How much do you know about music?
 

By which I mean, how much technically do you know, not how many bands do you know about.

Do you know about time signatures? Do you know about harmonics? Or is Just Intonation all a mystery to you?


I'm of the "I don't know about art but I know what I like" persuasion. I see these words and don't know what they mean, but it doesn't stop me from getting enjoyment out of what I hear. I just can't intellectualise about it.

What about you?

I'm pretty knowledgable about music theory, but probably not as knowledgable as anyone who's played piano for 5-10 years. I pick it up everywhere I can and can hold my own in a conversation about anything related. I understand rhythm and chord structure and intervals and whatnot, but not in a lot of depth. I like it; it's fun for me.

But as far as it affecting the art, it depends. I have no problem with bands that aren't theory-savy, but certain artists would lose me if I thought they didn't have an idea of what they were doing.

The appeal for artists like Haino, Branca, Jandek, etc., to me, depends on the fact that they actually know what they're doing. If a guy picks up a guitar for the first time and wails on it like Branca, or plays a Jandek chord, I can't appreciate it as art no matter how sincerely it's done. But if I know that those guys are aware of what they're doing and put a genuine amount of work into their art (though after this many years, all three have paid their dues regardless), then I can appreciate it.

Sonic Youth took an interesting route, where I don't think they ever took theory into account at all. But they've gotten around it and put real heart into their work, so it's impossible to write off. They are talented, and they know what they're doing--even without theory.

not that i know anything on the subject but i don't think jandek would know a huge amout about music theory. not that it matters either way.

I know essentially nothing at all, and for me that only boosts my appreciation of music. I know more about painting/drawing, and now whenever I see an image I understand for the most part how its been made, it doesn't decrease my appreciation of the image, but it doesn't have that sense of mystery music has for me. Becuase I have no real concepts of music theory, music and musicians will always be on a higher plain to me, and has the untouchable magnificence and mystery that keeps me buying records...

I don't either, but I think he knows what he's doing within his own style. He's spontaneous, but he tunes each note intentionally and he puts thought into his direction.

Well I learned music theory and played piano in a music school for six years, so I think I know a bit about theory.
And I think I intellectualize much music... it's not something conscious, it's like that.

This is exactly what I don't like about a lot of musicians in the first place. It's absolutely not true that if you put a lot of work into your art it will necessarily be either heartfelt or worthy of someone else's attention. There is no explanation as to why someone could play exactly like Branca putting no effort whatsoever into it and either sound better than him or worse, other than they know what they're doing regardless of the amount of theory that they know in the first place.

Also, any type of music or band that has to rely on being intellectualised and contextualised constantly is probably ultimately better talked about than listened to.

Just to clarify, I'm not for one moment suggesting that anyone has to understand musical theory to either play or enjoy music. I just started thinking about knowledge of musical theory because of the math rock thread, and the fact that, to properly categorise a band as math rock (if that's what you really wanted to do), you'd need to know a regular time signature from an irregular one.

I don't generally think of music as being within a particular genre, unless I'm in a record shop and want to ask "where's the post rock section", or something like that, but I wondered... something to do with genre categorisation... which I can't now remember well enough to put into words.

100%.

i know shit-all about music

I know some music theory, because I've been learning guitar for about three years. I'm not an expert, but I do know more than most other musicians I know. To compose something that sounds good, most people I know will have to play their instrument for a long time before they find something that works, but I'll know what works before I play because I know some theory.

It's probably just my own personal bitterness, but it's just that I can't stand it when people say someone like Haino is talentless--and I know a lot of people who think that. It's one thing to not like an artist--that's fine--but I can't stand seeing a lifetime of hard work and genuine heart like that being shoved into the same corner as someone screwing around with an amp in the back room every once in a while. There's a difference, but a lot of people don't recognize it, so I think intellectualizing it somehow "avenges" them, and I've convinced people to at least appreciate Haino in that light. They don't need to like it, but it seems wrong for them to call it talentless.

0-3-5
0-3-6-5
0-3-5
3-0

Yeah that's cool. The only thing is that by trying to transfer the enthusiasm thet you have for Keiji Haino's music to someone who doesn't know him you'd better avoid trying to ''intellectualise'' his music, 'cause the average man on the street is not interested in knowing more ''socio-political'' or ''technical'' stuff about him (if he is at all), he'd rather hear something by him that strikes him as good to his ears.

i know enough to reccomend red lorry yellow lorry.

The man and the woman on the street don't like average bands.

smoke on the water?

Precisely jack-shit. I did win a local music pub quiz 6 weeks on the trot though :)

There's also the fact that you don't have to be necessarily a master of the guitar/drums etc to play this math rock thing. Di Lacuna - a band that vaguely had some staccato/fragmented time signatures on some of their instrumental tracks - are less than masters of their own instruments on closer inspection, yet they trick you into thinking that they know exactly what they are doing more than they probably do.

I think it was Glice (who has a better knowledge of music theory than most of us posting on this thread) rightly pointed out about some math rock band on a thread a while ago thet they were prog rock without the balls to be fully prog, either because of technical shortcomings or inverted snobbery. That sums up a few things about all this ''knowledgable'' nonsense that you get on similar threads like this.

I done been trained, but theory don't mean shit. Music is personal and fuck what a professor tells you is technically good If you think you can do something better, you can...because it's all subjective.

well anyone who thinks haino is talentless is an idiot, but then knowledge of music theory is not a way to measure talent either.

yeah ive studies music theory at school, and to be honest, for the most part it bored. i found that when im trying to understand and read and write music, the joy of making music is somewhat lost. id much rather just chill out, lite a joint or somethin, sit down with my guitar, and start messing around with chords and riffs and wait untill i find something special. but, my knowledge of music, well, i have some. enough id say.

I know theory, and playing, and performing, and song construction, and harmonizing, and all that shit. it benefits my appreciateion of complex music, and does nothing for my appreciation of simple music., which I enjoy on a visceral level.

sonic youth's 12 tone experiments versus dead kennedy's "dog bite" for instance

Anyone who seriously thinks that they can play in a good band by just sitting down and talking about it without playing their instruments first is a seriously misguided person. I can't see many people delivering any goods if they just sit down 'imagining' what it's like to play an instrument or 'theorising' shit all the time that ultimately doesn't translate into good records/ live gigs etc.

I'm surprised Sonic Youth get lumped into the 'music theory' thing, since, by their own admission, they have never been one of those bands to just sit down and decide to make music. They just did and took it from there.

that is not what music theory is sarramkrop.

music theory helps you construct your music as you are writing it, it is a concurrent process, it can help to create a finely crafted song a la Steely dan or it can help to create the duodecatonic freakouts of schoenberg or Bartok's freaked out quartets.

a little knowledge of music thery can make a bland rock song really ZING, really shine.

I know very well what music theory is, you patronising git.:)

It's rock music and all its guises I'm talking about here, so the whole debate about, erm , important music is one that is irrelevant to what i posted earlier.

BULLSHIT.

Well, I know how the E major scale goes. Will that do?

*silence*

I'll get me coat.

Technique and theory can be dead useful to getting a musician to get to a place where they can truly express themselves (whether it be John Coltrane or Diamanda Galas), but of course it's the initial emotional/visceral passion from the musician that should count first and foremost.

As for the vast hordes of sub-sub-sub-Page/Clapton/Yngwie widdle merchants that have befouled the air over the years, they should either be forced to spend a year in retreat listening to nothing but The Shaggs, or be nibbled to death by particularly amorous panda bears.

*Melly high-fives sarramkrop, before falling asleep on his keyboard*

I've deleted that post because I bet then you'd get the usual debate about ''higher'' forms of music other than rock etc. You know what i mean, though, since we've had similar conversations before.

high-five anyway!

Just thinking of people I would consider musical geniuses... beefheart, sun city girls, jandek, john fahey... none of those people had any musical training whatsoever and probably knew jack shit about theory...

But I think most people need a LITTLE bit of theory, in the same way most people need religion. It's good to not go into things completely blind. If you're not going to be a technical virtuoso, at least have plenty of great ideas...

it is true! that is where many great ideas come from! once you know the musical "rules" yuo know the very best way to break the aforementioned rules to achieve the effect you desire.

knowing jack shit about theory when you start is a different deal than staying ignorant about theory as you progress. captai beefheart, jandek, etc, all became better "players" just because you cannot help but learn theory as you progress in songwriting and ideas and readinga bout music and such.

Maybe it's me but technical ability is not necessarily tied up to theoretical knowledge. Anyone is able to operate machinery the correct way without having a particualrly insightful knowledge of the mechanics that make up the machinery itself, so being a skilful musician can and does exist without any particular knowledge of theory. If you read the instructions of something to make it work, you're not exactly reading about the theory that created it, are you?

Either you can't articulate yourself when need be or you are just making this stuff up. Can you provide anything that documents any association of music theory with any of the names that you've mentioned?

music theory is just the study of tones and sounds and their spatio/sonic relationship. some tone combinations create a sense of peace in our ears, some create love, some create urgency, etc. balladeers and shit ahve been using the exact same 3-4 chord progressions for centuries because these set chord progressions, by their inherent sonic quality, affect humans the same every day, every century.
even the most basic player is using music theory whether he/she knows it or not.

a player of an instrument cannot help but learn some basic music theory just by virtue of practice and exposure to playing different new pieces.

Not at all. I'm surprised you of all people being a Beatles fan would come up with that sort of stuff. Answer the question i've asked earlier: do you have any proof that Beefhart or Jandek are theory-savvy musicians?

did I say they were theory savvy? re-read my post. I said that due to playing an inst4rument they have learned some music theory. it HAPPENS. especially if you are a songwriter, and not just a player/performer.

Paul MacCartney famously can't read music, or certainly couldn't while he was in The Beatles. Duh? What are you trying to say there?

reading mnusic is not music theory. understanding the relationships between chords, tones, harmonies, etc, IS music theory and paul learned a LOT through his playing.