Is dominant seventh interval....

GuyBoden

Clarky said:

GuyBoden said:

Many players don't seem to realise that there are many Music theories; Western Classical, Modal (old), Modal (new), Serialism, etc the list goes on and on.

I see some players trying to apply Western Classical Music theories to analyse Pop and Rock music, this approach doesn't work a lot of the time and ends up with them being very frustrated...

I think a bigger problem is folk treating music theory as if it is absolute.. like a set of rules.. and then find that they're being confined by it.. kinda the tail wagging the dog type thing..

The problem runs much deeper than that, the vast majority of music education teaches Music theory based on Classical Music's rules of Major/minor Scales and Harmony establish after 1750's, so most players analyse all types of music using these rules, not knowing that some music doesn't use these rules.

Clarky

GuyBoden said:

Clarky said:

GuyBoden said:

Many players don't seem to realise that there are many Music theories; Western Classical, Modal (old), Modal (new), Serialism, etc the list goes on and on.

I see some players trying to apply Western Classical Music theories to analyse Pop and Rock music, this approach doesn't work a lot of the time and ends up with them being very frustrated...

I think a bigger problem is folk treating music theory as if it is absolute.. like a set of rules.. and then find that they're being confined by it.. kinda the tail wagging the dog type thing..

The problem runs much deeper than that, the vast majority of music education teaches Music theory based on Classical Music's rules of Major/minor Scales and Harmony establish after 1750's, so most players analyse all types of music using these rules, not knowing that some music doesn't use these rules.

personally I think that classical counter point / harmony is a great place to start because it's less open to interpretation than contemporary theory.. but if you teach it like history, then you can start in the 1700's and work your way through to today.. then, some of the more unusual ambiguities that exist in modern theory are easier to explain because it can be done with respect to the evolution / modification / bastardization of something that came before that was more clearly set in stone.. when I teach theory I do it exactly this way.. for any specific subject, I'll start with the classical and end with the contemporary.. seems to work..

Frankieabbot

I can't even attempt to blag it by stating the classic 'If it sounds good then it must be ok' line cos some of the more 'clashing' chords (referred to as dissonant I believe) can be played during some chord progressions! Blimey.....it's a theoretical minefield out there.

Clarky

Frankieabbot said:

I can't even attempt to blag it by stating the classic 'If it sounds good then it must be ok' line cos some of the more 'clashing' chords (referred to as dissonant I believe) can be played during some chord progressions! Blimey.....it's a theoretical minefield out there.

the thing that really matters is...

do not create music using theory unless there is a very specific reason to.. and even then, the ear must always have the final say..

Frankieabbot

Clarky said:

Frankieabbot said:

I can't even attempt to blag it by stating the classic 'If it sounds good then it must be ok' line cos some of the more 'clashing' chords (referred to as dissonant I believe) can be played during some chord progressions! Blimey.....it's a theoretical minefield out there.

the thing that really matters is...

do not create music using theory unless there is a very specific reason to.. and even then, the ear must always have the final say..

Hey man.....that's beautiful.

GuyBoden

Clarky said:

Frankieabbot said:

I can't even attempt to blag it by stating the classic 'If it sounds good then it must be ok' line cos some of the more 'clashing' chords (referred to as dissonant I believe) can be played during some chord progressions! Blimey.....it's a theoretical minefield out there.

the thing that really matters is...

do not create music using theory unless there is a very specific reason to.. and even then, the ear must always have the final say..

Yeah, most of Pop/Rock music is written by choosing sounds that sound good to the writer, chords that sound good, melodies that sound good, rhythms etc. It's players trying to analyse Pop/Rock music using Classical Music theory that I find a bit annoying and ultimately really quite useless.

Paul_C

Frankieabbot said:

Clarky said:

Frankieabbot said:

I can't even attempt to blag it by stating the classic 'If it sounds good then it must be ok' line cos some of the more 'clashing' chords (referred to as dissonant I believe) can be played during some chord progressions! Blimey.....it's a theoretical minefield out there.

the thing that really matters is...

do not create music using theory unless there is a very specific reason to.. and even then, the ear must always have the final say..

Hey man.....that's beautiful.

I've always considered music theory as a way of describing what you're playing (or hearing) rather than a set of rules that have to be adhered to. Understanding theory can help you if you're composing in as much as it can provide a quick way of finding suitable notes/chords, but it can never stop you from doing something beyond that.

Frankieabbot

This thread has gone a bit mental since my opening post. I'm really at the very basic end of theory....if indeed it is theory. I'm at a stage where I'm putting my fingers on frets and seeing (well, hearing really) what the sound is like. Then trying to work out what intervals the sounds are to each other.....then see what happens if I move a finger or three to any nearby frets. See/hear how that sounds and work out the intervals and repeat. Suppose it keeps me out of trouble!

Clarky

Paul_C said:

Frankieabbot said:

Clarky said:

Frankieabbot said:

I can't even attempt to blag it by stating the classic 'If it sounds good then it must be ok' line cos some of the more 'clashing' chords (referred to as dissonant I believe) can be played during some chord progressions! Blimey.....it's a theoretical minefield out there.

the thing that really matters is...

do not create music using theory unless there is a very specific reason to.. and even then, the ear must always have the final say..

Hey man.....that's beautiful.

I've always considered music theory as a way of describing what you're playing (or hearing) rather than a set of rules that have to be adhered to. Understanding theory can help you if you're composing in as much as it can provide a quick way of finding suitable notes/chords, but it can never stop you from doing something beyond that.

trying to analyse a pop songs in terms of 18th century counter point would be a bit stupid..

and trying to pin things down like cadences won't always make sense either.. although the Beatles used them quite often..

but right at the most fundamental level [where it really matters], classical and contemporary are essentially the same..

Clarky

Paul_C said:

Frankieabbot said:

Clarky said:

Frankieabbot said:

I can't even attempt to blag it by stating the classic 'If it sounds good then it must be ok' line cos some of the more 'clashing' chords (referred to as dissonant I believe) can be played during some chord progressions! Blimey.....it's a theoretical minefield out there.

the thing that really matters is...

do not create music using theory unless there is a very specific reason to.. and even then, the ear must always have the final say..

Hey man.....that's beautiful.

I've always considered music theory as a way of describing what you're playing (or hearing) rather than a set of rules that have to be adhered to. Understanding theory can help you if you're composing in as much as it can provide a quick way of finding suitable notes/chords, but it can never stop you from doing something beyond that.

absolutely.. it's simply a set of terms to help folk describe what they hear..

and therefore nothing more than a means of communication..

that said.. as a composer, if I was presented with a brief to create a piece in Baroque style for a movie / documentary etc, I would absolutely have to start working within some pretty strict limits and applying certain methods of composition and orchestration to the letter.. and likewise, if the brief stipulated late 19th century Russian Romanticism, the tonality and available instruments would be different.. luckily my brief is simply to be noisy and epic… lmao

GuyBoden

Clarky said: at the most fundamental level [where it really matters], classical and contemporary are essentially the same..

Please explain, I'm not too sure what you mean, are you saying that classical and contemporary classical music theory are essentially the same..or classical and contemporary Pop/Rock music theory are the essentially same.

Clarky

at the most fundamental level yes they are the same..

intervals, scales and chord spelling, the notes in a key and the chords they generate is the same in both theoretical systems

viz

Yep western theory is well sufficient and capable of describing anything to be found in pop and jazz harmony and melody; the notes and definitions are all the same and the more I learn, the more roots to classical I can see - or at least, seemingly new / conflicting things start to melt away with study.

However, the traditional theoretical language can be very clunky and there are often more shortcut ways of describing typical modern phrases. After all, modern music has carved deeper ruts in certain areas that classical didn't really explore (E7b10 anyone?) so there's bound to be new language popping up to help us familiarise ourselves with what's current.

GuyBoden;891166" said:

Clarky said:



Frankieabbot said:

I can't even attempt to blag it by stating the classic 'If it sounds good then it must be ok' line cos some of the more 'clashing' chords (referred to as dissonant I believe) can be played during some chord progressions! Blimey.....it's a theoretical minefield out there.





the thing that really matters is... do not create music using theory unless there is a very specific reason to.. and even then, the ear must always have the final say..




Yeah, most of Pop/Rock music is written by choosing sounds that sound good to the writer, chords that sound good, melodies that sound good, rhythms etc. It's players trying to analyse Pop/Rock music using Classical Music theory that I find a bit annoying and ultimately really quite useless.

I'm well aware that I'm one of the guiltiest in using western classical theory to describe pop and jazz! and I know it isn't ideal - but the problem is it's the only theory I know. I'm trying to broaden out because I know it's unhelpful to those who haven't followed the same path, and irritating to those who have managed to learn parallel paths, but it's difficult for me. Bear with me ...

frankus

I think it's okay to describe pop music in terms of classical music, that was the big twist in Richard Thompson's 1000 years of music ... Oops I did it again...  was the same as a 13th century song he played earlier in the set - he segued straight into it and got a laugh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4WGsMplGxU

Clarky

personally, I don't make a destinction between classical and contemporary theory.. there's simply no need

to me it's all just theory.. as music has evolved over the centuries, terminology etc has had to evolve and adapt to describe it.. so to me it's just one great big bundle of stuff.. and like all things academic there are some areas / topics that are highly specific, so it's not surprising that likewise there are elements in music that are highly specific to a period of time, musical genre or even a specific instrument.. but I don't think that there's one theory system for classical and another for pop / jazz.. to me theory is theory and it can describe it all.. it really makes no sense at to make 'us and them' type divisions.. it's all just music..

if someone is struggling to describe something they hear then either the theoritical 'thing' they're using to describe it is not appropriate, not fully understood... or the thing itself is simply a pain in the rear and open to ambiguous interpretations.. which absolutely does happen....

my big issue with the academic side of music is that folk take it far too seriously and far too absolutely.. music creation is an art not a science.. the theory behind it is not a religous doctrine.. it's simply a tool to aid us in understanding / describing what's going on..

frankus

I like to think of all theory as rhythm - there are no wrong notes only frequencies of use and preferred points in a bar to use them. At that point styles are the simply modalities and people can swap in an out of styles as they do bars - the cliché-ness, obscurity and authenticity of this is the balance of artistry, taste and familiarity.

One day in Teesside I woke up hearing what I thought was a Vietnamese person talking - I'd woken up mid-vowel and my frame was off. When the next person replied, I had a frame and recognised the pattern.

 I really don't get the obsession with note selection - if I play Starwars with the wrong notes the chance is strong you'd get it... play the right notes in the wrong time I think it's less likely - I know it is I used to do just that in Sleep Walk by Johnny and Santo    

Clarky

frankus said:

I like to think of all theory as rhythm - there are no wrong notes only frequencies of use and preferred points in a bar to use them. At that point styles are the simply modalities and people can swap in an out of styles as they do bars - the cliché-ness, obscurity and authenticity of this is the balance of artistry, taste and familiarity.

One day in Teesside I woke up hearing what I thought was a Vietnamese person talking - I'd woken up mid-vowel and my frame was off. When the next person replied, I had a frame and recognised the pattern.

 I really don't get the obsession with note selection - if I play Starwars with the wrong notes the chance is strong you'd get it... play the right notes in the wrong time I think it's less likely - I know it is I used to do just that in Sleep Walk by Johnny and Santo    

and if you were a member of the orchestra playing the wrong notes with the right rhythmic patterns, the chance is that you'll get fired.. lol..

I am a veteran of playing wrong notes on occassion.. the principle issue though is that when playing them, in such a big place, to that many people, through such a big rig, cranked that high, mic'd into such a huge PA.. they seem to have so much more emphasis.. lmao

frankus

Clarky said:

frankus said:

I like to think of all theory as rhythm - there are no wrong notes only frequencies of use and preferred points in a bar to use them. At that point styles are the simply modalities and people can swap in an out of styles as they do bars - the cliché-ness, obscurity and authenticity of this is the balance of artistry, taste and familiarity.

One day in Teesside I woke up hearing what I thought was a Vietnamese person talking - I'd woken up mid-vowel and my frame was off. When the next person replied, I had a frame and recognised the pattern.

 I really don't get the obsession with note selection - if I play Starwars with the wrong notes the chance is strong you'd get it... play the right notes in the wrong time I think it's less likely - I know it is I used to do just that in Sleep Walk by Johnny and Santo    

and if you were a member of the orchestra playing the wrong notes with the right rhythmic patterns, the chance is that you'll get fired.. lol..

I am a veteran of playing wrong notes on occassion.. the principle issue though is that when playing them, in such a big place, to that many people, through such a big rig, cranked that high, mic'd into such a huge PA.. they seem to have so much more emphasis.. lmao

Point taken, but in an orchestra a big part is being orchestrated - a lot of the music is rather simple for an individual (in terms of written notation) for a (non-solo) instrument AND it's a relatively recent thing that the solos are not improvised.

I'm a massive Thelonious Monk fan and so much of his playing relies on wrong notes and jarring times, so I'm not best qualified to view some other forms of music. I like White Cliffs of Dover for it's dynamics, Flying In A Blue Dream for it's lyricism.   

Someone once described instrumental rock to me as a middle-class adolescent thing - straight notes, straight time played as fast as possible, they simply never got moved by a piece of music. Originality and angularity was their thing.

I think it's a really hard thing to view such a personal thing, as music, as valid (let alone beautiful) in all it's forms - certainly for someone not exposed to all it's variety daily. I don't do that - I have the aural equivalent of comfort foods - I wish I could change that.

Clarky

absolutely...

guys like Monk, King Crimson and Bartok are that "wrong" by design.. which means they can only be "right"

not sure I can agree with that thing someone once described to you though... seems a little narrow minded to me.. the thing is with instrumental rock, dance music, pop, total serialism, gamalan, country and so on.. is "whatever floats ya boat".. you just can't quantify taste.. one person may hear a piece of jazz as something beautiful, intelligent and skillfull, someone else may just hear a din and not understand it, another may just hear indulgant, smug bullshit, and another simply may not notice it at all.. the really funny thing though is that everyone's taste is more correct and more important than everyone else's.. lmao..

frankus

I agree about musical tastes - to of my inspirations are John Gregson and Adrian Clark - who both mix up their music incredibly.

I guess with that narrow view of music, I could see why they would think it.

I am only just beginning to understand metal, just starting to get the exuberance and expression