental theater and film and literature, and art, was not about ... "compositional" content, any more than anything else ... it was about the experience of it all and how you responded to it. As one quasi-philosopher stated, the medium became the message, not the original component that created the music in the first place, or the art itself. Thus we became enamored with anything that was conditioned by the media, and you forgot the "source". Without the "source", your question loses its strength. Without the spirit of the human, your strength is gone. Thus, I, for one, being a writer that does not 2nd guess his vision or dreams, find that a question like this is much too mental to be able to answer a condition that belongs on the inside and can not be easily translated to the outside. There are just as many elements in one piece as there are in others ... but we have not sat down and worked the new "elements" that deserve to be a part of music history, or any art for that matter, in order to be able to come up with a sensible discussion and answer for you. Hope this helps ... it was not designed to confuse you. ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 06:27
 ------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 09:00
|
There is also the opposit, how much do the teoreticaly well founded miss, do to them not beeing able to stop analysing and just enjoy what they are listening too. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: JCDenton
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 10:59
|
I've taken music theory classes for years, and I'll tell ya it should only enhance your appreciation. I now listen and understand when the basic standards (not rules, standards) are followed, and I can hear when some more unique occurrences are going on. I like that Wakeman quote a lot. That was my original interest in theory. Knowing how things work so I can start disobeying all the standards. The thing is that music isn't about analyzing in the first place. And you'll find, after acquiring your masters in musical theory like we all are bound to
 , that many songs just don't obey the rules. But many still do. Some have unique variations. Some don't. Just turn off your analyzation switch. If you can't, then learn to appreciate it. It's a listening tool, which should never be considered a bad thing in my book. What's wrong with being able to hear, love, and fully understand what you're listening to?------------- "We have grown, but there is still much to be done. Many that live in darkness that must be shown the way, for it is the dawning of a new day." |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 11:09
|
I belive all music was created 6 years ago by god... ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: JCDenton
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 11:14
Okay, Edge. ------------- "We have grown, but there is still much to be done. Many that live in darkness that must be shown the way, for it is the dawning of a new day." |
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 11:35
|
Music theory is not a science. It's not an objective framework for how all music works. It's simply the methods of the western classical composers. In that sense, it's helpful in appreciating classical music, but not necessary. The same thing that makes classical music good is the same thing that makes the Ramones good. They succeed in moving people. But, yes, it's beneficial if you want to know how western composers do things, and even outside of classical music, it can help. That said, it, again, is not an objective framework for how all music works. When you learn music theory, you are learning how certain traditions of music work, but not how all traditions of music work. It's good to keep this in mind just in case you start listening to Bob Dylan expecting him to be Palestrina. ------------- https://dreamwindow.bandcamp.com/releases" rel="nofollow - My Music 
|
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 00:50
So now you are a better Music listener, congratulations. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 15:32
I am not sure that one needs to know "theory" to appreciate music.
Our house in Santa Barbara has/had over 3K LP's of classical music, and then I went on to have over 2500 LP's of experimental, electronic and progressive and wierdness anything in rock and whatever else you can name it. The best known in the collection? Tangerine Dream!
You could say that I have acquired some "theory" by listening, and some serious appreciation of music ... and this parallels the knowledge theory ... you can study 2000 years of music and listen to some snipets of it ... and all it will do to you is give you a larger appreciation for music itself.
The bad part, is that pop fiends (word intended!) think that classical music history is for idiots and not valid information for their metal music! But then, there are just as many snobs in many universities that think that pop music is the underbelly of all the human arts!
But there is no theory in life? Oh my word ... what a concept! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: JCDenton
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 01:03
He wasn't quite saying that I am now able to appreciate music at all or to a better extent. The best way I can state knowing theory is like the Allegory of the Cave, once the man breaks free from looking at the wall all his life and sees the Sun, he knows some sort of new truth and cannot turn back. Theory just provides more angles for a listener. Being a "good" appreciater (not a word, I know) of music doesn't have the prerequisite of knowing theory. The only prerequisite is having functional ears!  We're all good listeners!  Well, that's subjective. But whatever..------------- "We have grown, but there is still much to be done. Many that live in darkness that must be shown the way, for it is the dawning of a new day." |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 07 2014 at 06:08
|
Thanks for the responses, sorry I haven't posted until now but I've been
extremely busy and haven't had the time to read the entire thread. I think it's important to remember that most music theory so far has evolved in a very specific cultural context to explain very particular music traditions, as in Western "art music". Of course, this same influence will then trickle down to popular music by way of how the entire culture thinks about music at large, as well as how recording technology is designed, but I suppose it's more something to be aware of than use as a measuring stick for quality. Perhaps it'd be easier to find a nuanced perspective on different philosophies of music if I were more into non-Western European music traditions, but I'm not sure I have the time and resources for ever developing an in-depth appreciation of those either. Someone mentioned that quite a few avantgarde and experimental musicians actually were motivated by trying to think around the music theory they had learned, though that might in turn be how new theories and systematizations of music composition are created. The kind of theory that forms the basis on how I judge music and my enjoyment of has less to do with how technically accomplished the performances are than it has to do with things like:
------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 13 2014 at 10:33
|
I spent my first 10 years learning to play sheet music and theory. Then I forgot it all and actually started playing. ;-) 30 years later, I'm still learning. But I can't remember when I bothered with musical theory.
|
Posted By: DreamInSong
Date Posted: September 14 2014 at 13:41
Learning theory shouldn't affect you basal enjoyment of music. Theoretically simple, complex, or nonsensical music can all still be beautiful (or not, if that's what you're into). As some people have mentioned, it can add a nice level of depth if you are the type who enjoys picking apart the artists intent.
Yeah, some more complex music requires multiple listens or a well trained ear to fully appreciate. It can be a time commitment. Of course, there is always the chance that you still won't like it even after the time commitment. If you want to get into the analytics of prog, you ought to also enjoy it for the pure emotion of the music, or have a lot of trust in the artists' intent. Otherwise, you will just be wasting time trying to understand a piece that simply wasn't meant for you. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 15 2014 at 02:27
|
That said I'm under the impression that except the most extreme technical metal, Zeuhl and Beefheart/Zappa-style Rock In Opposition avantgarde material, the vast majority of progressive rock is still relatively simple and closer to pop/rock if compared to classical. (especially 20th century experimental classical) Even when compared to the most "out there" free jazz improv for that matter. Again, people I meet from a classical or jazz background tend to like the stuff categorized as RIO/Avant-Prog much more than more mainstream progressive rock - which they find somewhat kitschy. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 16 2014 at 01:53
|
There is a massive difference between learning music theory, learning to play an instrument technically, ie. being a member of an orchestra, and being a musician. ;-) Being a musician is - for me, anyway, about being able to create and express musical ideas. These ideas do not necessarily come from an appreciation of theory. If you show someone a musical score and say "What's that ? " the answer is invariably "music". But it's not. It's actually just a representation of music. If you think about Rene Magritte's picture of a pipe, with the title "Ceci n'est pas un pipe", it's the same thing. Music is what occurs in your head. It is a synthesis of ideas and prior musical knowledge or experience. Learning all the scales in the world or how to create a double harmonic minor scale doesn't make you a musician, just as learning the history of art doesn't make you a painter.
|
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: September 16 2014 at 02:35
|
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 16 2014 at 03:12
|
True enough. ;-) I have issues about orchestral playing, though. Done it. The problem is that just interpreting sheet music is not - for me - being a musician. There is not really any creative process. Imagine I went onstage and played guitar exactly like Jimi Hendrix, note for note. The audience may be impressed. 90% of the "musicians" in the audience would be impressed. But really, there is no creativity there, no imagination. It's just copying. Which anyone can do. Monkey level of skill. With modern technology, it's possible for a multi instrumetalist to produce all their own work, but it's no fun. I play guitar, bass, sax, keyboards, flute and percussion. But it's just my own ideas. The best stuff comes when you play with other musicians. Theory is massively overrated. I used to think all you needed to do was say "12 bar in E" and that was enough. Actually, that's too complicated. You just start playing in E. Everyone else can see what you're doing, off they go from there. Whether it turns into blues or not, any decent musician should be able to follow you, work out what exactly you're doing, what the scale you're using is, and jam along. You tend to develop this ability to almost telepathically know what someone is going to play, where the song is going, where it can go, etc. All this takes a lot of time to develop as a skill. The thing about music is that there is no upper level to it, it's not finite. Musicians get very smug when they first get a note out of an instrument. Then they get a chord out of it and get very self satisfied. Then they can strum a basic tune, and think, how much more is there to know ? - a lifetime's worth of learning. People hide behind music theory, they hide behind equipment, it's all seen as being part of how clever you are, how much theory you know or whether you have the right capacitors in your guitar. Thing is, what really matters is what you play......... and you play from the imagination and experience and feeling, not from a theory book. Just personal opinion.
|
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 16 2014 at 03:17
|
And - really, thinking about it deeper, is this a question of semantics - "musician vs artist" ? - what do the words mean ? If so, Dayvenkirq, completely agree with your post. That makes me an artist. ;-) (Well, I hope it does !!! ) ;-) I hope I don't come across as immodest in these posts. I am honestly the worlds' most modest musician / artist !! What I really dislike is that a lot of musicians come across as being elitist and superior. I honestly believe that anyone can be taught to play if they approach it with the right attitude and enough enthusiasm.... and a big dose of reality. I've seen too many wannabe's who are in it for money or ego. Please, anyone, these are really just my opinions only. ;-)
|
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: September 16 2014 at 03:21
^ Yes, obviously, this is just your opinion. And being flexible in semantics is always welcome, ... I think. I personally am not that picky about definitions.  I think that if I'm just close enough to the true meaning of the word, I'm going to be just fine.
|
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: September 16 2014 at 06:26
|
There are certain rules and conventions in theory - avoiding consective ocatives, fidths and ensuring melody and bass )function alternately. Certain chaps (DIck Wagner and John Bach) have broken two of those plenty of times. I just opened the score to the St John Passion to find alt least one broken rule. But they do so effectively. The metal I may hear sounds boring from the lazy chording used. With the huge amount of music to hear now listeners have choices and I'd rather hear something where someone cares about their music rather than going for a lazy hack (so much metal which can veer from the corny to the great). Theory is good for arranging and knowing how to transpose especially for a singer or how to really extend a piece without a sudden (horrible) key change. For composition it's good for knowing if you are going to put a "wrong" note somewhere, whether it is correct or not and why. For instance there are actually 10 notes per scale! Most think there are 8. (The dominant 7th notes of the I and IV chords are all unacknowledged in the signature accidentals. It's the written version of language as playing is the oral part of the language. Anyway it's often the rhythm that really defines how things happen. The understanding of theory and the assessment of a piece is noted in the perennial discussion over Wolfie's intention over his Allegro in the 40th a long time favourite number of mine. Fun to play (the bits I can anyway)... Composer's intention - to finish the thing. Composer's hope - someone likes it. Sorry what was the question? |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 17 2014 at 02:39
|
"There are certain rules and conventions in theory"................ .. which is why theory is boring. And produces boring, predictable music. By the same token, you don't want to produce a cacophony, so it's knowing when and how to break the rules which is important. (c.f. Zappa et al.) I only need to look at most world music to realise that the rules of music theory can easily be broken. Most Islamic and Indian music works on a set of concepts and scales completely alien to Western theory. There is no real musical theory there, just guidelines in construction. And yet it works. You cannot regulate "art". |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 17 2014 at 04:37
I disagree. All forms of music regardless of their place of origin has a music theory to describe it. Eastern music has real musical theory, you say it sounds alien to Western theory but it is not completely alien, it has the same basic tenets of scales, note length and note intervals, meters, rhythms and tempo that are common to all forms of human created music, they have different 'rule-sets' to describe the music produced but the basics are the same. Music theory describes the practice of making music, it is an after the effect analysis of what music is. What it is not is a set of rules that determine what music should be, there are no [unbreakable] rules in music theory. All music (whether boring or not) is described by Music Theory. This sounds counter-intuitive because what we use to describe a chord or a scale certainly appears to be a rule-set, and it is something that is hammered into us when we learn music or learn to play an instrument, we diligently learn our scales by rote and by heart. Yet self-taught musicians and musicians with no formal training pick up those scales "by ear" - they are note-intervals that sound right when played together (and there are good mathematical reasons for that that I'll not go into). Every form of music played throughout the world (and from the archaeological evidence, throughout human history) shares similar sequences of note-intervals that can be described as a scale (or mode). For example if we state that the note intervals are {tone, tone, semitone, tone, tone, tone, semitone} then we have described a major scale, and that scale existed in practice long before anyone (such as Pythagoras) analysed it and described it. That interval-set works no matter which note we use as the starting note, we can shift those intervals up and down the piano keyboard or guitar fretboard and every scale we play will be a major scale and that starting note will be the key to unlocking that scale. So now it appears we have two 'rules', one for creating a major scale and one for transposing it to a different key. Musicians found that even though the major scale sounded good there were note combinations within the scale that didn't sound good when played together, by omitting those notes from the scale they found that they could play any sequence of the remaining notes and it would sound good (where that "good" is 'harmonic'). This omission of notes is not breaking the 'interval rule' of the major scale, it is describing a different 'rule'. Music theory observes and describes the remaining notes and from that it can be observed that the omitted notes where those whose interval to the next note was a semitone {tone, tone, semitone + tone, tone, tone + semitone}, and that gives a different interval-set and a different 'rule' - which is that of the major pentatonic scale. Again this 'rule' was used in music long before anyone analysed it or created a formal theory to describe it, moreover it is a universal scale that can be found in every form of music, from India to Indonesia, from Arabia to Japan, from Africa to Europe; the Indonesian Gamelan and a peel of bells in a Norman church are both pentatonic. Music Theory describes World Music. ------------- What? |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: September 17 2014 at 04:53
|
The thing with rules is that one has to know them to break them and when. Once upon a time the diminished interval was a complete no no. It took chaps like Beethoven to tell 'em to get stuffed, he'll do his Gross Fuge. Another thing with rules is to prevent music from being boring, keep the detail alive and fresh. Not to mention hoow to keep solos alive and ensemble playing tight. Having said that, listening to such absolutely correct academic music can drain the life out of it, the importance of being correct is paramount in those circles. But the right intervals in the right order stops the strings and voices from crossing the harmonies - unless there;s an intention for say, a bass fill to ascend. It's really just making the road smoother and easier to drive on rather than having pot holes knocking hell out your suspension - or hearing.... |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 17 2014 at 05:28
|
My oldest friend, a guy I've known since I was 3, is currently doing a PhD in physics while taking a philosophy course. Strange mix, but highly interesting - at least to the likes of me. Anyway, we've often talked about the 'language' or 'recipe' for highly complex things often works in hindsight. Fx, relegating the inner workings of a wave in mathematical terms is indeed very possible, but the fluctuations and ever twisting harmonics of the natural world restricts us from being able to accurately foresee how a wave will behave. I see music in much the same manner. All music can be relegated in a 'recipe' of notes and keys, but it's the small fluctuations coming from the human playing that really sets it off. I love the illogical about music - when things do not follow the recipe - when mistakes are used and in turn come off as something completely different. Just ask Jimi Hendrix or the guys from Amon Düül ll;) In that respect, you could say that the way I feel about music rather mimics the inner workings of flight - as nimbly explained by the great Douglas Adams below in my sig. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 17 2014 at 21:42
I don't think any of that is restricted by music theory or by an understanding of music theory. How a piece is played is nothing to do with theory. Music theory cannot (and does not) describe emotion, that is the art of the musician. As some dude¹ said, "there is no such thing as a wrong note" ... the same dude also said "It’s not the note you play that’s the wrong note – it’s the note you play afterwards that makes it right or wrong." ... and of course we can use Music Theory to explain why that is so and how it works; and there are recipes and rules that can help chose that second note, first of which is "do what worked before" (which is all a rule is when you think about it). Musicians who don't use formal Music Theory use the "do what worked before" rule all the time, and that is informal Music Theory. Jam-bands and other bands and musicians that improvise music do that a lot, which is why I argue that improvisation is not "a stream of subconsciousness" nor does it come from some magical realm or zone, it comes from experience and practice, it comes from knowing which notes can be played next because they worked before. This is why some improvs are interesting while most are arse-numbingly boring - the mistakes seldom come off something completely different because the "what worked before" recipe for fixing the mistake have a habit of being completely the same every time. This is not instinctive - it has to be learnt². A non-musician will not know how to resolve a "wrong" note but with practice and experience it does become second nature so the musician doesn't have to consciously think about the next note to play, he just plays it - and there is no magic to that. ¹ It was Miles Davies, it's always Miles Davies, he also said "don't fear mistakes, there are none" ² If I asked you to add 5 to 4 you would not have to think about the answer nor would you count 5 then 4 on your fingers, you just know the answer is 9. The reason you know that is because years ago you learnt the sum "5+4=9", committed it to memory and can give the answer with out thinking. No one instinctively knows that 4 added to 5 gives a total of 9, it has to be learnt.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 17 2014 at 21:51
Common Core Curriculum in America: ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 18 2014 at 02:31
Oh my, they made a meal out of that. While it isn't really what Common Core is about the method is one that is not uncommon, my wife uses that rounding-up method, especially when sorting change (aka coinage, money, spondula, shrapnel) and she can arrive at the answer a lot quicker than I can. Obviously no one will ever use it to add 6 to 9 in reality, with all single digit maths we commit the result to memory and it will just be a means to memorise the result so I guess it's intended for the addition of bigger numbers that we don't memorise the answer to.However, that's way off topic and from what I've read on the internet it is seriously political, perhaps it warrants its own GD thread but I suspect that will simply turn into a pointless sl*g.ing match. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 18 2014 at 05:39
|
The "no such thing as a wrong note"... is actually a quote from Ornette Coleman, a free jazz saxophonist. He said "There's no such thing as a wrong note played with the right intention". I think he's right, but I can't stand him as a sax player. ;-) Good post, Dean. Emotion is indeed the language of the musician. I get all these people telling me that music is about mathematics or theory...... it's not. Music is what emotions sound like. And there's another quote. ;-) |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 18 2014 at 06:03
The quote is variously attributed to several people including Art Tatum, Bill Evans and Thelonious Monk and several have added their own version of "with the right intention" to it. Music is about lots of things, as I have attempted to show, maths and theory only describe what music is, not what it is about. I can explain mathematically why two notes will sound harmonious or dissonant and nothing will ever change that, the mathematics can never describe how those two notes affect the listener.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: September 18 2014 at 06:12
|
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 19 2014 at 03:07
|
I disagree. All forms of music regardless of their place of origin has a music theory to describe it. Eastern music has real musical theory, you say it sounds alien to Western theory but it is not completely alien, it has the same basic tenets of scales, note length and note intervals, meters, rhythms and tempo that are common to all forms of human created music, they have different 'rule-sets' to describe the music produced but the basics are the same. [/QUOTE] Hi Dean, yes and no. Eastern maqams are not constructed in anything like a similar way to Western music or use scales in the same way that Western music does. 17 notes per octave in Eastern music, remember ? ;-) (24 in some cases.) Indian music uses - in the main - a completely different method of construction, too. As for meters, nope. The meters and rhythms of, say, Moroccan gnawa music or the music of Istanbul are completely alien to Western music. OK, you can have a 9/8 time signature in Western music but the beat emphasis is completely different. [/QUOTE] Yet self-taught musicians and musicians with no formal training pick up those scales "by ear" - they are note-intervals that sound right when played together (and there are good mathematical reasons for that that I'll not go into). Every form of music played throughout the world (and from the archaeological evidence, throughout human history) shares similar sequences of note-intervals that can be described as a scale (or mode). [/QUOTE] Absolutely, and this is what people forget. It is possible to play by ear alone. This is what I'm saying, *musicians get hung up by believing they have to learn musical theory and that they have to relate everything back to theory before they can play anything*. As a matter of fact, you don't. You can play by ear, and this is the important thing in music, because it's the basis of improvisation, which is - to me, anyway, true music. So what I'm saying is please forget all your music theory, folks. Learn it, but only learn it as far as you need it, ie. to gain a basic understanding and then play from ear from there. What I see is an infinite number of guitarists who just sit at home playing scales up and down up and down up and down until that's all they can do. They forget to *play the damn guitar* [/QUOTE]Music Theory describes World Music. [/QUOTE] Er, sorry, Dean. Music theory can be *used* to describe world music, but world music is so varied that whilst music theory can be bent to a description of it, it's occasionally a very bad translation. ;-) |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 19 2014 at 03:09
Non musicians, in the main. Boss at work, lady on the bus who failed her school clarinet exams..... ;-)
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 19 2014 at 04:33
|
Erm. I said Music Theory, not Western Music Theory, Music Theory encompasses all hemispheres; Music Theory = Western Music Theory + Middle Eastern Music Theory + Eastern Music Theory + etc. Music Theory covers atonal and microtonal scales and all ports in between. Ignoring regional variations in pitch and temperament, the music composed does not use every note in the 12/17/24 note scales and the notes chosen are those that work well together. Theory did not dictate which notes to use, musicians found those notes "by ear" and the Theory later explained why that was so, we use the Theory as a convention so we don't have to use trial and error every time. This is a common convention in the music of any hemisphere, the basic raga in Indian music is a melody formed from five notes from the full Indian scale, those basic five notes are pentatonic in nature. 9/8 time can have the beat emphasis wherever you want it to be, the common western convention is to split it into a triple compound (3+3+3) but this is not a fixed rule, some Irish music places the emphasis on the 5th and 9th beat, and other Western music splits it into non-triple compounds (2+2+2+3 a la Blue Rondo, Apocalypse in 9/8 goes 3+2+4). All this is covered by Music Theory. I also made no distinction between informal music theory (playing by ear) and formal Music Theory. Playing by ear finds what works, Music Theory describes why it works. As you said earlier: "...you don't want to produce a cacophony, so it's knowing when and how to break the rules which is important." ... Improvisation does not throw theory (informal or formal) out of the window, quite the opposite, it generally adheres more rigidly to convention than formal composition... It's fun to play but can be arse-numbing to listen to. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 19 2014 at 05:18
|
Yeah, I get the impression that as many of the last 60 years or so's breakthroughs within music theory have come from developments in jazz/improv rather than "classical" orchestral music. Even within the context of something like free jazz, you need to know the rules in order to successfully work around them if they shape audience expectations just through "cultural osmosis". This I'm saying as someone who doesn't get that much closer to real jazz than Captain Beefheart and Frank Zappa. Popular audiences might not know that much theory, but by trickling down through discourse of music through writing and musicians themselves it still informs ideas of what music is capable of in composition and performance. One example is that even with the rudimentary music theory knowledge I mentioned in the opening post, I still have the ability to sense to the point a piece of music sounds awkward or off-kilter is by design or by accident: Basically if there's some kind of coherent system to how the music deviates from the standardized norm of its style. It's what differentiates Celtic Frost and Voivod's earliest records from so many other no-fi early-1980s metal records lacking traditional technical proficiency. (one reason I think the latter is so underrated on this site) ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: September 19 2014 at 05:36
This. This times all the this-es .------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 19 2014 at 05:45
|
Well all that music theory really does is to offer up a universal music language. Now whether that is preferable is something I leave entirely up to the different musicians out there. I do however think there are places, even in rock music, where it's recommendable to have your theory up to scratch.....playing with Zappa for instance. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 19 2014 at 09:41
|
As an analogy, music theory is physics. You don't consider physics when catching a ball. You learn the principles and just do it. It is important to know the rules. As it is to, say, know the rules of a language. On this Dean and I agree, it seems. However, it's the method of delivery we appear to be at odds on (and some other minor stuff. ;-) ) - if I get a sax out, after 40 years of playing and go on stage and blow, what happens is that I think music and music comes out of the end of the sax, without me being consciously aware of constructing it, what theory applies and even the fact that my fingers are moving. It just happens. The fact is, there is tons of theory somewhere in my head, but it's not at the front of my thoughts when playing, otherwise I couldn't play. I'd be too busy thinking. If you learn to play an instrument, theory is something you have to know. However, the purpose of playing an instrument.... is to play. A lot of classically trained players sit there with the sheet music (or tab, in the case of a lot of guitarists) and when you remove it, they're lost. Do not, whatever you do, think that theory is music. Theory is just theory. If you spend 10 years thinking "scales go up, scales go down", then you end up just being able to play scales which.... go up and down. I showed some hopeless case the notes of a minor pentatonic blues scale a few years back and he said "which notes do you bend ? " - Will, put the guitar back in the case, honestly, put the case under the bed, leave it there. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 20 2014 at 07:09
Could you elaborate on that because this statement makes me quite curious. Because our ragas/modes are quite similar to Western scales with the difference being that the name of the raga does not change only based on the absolute notes being played; rather it depends on the relative locations of the notes. But the construction of a melodic phrase is not drastically different in Indian music vis a vis Western music. The main difference is our melodies are much more intricate (whereas we have no harmony or just one note harmony) but it's essentially the same phrase embellished a lot more to give it a curvy shape that Western melodies don't have (in comparison). And this is not just my observation. The Indian composer Ilayaraja made the same observation when asked how he was able to fuse Western and Indian. He said he heard Indian ragas in J S Bach's compositions, just minus the ornamentation and thus concluded they were essentially one and the same. I think it would be safe to say he knows a damn sight more about both forms of music than either of us. In the same vein, I have watched Shakti perform (RIP U Shrinivas) and observed first hand what I had already heard before in their recorded output - McLaughlin comfortably slipping in phrases that would fit note for note in Western music even as he performed within the boundaries of music that was largely Hindustani-based. I have often wondered if misconception and prejudice, rather than any logical impossibilities, make it so difficult to establish common ground between the two schools. It is of course quite possible you mean something entirely different by the word construction so I shall look forward to your response.
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 21 2014 at 06:51
|
It would be interesting here to look into the classical music traditions of cultures that aren't of Indo-European origin at all, Japan or Korea for instance, and compare their underlying systems of modes/scales/phrases. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 21 2014 at 09:46
As I said, most music traditions are centred around a pentatonic scale even if those five notes come from a scale that has more than 12 notes or has an uneven temperament or are not tuned to Western concert pitch (A=440Hz). Along with Indian (raga), Japanese and Korean music is based upon pentatonics (both are related to Chinese pentatonic scales). I'll never tire of showing this video by Howard Goodall, so here it is again for those who haven't seen it: The pentatonic is something that when any two of the notes played together produces harmonics that are sympathetic to notes in the scale or mode, this is a universal constant that can be described mathematically¹. Scales were not chosen at random, each note was carefully selected to be harmonious with its neighbour based on the "beat note" principle. Y will only be harmonious with X if the resulting beat note is also harmonious. Before Music Theory analysed how this worked musicians figured all this out empirically - they played two notes then tuned the second so it sounded harmonious. It was only later when smart people analysed the scale they discovered the mathematical relationship between the notes². This relationship is a power of 2, and is related to the octave and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_%28music%29" rel="nofollow - the harmonic series . Because two notes can be played together and sound harmonious we get chords. Chords can also be described mathematically³ even though they were originally derived empirically. In the dark annuls of history ancient cultures did not start with a many-note (chromatic) scale and pick 5 sympathetic notes from that to form a pentatonic - they all started with one (root) note and selected notes that were harmonic with it, this resulted in pentatonic scales and they derived the many-note scales from them - the reason for this is that when you transpose a pentatonic you need new notes that are harmonic to the new root-note to produce the new scale - in the Western music you needed a total of 7 more "new" notes to complete a full-octave scale, which results in the 12-note chromatic scale. In other cultures the actual derivation of their "chromatic" scales (even those that are non-chromatic) were also produced from simple harmonic scales of 5 or more notes - where they differ is in tuning and temperament. I started with a video, so I'll end with one that hammers home the inherent and natural universality of the pentatonic: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ¹These harmonic beat notes can be heard when tuning a guitar - for example when we play an in-tune "E" on one string together with an "E" on the string we want to tune we will hear a low frequency beat note, this (theory tells us) is a third note that is produced when one note is mathematically added to (or subtracted from) another. We learnt this in school as a trigonometric identity: sin(X) + sin (Y) = 2(sin((X+Y)÷2) × cos((X-Y)÷2)) When the two notes are identical the beat disappears ((X+Y)÷2=X and X-Y=0) but if the gap between them is sufficiently large then this third note could be a audible note that is on the same scale as the two notes that produced it. If this does occur then the third note is harmonious with the other two. ²These smart buggers analysed what sounds harmonious and discovered that the new "harmonious" note can be divided by a multiple of two (i.e., 2, 4, 8, etc) and multiplied by another whole number. So if we play a note that is 5/4ths of C then the beat note will be 9/8ths of C [(1+5/4)/2=(9/4)/2=9/8)] - since all three notes can be expressed as fractions of C we can say that 5/4ths is a 5th harmonic of C and 9/8ths is a 9th harmonic of C - in the convention of the Western scale these three notes are C E and D respectively. ³ Chords are any pairing of notes that are harmonic, when more than two notes form the chord the relationship between them all relates back to the root-note. In the above example of C and E we can add a G to produce a C-major chord. This G is a 3rd harmonic of C and results in a beat note that is a 7th harmonic of C.
------------- What? |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 21 2014 at 10:03
| That McFerrin video was amazing. And to confirm what he said, what all the audience vocalised is pretty much like the basic Carnatic scales we used to sing in high school music class...except, that is, for the part where he started harmonizing. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 27 2014 at 17:56
|
That's very interesting. Sorry I didn't get around to watching the videos until now, I've had an incredibly busy week. I guess there's just something to the way the human brain is wired that means there's this certainty to what people across different cultures will find pleasing to the senses. Perhaps that might even be the reasons that it's possible to establish commonly accepted standards for art on any kind of shared scale, there's this . There's actually quite a bit of theory written on how similar patterns go again in the visual arts, like the "golden ratio" which goes again in several artistic traditions independent from each other, or the Joseph Campbell/Christopher Brooker model of how the vast majority of literary narratives follow the same basic structures in quite the specific. Of course, those seem to be based on bigger generalizations than the universality of pentatonic scales. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 27 2014 at 20:03
It's not cultural. Nor is it limited to species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vocalization#Bird_song_and_music" rel="nofollow - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vocalization#Bird_song_and_music Regardless of whether either or neither of them are right, the observation that some birds sing in harmonic intervals that are the same as those in human singing reinforces the mathematical analysis/explanation of harmony.
The "golden ratio" is a consequence of binocular vision and is related to the aspect ratio of our central field of vision, which is that part of the scene that both eyes can see simultaneously. A person who is blind in one eye tends to prefer proportions that are squarer. There is no psychobabble magic to this, it is simply mathematics and human physiology. Plot narratives follow a series of predictable "what do you think will happen next?" stages, given that the beginning and the end stages are fixed and a solution-stage can never come before the problem-stage, then there are a limited number of permutations of intermediate stages available.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 28 2014 at 01:55
|
There's actually an article about this biological/psychological basis of aesthetics in the latest issue of a Danish-language journal of philosophy I picked up earlier this week. It's published at the college I attend, and I've contributed several articles to it in the past. (the master's thesis I'm writing right now is kind of about the same subject, just from a more idealistic/metaphysical angle) I haven't finished reading that article, but I could perhaps post a summary of it in this thread when I'm done. Is anyone interested? ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 28 2014 at 04:36
Another interesting thing about harmonics and the pentatonic: As can be seen in my "footnote" above, the Cmaj chord is constructed from three notes of the C major pentatonic scale, C E and G. The second and third notes are harmonically related to C. E is a 5th harmonic and G is a 3rd harmonic. The beat notes produced are also harmonic, being the 9th and the 7th harmonic of C respectively. What is immediately obvious here is that all these numbers are odd numbers, we have "C" the fundamental or 1st, then the 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th harmonic. If we apply inverse-Fourier transform to these 5 tones (i.e., add them together) we get a single waveform whose fundamental frequency (i.e., the lowest tone you can hear) is "C", which is why the chord is a C chord and not an "E" or a "G". If we sum all the odd harmonics of a tone together in the right proportions the resulting waveform is a square wave, if we change the proportions we get a triangle wave. This is not a coincidence and it goes way beyond being just a cool observation. The summation of odd harmonics sound good: all woodwind instruments produce tones that are rich in odd harmonics, all brass instruments produce tones that are rich in odd harmonics; and the pipe in a pipe organ resonates at odd harmonic intervals. An overdriven guitar, though it is distortion, sounds pleasing in its purest form is also rich in odd harmonics and even the plucked string of a guitar that isn't overdriven has stronger odd harmonics than even ones. Each piano note is made from the sound of three strings all tuned to the same pitch, these three strings are different gauges so the tension in each is different for the same pitch, this change in tension creates the overall tone of the piano note, and is rich in odd harmonics. In electronic instruments we exploit this odd-harmonic relationship when creating new sounds: the fundamental tone generators (square and triangular) that the notes are synthesised from are all rich in odd harmonics and we apply filtering to subtract some of those harmonics to produce tones that sound good but are still rich in odd harmonics. One characteristic of all these sounds is that they are symmetrical, that is they vibrate back and forth equally in both directions. We hear these vibrations because our ear converts the back and forth motion in the air as it hits our ear-drum into a back and forth motion of the fluid in the cochlea, which is then detected by the movement of hairs in the cell walls and converted to electrical signals that are sent to the brain. Sounds that move these hairs smoothly (i.e., symmetrically) sound good, those that jerk them around (i.e., asymetrically) do not. Our physiology determines what sounds good, not psychology.
------------- What? |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: September 30 2014 at 12:09
Ths whole thing ... excellent. Sometimes I wish I knew music better, since I probably would have a lot of fun doing/talking/playing stuff like this. My mind is a bit like that at times. ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 03 2014 at 05:10
Another cool observation: the common thing about the pipe organ and woodwind and brass instruments is that the sound is produced in a tube. To this list we can add whistles, recorders, pan pipes, didgeridoos, the Japanese shō and wind chimes. Plus tu-bu-lar-bells... In each how the sound is generated is different, organs and woodwinds use a reed, brass uses the players lips and whistle use a fipple, but it is the tube turns them into a musical instrument. It does this because the sound resonates in the tube and the length and bore of the tube determines the fundamental resonant frequency, which we call the pitch of the note. In a wind-chime or tubular bell the sound is the resonance itself. A simple tube can be made to resonate at different frequencies, for example in a Natural Horn (i.e., one without valves or slides) the player can produce different notes by changing their lip-tension, but they cannot produce just any frequency, they can only produce a certain number of notes, and those notes are all related to each other harmonically. This is because the tube can only resonate at whole multiples of the fundamental tone (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc.) and this is therefore a harmonic series. As we have seen, a pentatonic scale is also part of that same harmonic series so a simple tube can play notes that are pentatonic. The earliest known musical instrument is a tube with five holes in it... In effect the tube is a filter that only allows the tones in that harmonic series to be heard, another way of thinking of this is that the tube amplifies the harmonic tones and suppresses the non-harmonic ones. The raw sound produced in the mouth-piece by the players lips is full of different frequencies, both harmonic and non-harmonic, the tube filters out the non-harmonic ones and amplifies the harmonic ones. By changing lip-tension the player changes the range of raw frequencies they generate and the tube does the rest. When a horn-player plays the fundamental (i.e. lowest) note their lips are also creating some higher tones, the tube filters off all those that are not harmonic and some of them that are harmonic, so the resulting sound you hear is the basic fundamental with lots of harmonics, this is called the timbre of the note. The timbre is determined by how well the tube can amplify each of the harmonics, this is called the formant. We can measure the timber of a note using spectral analysis (Fourier Transforms), this gives us the relative proportions (i.e., heights) of the peaks in the spectrum and by observing that these proportions remain more-or-less the same for every note produced and we call this "shape" of spectral peaks the formant. The formant of a tube can be changed by altering its shape (cross section) and its diameter - simple circular cross-sections for example are better at amplifying odd harmonics whereas other shapes suppress some of these harmonics and/or allow more of the even-harmonics to be heard. The tube in a saxophone has a flattened cross-section and that boosts the even-harmonics... which is why a soprano sax does not sound the same (i.e. does not have the same timbre) as a clarinet - its formant is different. Formant is key to how an instrument sounds, it is what produces the timbre of the note played. This affects all instruments and determine why all instruments playing the same note sound different. The shape of a violin body affects its formant, the material it is made from also affects its formant, this carries through into the body shape of a guitar and explains why a Les Paul has a different "tone" to a Telecaster. ------------- What? |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 13:02
But that's like saying that you can not "find" new things, just because you don't know the scales! And that is not true, at all.
Even theater, showed that better than otherwise, with the new styles and writers, with different things, many of which were direct results of very advanced rehearsals and such. I'm not sure that musicians take that kind of exercise as seriously, but I know that many of them "practice" their parts quite a bit into the night away from the limelight. And that could/should have just as much "input" and "influence" as a rehearsal can with a director. Albeit the musician is not really in a position to be in the outside and inside at the same time. And I think this is the biggest issue with musicians!
You can't be in two places at once and nowhere at all at the same time. With thanks to the Firesign Theater ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Anoraknok
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 13:08
|
Well SW admits he is not really educated, still, everyone worships him like there is no tomorrow. So I guess it doesn't matter to do a successful - even progressive styled - music. As for me, music theory is a very useful thing as long as you employ it when necessary and forget it when the art demands. |