He likes music

yeah why speak a common language when you can just describe the music with pew pew pewwww and I like it when it goes whoosshhhh

If you're not baiting, it's just not true. I could enjoy classical music like Schumann and Beethoven without knowing any theory with no problem. Then I started studying music and it enriched and enhanced my listening experience but I still enjoy it just as much as previously; the only difference is that my taste has widened quite a bit and I can connect with the music on an analytical level as well (not just emotionally).

What's the point of discussing music if you don't know any music theory? It's like discussing literature with someone who doesn't know how to read. What are you going to do instead?
>Uh.....uh....this sound makes me feel good so I have to like it now
Literally LMAOing @ theoryless niggas

Attached: 1551248097541.png (766x663, 1.16M)

you can't enjoy bach as much if you lack music theory.

Is like trying to read joyce without understanding of literature and shit like grammar.

only pseuds pretend to listen to clasical music and say they enjoy it without music theory.

beethoven is pleb tier and most people who say they like beethoven have only listened to his most popular works.

all pseuds.

I actually agree to a certain degree but keep in mind talking about popular music on an analytical level is almost pointless because it's very simplistic and Yea Forums is 95% popular music.

I've listened to the majority of his corpus and study and play his music in my free time. Beethoven is one of the greats and you're just a philistine contrarian faggot and/or are baiting.

Music theory is only necessary if you don't have any inherent understanding of music and need it written out for you.

People didn't learn music theory and then make music.

lmao
what exactly knowing music theory has to do with liking what i'm hearing?

then how come I've listened to WTK and read Ulysses without knowing anything and I've enjoyed it all lmao

It is LITERALLY impossible to enjoy Western Art Music without the aide of music theory.

Even if you somehow tricked your brain into liking some classical pieces, it's a lie.

then you're in the minority.

>play his music
of course you know music theory if you can play an instrument.

I'm talking about the average pseud lover of clasical music.

A lot of music theory isn't quite aparent or obvious, it took people several centuries to develop the knowledge.

you'll be able to understand music that doesn't sound catchy at an intelectual level.

you're a pleb and clearly would have enjoyed it at a deeper level if you knew grammar.

>inherent understanding of music
Explain that.

>People didn't learn music theory and then make music.
Factually wrong. Knowing some music theory is the prerequisite for making music; every relevant musician/composer has played and/or studied music of their predecessors. It's a language, they know it deep down but they just might not know the correct terminology or speak it correctly.

> you'll be able to understand music that doesn't sound catchy at an intelectual level.
what do you mean by "understand"?

suck my fart

To be honest you shouldn't worry about theory unless you are making music.
On the other hand you really ought to be making music.

Attached: 1552499164572.jpg (528x352, 39K)

I don’t play instruments or aspire to become a musician.

Shit like being able to break apart a composition and tell what's the purpose of every note, what function does the chord do and why the composers picked X chord over another or why he used a certain note or instrument over another.

It's like learning grammar and figures of speech to analyze literature.

>you'll be able to understand music that doesn't sound catchy at an intelectual level.
doesn't have a lot to do with 'liking what I'm hearing'

>what's the purpose of every note
But you don't know that. You're just interpreting something that the composer might not have even known himself. That's what it is, theory is just an interpretation.

Being self-taught is so weird. Even guitar and theory for dummies I find boring to read.

Can you send me some theory links you have? I want to learn.

It still is intelectual lazyness to not learn how your hobby works.

learning music theory can only make you smarter and will only enrich your life to a point, like learning grammar will also enrich your life and make you smarter than the average person.

A lot of advanced music doesn't try to be about liking what your hear.
There's even music that doesn't try to be catchy or be popular.
Some even try to sound like noise.

Music theory is explanatory.
If the composer used a common trope or technique, it's pretty obvious he means what the technique is about.

There's not a lot of interpretation over going from the dominant to the tonic by example.

youtube.com/watch?v=C4xuATGxZnI
This one is nice and explains non chord tones in a melody.

Youtube is filled with music theory videos and you could learn so much by just googling music theory terms on youtube.

You don’t need to understand its construction to be emotionally impacted by it. That’s the real value of music.

>Some even try to sound like noise.
those have enjoyable qualities besides being catchy or harmonic. 'liking what I'm hearing' is often very subjective and arbitrary

It's never as obvious as you think it is. There's very little "common tropes" and even those are down to interpretations.

Yes but you only have to be literate, not be a scientist with regards to grammar. Many good writers need editors to fix grammar. I found that music theory threatened the "magic" of music for me only before I learned about the overtone series and just intonation and stuff. After that i feel like there's only one principle underlying all music theory and it doesn't make it feel meaningless or even like I need to follow any conventions. There's just dissonance and consonance, that's the basis of it. Everything else is a compromise with certain benefits and certain drawbacks, not an authoritative rule

>dude......just enjoy music....if you like it you like it

people like you are killing this board.

understanding how it's written has nothing to do with understanding why the piece is resonating with you. liking the piece is not analytical. music is meant to be heard first and foremost. you can take bach apart, sure, even copy him. won't make you the second bach

To add to that, there's the popular Shencker form of harmonic analysis for music, which I don't really understand but from what I've read even they don't say their analyses are authoritative since there's no way you can absolutely state the purpose of many chords you can use.

Well since you’re clearly an asshole, I don’t feel bad about ruining your experience.

What is wrong with that?

>you need to know how and why every transistor in a computer works
>because you use one
Toddlers dance to music without even knowing what music is.

This is the closest thread I've found related to theory. I have question:

Does anyone know if there's a name for a cadence that goes from minor v to Major I? I find this to be an interesting cadence but almost nobody seems to have information on it.

>What is wrong with that?
HOLY SHIT........fuckin imbecilic

You have no basis for your argument.

Not all music tries to be about emotions or even try to sound like popular music.

There's a lot of music that the only way to enjoy it is by understanding music theory.

chord progressions are common tropes that are used over and over in music.

being able to disect music on intelectual terms allows you to understand the why a composer did something.

most musicians that never learn music theory can only compose music that doesn't evolve beyond very intermediate popular music.

if you want to write music that goes beyond popular music you can't ignore music theory.

popular music is based on common rules.

>based on classical tonic rules
>common chord progressions
>basic or intermediate functional harmony
>It always resolves from dominant or subdominant to the tonic
>melody resolves on common tropes (AABC form)
>always the most common chords (C-E-G-A)
>basic tempo figures, nothing that goes beyond (4/4, 3/4)
>emotional tones are always embellisment that finished on a diferent minor chord
>melody is mostly about counterwise motion
>melody phrases follow the question and answer structure, most of the time they literally use a 8 bar structure
>never go beyond 4 voice part harmony on their orchestration
>melody never goes beyond what the human voice is capable of doing, or the melody tries to copy human voice
>some counterpoint is used to spice the melody
>Songs use the same 12 bar structure most of the time (VERSE, CHORUS, BREAK, INTRO, CODA)

There you go, I literally explained why a piece would emotionally resonate with you.
making a song sound sad or having emotions is literally the most plebian challenge for a musician.

Attached: 1521564031169.png (402x398, 126K)

>chord progressions are common tropes that are used over and over in music.
Yeah but you have literally no idea what the composer wanted to do with a chord progression lmao you can only describe it analytically; there's no meaning inherent to it, it's all just an interpretation.

>There's a lot of music that the only way to enjoy it is by understanding music theory
No, you’re just approaching music with the bias that this is true. Anyone with a sense of what they like to hear can have an emotional reponse to something in the music that the artist didn’t put there. I feel like you people don’t actually understand art.

>based on classical tonic rules
>common chord progressions
>basic or intermediate functional harmony
>It always resolves from dominant or subdominant to the tonic
>melody resolves on common tropes (AABC form)
>always the most common chords (C-E-G-A)
>basic tempo figures, nothing that goes beyond (4/4, 3/4)
>emotional tones are always embellisment that finished on a diferent minor chord
>melody is mostly about counterwise motion
>melody phrases follow the question and answer structure, most of the time they literally use a 8 bar structure
>never go beyond 4 voice part harmony on their orchestration
>melody never goes beyond what the human voice is capable of doing, or the melody tries to copy human voice
>some counterpoint is used to spice the melody
>Songs use the same 12 bar structure most of the time (VERSE, CHORUS, BREAK, INTRO, CODA)

I literally described you analytically why a piece of music could make you cry.

Most plebians try to describe music by the emotions they feel because they can't explain what the song is doing technique wise.

Attached: 1520487468308.jpg (1920x1541, 126K)

most complex bach fugues literally sound like random noise, if you lack music theory.

youtube.com/watch?v=ho9rZjlsyYY

this is literal noice for the average music listener (normalfag).

> There you go, I literally explained why a piece would emotionally resonate with you.
you didn't. you just listen a bunch of tropes that pop songs supposedly share. even if those "rules" are common from song to song, a some songs are more appealing than other to me while having the same exact elements

I don't think you realise I'm not the user you were first talking to. Why are you talking analytically about popular music when I'm asking you about the meaning? You don't know what purpose the composer prescribed to certain notes or chords or structures, you can only interpret it. Music theory is an interpretation.

Write a piece that will make me cry then, faggot. I bet you can’t.

No one in the Beatles knew shit about music theory and they made some of the best music ever.

you explained a piece of music that would do anything but make someone cry, except maybe over the pathetic state of contemporary music. Also time signature has aught to do with tempo.

Attached: 1552695660717s.jpg (250x250, 5K)

>No one in the Beatles knew shit about music theory
Wrong. See

>pathetic state of contemporary music
>modern stuff bad!

Attached: LU0PKhz6-e1538639274711.jpg (626x375, 39K)

because of the amount of tension the song has.

A song that uses V - Vi - bVII will feel more dangerous and emotional than other song that uses less tension chords.

This is literally what you learn in youtube tutorials about functional harmony.

A song feeling depends on what functions the song chord has.

The meaning is like asking what meaning does the color red has in a painting.

The emotional meaning depends on music in the level of tension and function each chord has.
A song will be sad because it uses minor chords and minor keys and slow movement of the melody.
A dangerous action song will use the dominant and leading tones with very few stable chords, maybe it'll use the submediant over the median chord.

youtube.com/watch?v=wtEChIz6PI0

there's literal meme videos about making sad songs, retard.

Nobody in this board discuses songs using music theory, is all muh feeling BS.

>The emotional meaning depends on music in the level of tension and function each chord has.
Tension is purely a western art music concept and does not exist in the majority or traditional and/or non-European musics. It's just another interpretation that you've accepted.

>A song will be sad because it uses minor chords and minor keys and slow movement of the melody.
Baroque doctrine of the affections - just another interpretation. We're not in the baroque era anymore and we don't use rhetoric devices to compose or listen to music; you can write happy songs in minor scales.

Leave the board then, queer. Us emotionfags enjoy music more than you.

non western music is a meme and it can't do emotions.

when poverty people from the thirld world want to make emotional music they use western theory.

There's a bunch you can do, music theory only tries to describe the why a song sounds sad or happy, it's not a rigid formula.

Attached: Yeji102.jpg (1500x1000, 177K)

If people discussed music at the level of theory you just demonstrated, that would be a retarded conversation.

Get better bait.

>he hee hee

Attached: download.jpg (285x177, 5K)

because you're pseuds and only care to pretend you're understanding a topic.

just pretending pseuds.

then why do JPOP, KPOP, JMetal, anime music, Indian bollywood music, arabic urban music, African cumbia music, north korean nationalistic comunist music, those amerindian cringe music videos peruvian makes, and pretty much any popular music made outside the west, literally uses western theory?

Attached: 1520743017430.png (601x508, 127K)

>popular music
Wasn't talking about that, dumbass.

Have you ever written anything good?

nobody gives a fuck about some nigger field recordings about them humping some sticks and drums, faggot.

got a real refutation other than huh duh show your art?

>nobody gives a fuck about some nigger field recordings about them humping some sticks and drums, faggot.
See

folk music isn't really relevant beyond being popular on remote villages.

If you know exactly how the inner workings of music relate to the listener’s reaction, surely you must be able to produce a top quality product.

> A song feeling depends on what functions the song chord has
bullshit. why is every performance different, some better than others, even if the harmony is written in the notes? you completely ignored the instrumentation, the production, the character, the performer's own style. if we could engineer music based on chord functions alone, we'd stop developing styles

>play by heart
Beatles, Punks, DIY Bandcamp artists with soul
>play by theory
Adam Neely, Jacob Collier, Vulfpeck, Snarky Puppy lol....

Okay

>show your art.
I can literally post any youtube link and pretend I'm beethoven or John cage.
we're annoymous.

because a composition isn't 100% of what makes a song good, shitty interpretation of a song, poor mastering and mixing, sound quality, sound design also contributes to a song quality.

but that's music production, not music theory.

If you had any ability, you’d post proof. Good game.

>You can't appreciate video games unless you learned to how program and code
>You can't appreciate food unless you learned organic chemistry and biology

frogposting should be banned outside of r9k

Attached: 979.jpg (532x320, 15K)

youtube.com/watch?v=jMI0mNYCU8o

here faggot.

Not that user (this is my first post ITT) but I would never in a million years post my music on Yea Forums (if I had recorded any)

I’m sorry, you really think a rational human engaged in this debate would just set aside their true opinion for the sake of winning the argument? I understand your reservations, but those people are human garbage. I am not that kind of person.

> shitty interpretation of a song, poor mastering and mixing, sound quality, sound design also contributes to a song quality
all of those have varying degrees of subjectivity and rely on preferences and taste. you can disagree with composer's choices, but you'll only be juggling your own preferences. and preferences work just because.

>he makes better music than you without knowing theory, while you study theory all day and still suck at it ;)

that fall under the music production side of things.
Is not related to music theory.

may as well use marketing as evidence that grammar is useless to become a writer.

>you show off a high school band member's level of theory knowledge
>I am the pseud

I don't think that's how it works

Attached: abc13cc5f0d56cf6ec574fa9df265fd5--pez-candy-candy-dispenser.jpg (150x338, 5K)

Okay. So what about this should I not enjoy because of my lack of theoretical knowledge?

>his entire refutation for not learning music theory is a strawman
>but muh feelings.

Learning music theory doesn't stop you from enjoying music.
It actually helps you have a deeper enjoyment of music.

Just like learning grammar can help you enjoy much more shakespeare.

This sounds alright to me.

>not liking 90s midi sounds

point and laugh at him

Attached: 1553011908612.png (1125x1358, 1.75M)

performance and interpretation do not fall under production. you can prefer some performances and interpretations over others and your precious theory won't explain shit, hence "prefer"

because interpretation is not composition, retard.

>why music theory doesn't explain things that aren't composition

May as well use marketing to critique an artist art.

Its not a refutation against learning theory, its a refutation of the idea that you have a 90+ IQ. I know a lot more theory than you do. I am an advocate of learning theory. In fact I advocate (YOU) learn theory in particular.

Attached: 575.gif (815x446, 1.22M)

then what's your point?
that we both agree the average faggot on this board should learn music?

I just think you're a presumptuous no-talent. Either describe music in emotional terms (perfectly reasonable for an art form that is meant to evoke emotion) or learn theory by reading a book by an established composer, or finish a web course (or hell, even take it at school if you got the money and time to waste). But watching a couple Busy Works Beats and Hack Music Theory videos is not learning theory.

interpretation is one of the things that makes composition work, you dumb bitch. besides, composition is a broad term and if you want to agree with someone on what constitutes composition, you have to list the things that makes it up, and no one will ever agree with you on this.

>why music theory doesn't explain things that aren't composition
music theory doesn't explain what makes something work. it's just building blocks. you can assemble those poorly for listener yet impeccable from pure formal theory standpoint

False equivalence. With music theory you can discuss the compositional and technical aspects of music, as well as the themes and concepts and how it relates to the compositional nature of the sound. Without the knowledge of music theory, your discussions becomes merely thematic, which means that it becomes entirely subjective.

Brainlets will never know which music is objectively 10/10 music.

The first one is true and the second one is false equivalence. Try harder.

Attached: 1527157373039.png (512x512, 112K)

ITT: seething retards.

Attached: awesome-laughing-meme-face-meme-faces-happy-crying-image-memes-at-relatably-laughing-meme-face.jpg (390x310, 30K)

ೋღღೋ
.........................................REMINDER........................................

THIS OP IS A NOTORIOUS COLOMBIAN SCHIZOPHRENIC
/POL/TARD WHO IS OBSESSED WITH COLOMBIA/WHITENESS
POSTING DOZENS OF BAITS LIKE THIS ON /INT/ EVERY DAY
TO ATTRACT WHITE PEOPLE TO HIS HELLHOLE COUNTRY
HE IS NOT A SANE MAN HE IS AN ANGRY 28 YEAR OLD VIRGIN
AND ONLINE STALKER/HARRASER NAMED CRISTIAN CERON
YOU CANNOT EXPECT A COHERENT RESPONSE FROM HIM
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS THREAD AND JUST LEAVE HIM ALONE
WHAT HE NEEDS IS NOT A REPLY BUT MEDICAL TREATMENT

ೋღღೋ

...

Maldito peruano

Attached: 4.jpg (374x450, 27K)