quote: Original post by Sil

I disagree.


Second, since I’m not a spiritual person, I do not believe there is a supernatural reason as to why music works, hence I believe it is based in science be it psychological or simply the physics of sound itself. I also do not believe in “talent” meaning I do believe that anyone given enough dedication, practice, and exposure to great music can be a great musician.

If anyone could be a great musician, then anyone could be a great author, artist, scientist, or whatever.
But we are not robots, We are human beings. We are born with tallent in certain things.. it''s in our DNA.
Im not saying music is supernaturall.. im saying that music is CREATIVE, and _not_ LOGIC.

Do not forget that musical creativity is located in the right hemisphere of the brain. thats were the creativity is. The left hemisphere is used to do logicall thinking, Theory!

You cannot use only the left hemisphere of the brain and create great music. If you go by theory then sure, you can create music that works, but that would be like makeing a frankensteins monster: you take parts from difrent places(people) and put those together in one new creation. Sure.. in the movies frankenstein could walk and talk, but he didn''t really do it that good, did he? .. but sure.. he was functionall and alive.

/Marcuz

Okay, after that I''m beginning to disagree with Marcuz a bit more (sorry ).

"Musical talent" isn''t in DNA. Neither is being an artist, a scientist, or anything else. I don''t want to get into a biological discussion, because that would be extremely off-topic, but things which will indirectly influence how well you can compose, or write, or do math are in your DNA. Anyone can compose, for instance, but some people will be able to learn how to compose faster than others.

Saying that music is not based on logic because it''s based on creativity is a little bit of an odd statement. Perhaps it''s the programmer in me, but I feel that most of creativity is based on logic. Throwing around ideas like concerning the left and right hemispheres of the brain isn''t proving anything. You have to combine basic logic and creativity to compose.

Some advice, don''t use an old science-fiction movie as a basis for an argument. The only thing you''re gonna get out of that is a laugh.

quote: Original post by Matt Calabrese
I think what Marcuz was getting at wasn''t that music is "supernaturally influenced," but that you shouldn''t have to think about music theory to write it.

Of course you shouldn''t have to think about it. Like you said, you can play it out by ear without really wondering how its happening. But I believe that''s because music theory is one of those things that can become common sense, in a way. It''s what gives us the ability to play music by ear, let alone compose it. Without ever learning a note, I''m sure many people have been able to hum their own musical compositions. But I''m also sure that it''s because they''ve learned something about the music subconsciously, not because it''s been genetically preprogrammed in their DNA. This is how it is for anyone who composes, with or without knowing why it works. By listening to music, you are also learning it.

quote: Original post by Matt Calabrese
Music theory is really just an attempt at an explanation of how songs progress, which intervals evoke which emotions, how scales are related, etc. It serves more as a backing than basis for composition.

Exactly. By creating a system out of what we (as a society) already know as “certainties” I (as an individual) could use this system to my advantage in composition (building upon what I already know). I’m not saying every good composer must use music theory to write perfect music, which is ludicrous anyway since no composer could really grasp all there is to know about it. It''s there to help us make our good music better.

quote: Original post by Matt Calabrese
If anyone could be a great musician, then anyone could be a great author, artist, scientist, or whatever.

I think that''s actually a big debate in the field psychology. I remember learning about a psychologist who believed that he could take a child at birth and mold this child to be a great anything. The theory is that we are conditioned by our environment, not our genes. It''s certainly not a discussion for here because I don''t think anyone of us would be able to prove our own arguments. It''s just my beliefs.

Hi there.

I started playing keyboards at the age of 4.. no theory. I just heard a song on the TV a few times and liked the melody and played it. Must admit, my parent's were stunned

Music comes naturally to me, I've tried to understand what I do in terms of theory.. but I have failed.. music makes sense to me, my mind knows it, my ears know it.

You can compose without theory. I've seen many people do it without musical training. Infact, I find the people who haven't been "trained" first compose better (in the long run).

It's amazing how many people don't know what sounds good. Composition begins with knowing what works.. how sounds fit together.. how rhythms work. I guess you could say rhythm is basic theory.. but that's built into your body anyway with your heart. Your heart is the body's natural metronome. If you tune into your metronome, you will get rhythm.

Think to why Dance music revolves around 130-144 beats per minute. Because your body can naturally sustain a high at that heart rate. Your body tunes in and you start tapping your feet.

Of course those who take training while or after they can compose will do much better as they can use the theory to their advantage. I know so many grade 8 pianists who can perfectly play a Beethoven masterpiece.. but can't compose a simple twinkle twinkle little star melody. They just get lost. I call them "Trained Monkeys". To play music well is neat, to compose something, well, that's breathtaking!

I say, don't let not knowing any music stop you from playing around with composition. If you've got the knack, you'l figure it out.. if not.. I got some bannanas for ya!



Audio Artist
Groovy Audio - For Demos & Portfolio

[edited by - yjbrown on October 16, 2002 8:59:34 PM]

quote: Original post by Sil

Of course you shouldn''t have to think about it. Like you said, you can play it out by ear without really wondering how its happening. But I believe that''s because music theory is one of those things that can become common sense, in a way. It''s what gives us the ability to play music by ear, let alone compose it. Without ever learning a note, I''m sure many people have been able to hum their own musical compositions. But I''m also sure that it''s because they''ve learned something about the music subconsciously, not because it''s been genetically preprogrammed in their DNA. This is how it is for anyone who composes, with or without knowing why it works. By listening to music, you are also learning it.

Maybe I was unclear, but that''s exactly what I was saying. It''s all music theory, but it''s subconscious, and it also has nothing [directly] to do with DNA.

quote: Original post by yjbrown
I started playing keyboards at the age of 4.. no theory. I just heard a song on the TV a few times and liked the melody and played it. Must admit, my parent''s were stunned

Music comes naturally to me, I''ve tried to understand what I do in terms of theory.. but I have failed.. music makes sense to me, my mind knows it, my ears know it.

That doesn''t necessarily mean you haven''t learned about music, even if it was just by listening to random sources when you were really young such as the radio, television, video games etc. I think everyone has a certain, personal understanding of music, and could develop it through practice if they had the dedication. Though they may never understand an ounce of music theory, in a way, they''ve already developed their own theory from their environment. This at best would explain why so many of us of similar, culture-specific tastes.

quote: Original post by yjbrown
You can compose without theory. I''ve seen many people do it without musical training. Infact, I find the people who haven''t been "trained" first compose better (in the long run).

That would be an interesting experiment, but who would be the judge of what is "better"? As far as I''m concerned, my favourite composers have all studied music at some point in their lives, mostly officially (like studying under other classical composers) and sometimes unofficially (like leaving a band to compose for film such as Danny Elfman, Michael Kamen, and Howard Shore).

Well that becomes a very interesting discussion...

maybe some kind of things I was looking are being talking where...


About the music creation.. the DNA, the get inspired... maybe all comes for our live experiences... and the culture that comes with all the years..


One of may big problems.. when I go to the keyboard to make one music..(and i''m not good inspired, or what do you want say) I start palying musics that I know.. and can''t get avoid of theam...
Its ward some times to get a original melody...

I gave listem that in some musician.. I have ear some music parts that the melody/string arrangement and some other things... are almost Copy&Paste of JohnWilliams...

I usually go to the mp3.com and see the bio of the music authors... and in the Inspiration Composers most of theam put JohnWil. And when I go listen the musics some seams very similars.

About music be a logical thing.. some times ago I read a article of a guy''s thesis .. he made (a computer program?) that pick up lots of musics by one famose composer (dont remember who) and make a new music based in all of his original compositions..

They say that any music studian cn identify that generated music a music of that composer...

well thats really possible...
we have already fractal music generators and other computer automatic creations...



In a past year.. I was interested in write (and now I like it too) Trance Melodic Music... I ear a lot of this kind of music... and I found some patterns in this kind of music...
I search in the net about trance music theory.. or some thing related...

and I found some studies about Trance in general.... some have music related articles.. and that means that the music are being studied not only by musicians nor by computer/maths...

Every music are able to cause trance...
Almost every ''pop kind music'' have a verse part and a chors part.. and they repeat in the music ... some times at 3/5 of the music there are some thing diferent (variations) and then repeat again..
thats all trance theory...
If you will learn a little about it.. you will find that a trance stat have loops of moments..

like when hipnosys.. the clock making a loop .. thats sounds like magic heheh

more about music learning and theory...
when I was studing music.. we have so identify major chords and minor chords.. theacher play a chord and ask some one... I remmeber that they tell to people that have some more dificult to identify.. that minor chords seams sad ... well I think that explain some of my initial kestions..
we can say that a minor chords seams sad by experience.. but I think that should be some theory from behind that...

chords like terror chords played in films.. its lot dificult for me.. make a film terror chord... and maybe it have theory too... of course if you have the basic music theory and lots of experience .. with your experience you make your own theory

and some other things...

to finish this long post I just want to give you the sure... I''m not english, I think you found this already sorry about some things unclear for you..

Bye all,
KammutierSpule

This is a very interesting discussion. Here''s how I look at things:

Music is nothing more than sound across time.

There are certain things that the averqage brain can and can not percieve about this sound over time. This is what determines successful music and unsuccessful music. Theory is simply trying to explain why some music is successful and why some is not. It puts terminology to certain aspects of music that any good musician understands innately or from training so that we can talk about it.

Therefore, there is theory behind every successful music. Some of the theory can only be explained by what sounds are used. Some theory is very pitch relationship reliant.

In my humble opinion, everyone here has a degree of knowledge about theory. Some have the terminology, some don''t. I''ve found that more often than not, people who compose music that is mediocre have a thorough knowlege of theory. I think people who don''t know theory blame that knowledge for the other composer''s mediocre output.

Anyway.

Devinmaxwell

quote: Original post by KammutierSpule
chords like terror chords played in films.. its lot dificult for me.. make a film terror chord... and maybe it have theory too... of course if you have the basic music theory and lots of experience .. with your experience you make your own theory

The terror chords you''re referring to are probably augmented chords, which are when you have a major 3rd and an augmented 5th.

Knowing things like that might help, but they won''t help as much as most people like to think. IE if you just throw an augmented chord in a song, it''s more likely going to sound out of place than anything else unless you lead up to it somehow (not meaning that it has to be in a cadence, just that it can''t be thrown in anywhere, just like any other kind of chord).

I agree with most of what you said, especially "with your experience you make your own theory." That''s really what it comes down to. No one has exactly the same tastes in music and so everyone has their own brand of music theory. John Cage quite an odd extreme for his "music theory," but who is anyone to tell him that he is wrong. I personally feel that the guy was a crazy whack-job, but his music makes a good point. What sounds good is all subjective and no one can say what''s good or what''s bad. There aren''t really any rules for writing music. It''s all dependent on your particular tastes.

quote: Original post by Matt Calabrese
Okay, after that I''m beginning to disagree with Marcuz a bit more (sorry ).

"Musical talent" isn''t in DNA. Neither is being an artist, a scientist, or anything else. I don''t want to get into a biological discussion, because that would be extremely off-topic, but things which will indirectly influence how well you can compose, or write, or do math are in your DNA. Anyone can compose, for instance, but some people will be able to learn how to compose faster than others.

Saying that music is not based on logic because it''s based on creativity is a little bit of an odd statement. Perhaps it''s the programmer in me, but I feel that most of creativity is based on logic. Throwing around ideas like concerning the left and right hemispheres of the brain isn''t proving anything. You have to combine basic logic and creativity to compose.

Some advice, don''t use an old science-fiction movie as a basis for an argument. The only thing you''re gonna get out of that is a laugh.

Science fiction?
All i say is that creativity comes from the right half of your brain, and logic from the left. And the best composers have more activity in their right half of the brain while composing then in the left. Thats not science fiction. It''s simple science.

And what you say about "maybe it''s the programmer in me", i think you are right about that, since programmers have a big benefit if they use their left part of the brain more than the right. again.. this is basic science.

We don''t agree very well. probably because im a composer and youre a programmer. we should stick to what we are good at and not try learning eachother about eachothers bussines ;-)