Playing thoughts?

[alexclaber]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='247049' date='Jul 24 2008, 05:11 PM']I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am debating for the sake of reaching a reasoned conclusion - much like every other debate should be conducted. I hate this "Oh let's agree to disagree". No, if someone has a good question, let's find out the answer.[/quote]

There is no answer! As you said yourself it's ART. Any method is valid.

Alex

[6stringbassist]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='247049' date='Jul 24 2008, 05:11 PM']6 string bassist - Certainly, but what are words? A 10 word sentence says a lot more than a 10 note song, and it actually means something practical to someone. A note is not a word, neither is a chord, or a gap in sound. A word says more than any sound can say.

Consider this -

Modern art can be a tin of paint chucked at a canvas

Modern "classical" music can be some violins set up at random, with random bows chucked at the strings

Modern literature can not be ;uhrw.mgnpu;jNLmdnf,tjkwrny Q;EFUW;MNQWE;D [OIIDY;EWFN

The art of language is entirely different to visual arts or the art of music.


Language by it's nature must be organised.

Art by it's nature can be ANYTHING![/quote]

How many conversations do we have in a day, and how many do we remember ?.

But we remember melodies, even if we don't remember the words to the song, I think music says, or can say more than words.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='247049' date='Jul 24 2008, 05:11 PM']My question is "what advatages do composers with extensive knowledge of music theory have over those with almost no knowledge of music theory?"[/quote]

Facility.

It takes nothing away from the notable examples of people who achieve the same without extensive knowledge, but then I have never said it did.

Would just like to add Tom that you seem in this debate to be taking little account of what is said in peoples various points here, strikes me that you may be doing that in order to rush to your next point. Many of the points you raise have been addressed and answered quite successfully and that you raise questions from dialogue that are not resultant from their assertion suggests a little over eagerness to have the debate rather than absorb the resultant evidence, style over substance as it were.
You know I enjoy a debate, and you know I enjoy your hunger for the same, today I think you need to read a little more thoroughly.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='6stringbassist' post='247056' date='Jul 24 2008, 05:18 PM']How many conversations do we have in a day, and how many do we remember ?.

But we remember melodies, even if we don't remember the words to the song, I think music says, or can say more than words.[/quote]

Melodies are by their nature far more emotionally quintessential than someone like me rattling on.
Quotes and cliches work for the same reasons

Edited July 24, 2008 by jakesbass

[The Funk]

You could argue that composers who have a highly developed theoretical understanding, and geniuses who don't, both have the ability to express exactly what they're thinking/feeling through their composition. You could argue that that is playing from your soul.

You could also argue that some other people compose by stumbling upon things - trial and error - or deploying old techniques or devices they're familiar with. This last category of composer could be someone with a highly developed theoretical understanding or someone with no theoretical understanding whatsoever. Either way, you'd think that this second group of composers would take longer to come up with great compositions or have more inconsistent output.

In both groups of composers, you'd have people with theoretical knowledge and people without. So it's not theory or lack thereof which makes you a lazy or haphazard composer.

Tom, it seems like you're worried that theory can in some way [i]block[/i] creativity. You haven't said so but it seems like that's what your main point is. Theory can't block creativity in the same way that lack of theory cannot. I think Jake may well have said that back on the first page.

That's not agreeing to disagree. It's saying that everyone's musical path is different and everyone should have their own approach to it - what works for one person might not work for someone else. And to be fair, Tom, Alex and Jake (as well as many others) have all explicitly said that over the last few pages.

Edited July 24, 2008 by The Funk

[lowhand_mike]

i dont know the first thing about music chords etc, but i still play and have learn pretty much what i know from listening to cd's and re-listening till i know what i am playing, tab helps sometimes but isn't always accurate. i did spend a little time learning some scales but they all seemed pretty much the same and variations there of, guess i need a tutor really but dont have the time or funds.

so what area would be best to look at as some of you are talking weird things that i dont get

[The Funk]

Our own dlloyd started a thread in the theory section setting out the basics of music theory. He explains things very clearly. I'll go find the thread.

EDIT:
Here it is - [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=16422"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=16422[/url]

Edited July 24, 2008 by The Funk

[Oscar South]

[quote name='lowhand_mike' post='247081' date='Jul 24 2008, 05:59 PM']i dont know the first thing about music chords etc, but i still play and have learn pretty much what i know from listening to cd's and re-listening till i know what i am playing, tab helps sometimes but isn't always accurate. i did spend a little time learning some scales but they all seemed pretty much the same and variations there of, guess i need a tutor really but dont have the time or funds.

so what area would be best to look at as some of you are talking weird things that i dont get [/quote]

I think the best way to start off imo is to get a decent grasp of tonal theory, you can get a lot of free stuff about it from places like [url="http://www.musictheory.net/"]http://www.musictheory.net/[/url] and [url="http://www.tonalcentre.org/"]http://www.tonalcentre.org/[/url], if you've got access to a keyboard its a LOT easier too. As far as applying it to your instrument goes, I'd have a go at learning the modes of the major scale and all major and minor triad inversions in one octave at first and also up and down the neck inside specific keys. Building on that you could learn the modes and inversions in 2 octaves, could expand the chords to 7ths (I'd look at maj7ths, dom7ths, min7ths and min7b5ths at first) and could look at harmonic minor modes.

These are just a few suggestions of where I started and worked towards, there are probably many better methods.

[The Funk]

[quote name='Oscar South' post='247096' date='Jul 24 2008, 06:14 PM']could look at harmonic minor modes.[/quote]

Melodic minor modes are more useful so look at those before harmonic minor modes... but before any of this, go look at dlloyd's thread.

[Oscar South]

[quote name='The Funk' post='247099' date='Jul 24 2008, 06:16 PM']Melodic minor modes are more useful so look at those before harmonic minor modes... but before any of this, go look at dlloyd's thread.[/quote]

Why? Minor harmony is 99% of the time built on the harmonic or natural minor scale.

Edited July 26, 2008 by Oscar South

[lowhand_mike]

eh?

you lost me

seriously i have no idea what you just said but i guesss thats what learning it there for.

i do have a site called study bass bookmarked but i havent looked at it in a lonnngggg time.

[Oscar South]

Heh, do some of the lessons at musictheory.net, they'll explain a lot of the terminology and do a good job of establishing the basics for you to build on.

Edited July 24, 2008 by Oscar South

[lowhand_mike]

had a quick look at dlloyds post and while alot of it sounds familiar (guess i know more than i thought) i need brushing up on things.
i have been playing (on and off) for about10 years , though really only been playing recently for 2 and i get by and tend to explain and work out stuff for our guitarists before they get it but thats just by ear, i need to be comfortable improvising safely. not really soloing though that would be nice but having the confidence there to just get on with it.
at the moment i have to learn the lines exactly by ear or tab and applying them to our covers set.
i'm pretty sure i know the major scale shape just going from ther i'm theoretically lost.

thanks for the heads up on site to look at.

[cheddatom]

I should make a long post responding to everyone, but I dont really have the time so sorry if I seem blunt!

Alex - I misread one of your posts and got the impression that you thought a composer who knew theory would be a better composer than the opposite. I think what you were actually saying is just how theory helps you compose.

The Funk - I think you have it spot on. There are as many great composers who know theory as don't, and just as many crap composers.

Jake - Sometimes I find an idea questionable, such as the idea that a musician fluent in music theory is a better musician than someone without much knowledge of theory. I think in some circumstances this would be the case - working as a session musician, or "dep" (still not sure what that stands for?) or working with a group of very technical/fluent in music theory people. On the other hand, if we were talking about creating music from "the soul" then music theory is irrelevant - each to his own.

Anyway - if I find an idea questionable, I will try and find out the reasons behind it - if there are any. I don't think that I have been ignoring the content in these pages. I think you yourself have missed some of my points. Wasn't it you who said giving examples of "theory-less" composers was pointless, and then in another post used a list of "theory-expert" composers? Sorry if not.

I admit I like to debate, and I admit to misinterpreting alex, but I don't think I have ignored any content.

My general view on music theory is that it helped me as a guitarist to learn it, and as a consequence helped my musicality in general quite significantly. This was my view before beginning in the debate!

Sorry if I pissed you guys off

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='247236' date='Jul 24 2008, 08:18 PM']Jake - Sometimes I find an idea questionable, such as the idea that a musician fluent in music theory is a better musician than someone without much knowledge of theory. I think in some circumstances this would be the case - working as a session musician, or "dep" (still not sure what that stands for?) or working with a group of very technical/fluent in music theory people. On the other hand, if we were talking about creating music from "the soul" then music theory is irrelevant - each to his own.

Anyway - if I find an idea questionable, I will try and find out the reasons behind it - if there are any. I don't think that I have been ignoring the content in these pages. I think you yourself have missed some of my points. Wasn't it you who said giving examples of "theory-less" composers was pointless, and then in another post used a list of "theory-expert" composers? Sorry if not.[/quote]

I said it was unhelpful, anomolies are always poor evidence. My examples of lots of well educated composers simply establishes that there is a validity to that route. This does not undermine the validity of other methods. It's just that citing examples does not establish the weight of accepted evidence based argument. In other words, take understanding from what I say, not from what I didn't say. That happens all the time. Just because someone does not state a certain view does not mean they don't hold it. So for the record I think there are some great untrained composers it seems you assumed I thought one camp is better, I don't.

[quote name='cheddatom' post='247236' date='Jul 24 2008, 08:18 PM']Sorry if I pissed you guys off [/quote]
It takes more than an interest in things musical to piss me off Tom so no apology needed.

Edited July 24, 2008 by jakesbass

[cheddatom]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='247275' date='Jul 24 2008, 09:06 PM']I said it was unhelpful, anomolies are always poor evidence. My examples of lots of well educated composers simply establishes that there is a validity to that route. This does not undermine the validity of other methods. It's just that citing examples does not establish the weight of accepted evidence based argument. In other words, take understanding from what I say, not from what I didn't say. That happens all the time. Just because someone does not state a certain view does not mean they don't hold it. So for the record I think there are some great untrained composers it seems you assumed I thought one camp is better, I don't.[/quote]

Some of the wording here is very confusing, if not ambiguous.

You are giving examples to give weight to your argument, so why is it "unhelpful" if I give examples for mine?

What is "accepted evidence based argument"?

You think that there are some great untrained composers - but apparently they're anomalies!?

I think we hold the same viewpoint but that I can't understand your elaborate summary. Dumb it down man!

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='247338' date='Jul 24 2008, 10:18 PM']Some of the wording here is very confusing, if not ambiguous.

You are giving examples to give weight to your argument, so why is it "unhelpful" if I give examples for mine?

What is "accepted evidence based argument"?

You think that there are some great untrained composers - but apparently they're anomalies!?

I think we hold the same viewpoint but that I can't understand your elaborate summary. Dumb it down man![/quote]

I'll try dumb down, sorry, I'm very prone to elaborate conjecture Tom so bear with me, I bore myself sometimes .

In the world of music there are thousands of examples of successful, trained musicians/composers throughout history. There are a smaller number of people who are successful and great without training. Using the smaller number as a reasoning for not being trained is a poor example and is a weightless argument for not knowing your sh*t IMO.

[Rich]

Didn't somebody once say "if it sounds right, it [u]is[/u] right**"..? I bet he didn't worry about whether it was a demented third or a diminished responsibility or whatever.

[size=1]** sorry if this has been done already, but to be honest I got through part of this thread and then started to lose the will to live.[/size]

[BassMunkee]

I read the first 3 pages yesterday and posted some rubbish off the top of my head at some point, and then read page 6 this morning.
Evidently someone got "annoyed" with someone else and then it all kind plateaud (plateau'd?) a bit as these things do.
The interesting thing about discussions of this nature is their circularity, there is no wrong answer and no right answer, the only answer is the one that works for you - if that wasn't the case there would not be a 6 page thread about it, but having said even the most staunch "no-theory-er" would have have to accept that they have gained at the very least the fundamentals with realising it, I know I have - it's just that I don't understand what they are from a technical point of view, I just know that it sounds good. Somebody might come and tell me that it would sound better if I played the dimished 5th of the root after the octave and I would look blankly at them, someone else might come in and say "put your finger on the 5th fret of the D string after playing that last note" and I would know exactly what they meant.
If all the musicians in a band all speak the same language, then that removes an obstacle to their joint creativity.
If you do things solo, I guess it's not as much of a problem, I haven't found it to be so tho' I will freely admit that I have copied the tuition and theory links off of this thread and I look forward to reading them, if only for my own edification, and because, even though I tend to just go with what I like, I do have some diagrams on my wall that I like to refer to!!
Oh yeah, and having a keyboard definately helps because now I have to transpose the notes from one instrument onto the other and actually think about what goes with what - so it does force me to look closer at what I'm doing, which is good.

Anyway this post is so long I'm losing the will to live. So I'm gonna stop. If any of you lot are still awake:
A: Congratulations.
B: Can you tell me what I just said?!

[cheddatom]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='247349' date='Jul 24 2008, 10:30 PM']I'll try dumb down, sorry, I'm very prone to elaborate conjecture Tom so bear with me, I bore myself sometimes .

In the world of music there are thousands of examples of successful, trained musicians/composers throughout history. There are a smaller number of people who are successful and great without training. Using the smaller number as a reasoning for not being trained is a poor example and is a weightless argument for not knowing your sh*t IMO.[/quote]

I don't think there is any research to support you in saying "In the world of music there are thousands of examples of successful, trained musicians/composers throughout history. There are a smaller number of people who are successful and great without training."

...but if you have a link to some research and/or a reason behind this statement?

I'm guessing you're thinking about hundreds of years worth of classical composers for whom the ability to notate is an essential skill. If you think about early blues, or jazz, (i'm guessing) there would be an equal number on both sides.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='247514' date='Jul 25 2008, 08:50 AM']I don't think there is any research to support you in saying "In the world of music there are thousands of examples of successful, trained musicians/composers throughout history. There are a smaller number of people who are successful and great without training."

...but if you have a link to some research and/or a reason behind this statement?

I'm guessing you're thinking about hundreds of years worth of classical composers for whom the ability to notate is an essential skill. If you think about early blues, or jazz, (i'm guessing) there would be an equal number on both sides.[/quote]
A fair observation, I [i]was[/i] including all music through history.