Does music theory ruin good music?

Does music theory ruin good music?

Attached: 7350660A-6DC5-4509-8BBA-550AE8B43A45.jpg (800x600, 94K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=BRfF7W4El60&list=LL388OS1Rvill4lASZ8jFd7A&index=10
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Listen to musicians who come from music schools and you'll realize that they all sound similar. Attaching rules to music ruins the learning process through trial and error which develops musicians with more originality.

no but that guy is literally the definition of soulless

Its good to learn some basics imo

Do you need to be able to read sheet music? Are guitarists who claim to play by ear delusional?

No, you fucking baiting brainlet. Music theory is literally just describing the music. "Good music" is also your personal taste and perception which is subjective. If you want "objectively good music" or some shit like that, look at long, intricate and beautiful classical works by composers who studied scores and works of their predecessors which means they knew how to speak a certain language and terminology which is literally everything music theory is; it's only a set of rules if you contextualise and see for example that V-I cadenzas are "the rule" in classical era classical music, but even then you had composers who did it differently. The idea that theory could be a negative knowledge comes from a bullshit romantic notion that good art is purely unconscious or emotional and that systematisation and logic are antithetical to it. Intuition alone could never result in the monstrous feat of borderline engineering that is a great symphony for example.
If you study music (theory), then you'll have a larger musical vocabulary which literally cannot be a bad thing. This does not however make your music necessarily good and neither does not knowing ANY music theory make it bad to be honest, you could still make simple music that sounds good without it, but there's less of a chance of making something truly great.
The theories of psychoacoustics, biomusicology and so on indicate that there are certain musical and sound qualities we find pleasing regardless of cultural bias. A trained musician would be much more familiar with these and thus able to subvert and play with them. There's a reason classical music is much, much more interesting than the various folk musics of the world.

This dumbass is another case of this stupidity.

Also to be a good and fulfilling musician, you would find it natural to "study" music theory AKA analyse scores, improvise, compose by ear, transcribe by ear, play more than one instrument, read musical literature and so on. There's so many ways you can become a better one, but to become a better composer you just need to shit out music so much that you make something good.

Collier is so obviously an amazing musician and performer, his own work is just pure garbage to listen to in my opinion and this is something a lot of us share on this board, but he still has an audience.

You seem like a fucking loser lmao everyone knows you don't need knowledge of music theory to make good music

Here's a (You), buddy, treat yourself.

Attached: 1548719416771.png (1000x432, 165K)

Listening to DIY local bands you’ll realize they all sound similar. Using the same rules their favorite bands used and not knowing why ruins the learning process of truly understanding how to write a good song on their one, developing originality

He never said you need only theory to write a good song

found the dude with student debt from music school

This. If you actually study music, perform, compose, hang out with musical people etc. you'll see that all this popular music sounds pretty much the same and most bands don't change the sonority, they only move the emphasis a bit around and you have very slow sonority changes (mostly due to technological advancements and "new" instruments) in popular music; you only notice it when you compare the 80s with the 90s or 00s for example, but even then you still have the same musical forms, chord progressions etc.
I don't disagree with completely though, musicians that come from the same schools definitely sound samey, but them being in school is just the beginning and they can change their own musical languages while DIY bands stay pretty the same.

I'm neither American nor from music school, but nice try. You'll have to have an actual argument to disprove my points.

Attached: 200x200_ives-charles-03.jpg (200x200, 19K)

literally everyone who plays music uses music theory in some way or form lmao
it doesn't ruin music at all
in fact, when used properly, it can make music much better
the issue with collier is that a lot of his stuff is terribly wanky but even then there is an audience for that

there are really good points being made in both ends, (being drilled into music theory has its particular nuances that train the mind to think of music as correct and incorrect.)

At the same time as someone else noted, theoryless DIY scenes all sound the same.

I'd wager these are both just flaws in social circles and limiting the creation of music as a means to interact with those in your immediate vicinity. This totally results in a lack of exploration.

Music theory is important for a creative, but detaching from the theory later to explore is more important than the foundation itself.

Gotta liberate from the "wrong note' mentality to create things.

Speaking facts.

not trying to be edgy but you don't need to study music to realize that the majority of music made by similarly structured artists (classic 4 man bands with bass/guitar/drums/vocalist, pop producers + female vocalist etc) sounds pretty much identical.

This
Theory's just like any tool. It's really useful, but you still need the vision to create something meaningful

No but music theory is no cure for not having the music taste, ideas and vision to create enjoyable music of your own.

“Jacob collier is overrated”

Name one good musician that doesn't know theory.

You're right, this is a common thing a lot of people say without necessarily knowing why, but you actually completely realise it when you do study music

Yea Forums be like:
>jimi hendrix
>uhhh
>some shitty Yea Forumscore band
>??????
>...

STO NAGE FA MUH LEEE

Wes Montgomery.

Listeners don't need to worry about the theory behind music. Theory is only part of the language which musicians use to communicate to each other in the studio. The average listener doesn't sit there going "oh, this is a I-VI-ii-V-I chord progression that modulates up a 5th after the 2nd chorus". Thinking about the theory behind music ruins the experience. The only reason you would be thinking about the theory is if you are transcribing a song.

Mick Karn

>Thinking about the theory behind music ruins the experience
This is bullshit by the way. People who study and/or play music have an analytical dimension to their listening experience, like you've said, but that doesn't take away the emotional aspect; you can listen both ways at the same time without "ruining" anything.
The average listener is a stupid pleb as well.

he knew some form

BASED COLLIER

no because his music is both theoretically brilliant and beautiful.

He knew enough to play the bassoon for the London Schools Symphony Orchestra.

the beatles, eric clapton, elvis presley, dick dale... etc

I find that thinking about the music analytically and critically allows you to find beauty where it's not obvious. For one of the simpler examples, consider something like I Want To Hold Your Hand. The intro is also the turnaround that leads the bridge back to the chorus.

There are people who ruin music for themselves because they start to see everything as a pattern and then think that everything is the same. This also happens if they read tvtropes.

Who is this guy? I've never heard of him in my life and now he's getting constantly posted on here like he's some big deal.

you tell me
youtube.com/watch?v=BRfF7W4El60&list=LL388OS1Rvill4lASZ8jFd7A&index=10

There is no such thing as a musician who doesn't know theory. Every musician knows theory to an extent.
>Thinking about the theory behind music ruins the experience
Hard disagree there
Understanding the craft behind something makes it easier to appreciate and makes a lot more music 100x more exciting

Shut the fuck up, that’s like saying learning how to speak a language saps creativity because everyone else speaks it. Learning music theory lets you bend rules because you understand the meta, ever notice how every shitty rap beat produced by somebody with no theory knowledge sounds the same? Or how every underground teenage band sounds the same?

No, but purely from a linguistics standpoint. Implying music "is good" implies objectivity, which is referring to the properties inherent in the object (i.e. NOT your perception) and since learning music theory does not change the actual song (i.e. the 1s and 0s that come through your PC on spotify) it has no effect.

If you are referring to how you perceive it, then yes, it will make some songs seem worse, but others will seem better.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, his familiarity with the Mississippi river took away from its beauty and he felt he would never feel the same magic from it as the first time he went down it, but that his experience would also enhance* the beauty of new rivers he encountered.

To answer a more general question in the thread, yes music theory can stifle creativity and leads to some bad "amateurish" music, but it is also responsible for albums like Calculating Infinity, where Ben Weinman literally said something to the effect of "we heard to never harmonize with a minor second, some made an album where all we did was harmonize with a minor second".

In other words, it's good to read the book, because then you can throw it out if you want.

I do this all the time with my own music. I constantly try to come up with chords that deviate from the traditional major/minor/augmented/diminshed/power/etc. And it creates some beautiful sounds

Ah yeah man shostakovich, gorguts and snarky puppy sound so similar

disney prog

this guy is talented but a laughable corndog

No but it enables milquetoast faggots like that hapa and those soulless funk bands from music schools to go a musical shooting rampage

George Martin made The Beatles knew and he knew theory so checkmate

so why musically do they all sound the same?

Musician =/= Artist.

>George Martin made The Beatles
What? The Beatles were a band like six years before they even met George Martin you moron

Read my original post; the only thing that changes in popular music is moving the emphasis on sonority, mostly due to technological advancements in the time period of a decade, not actual sonority (they don't create new sounds via new instruments or anything like that) or even basic stuff like harmony, rhythm or melody; that stays pretty much the same and doesn't go more experimental than Franz Schubert. Because it's easy on the ears.

How so?

A musician makes music; music is art.

Do retarded op's ruin forums?
Yes, they do. Music theory makes music better. You're just telling the world that your IQ is too low to notice the superior qualities.

He made them a relevant experimental pop band and not just another rock band.

>He made them a relevant experimental pop band
How did he do that? The Beatles wrote and performed their own songs.

George Martin co-wrote, arranged, produced and/or orchestrated their songs.

Under instructions from The Beatles themselves

>under instructions from far less experienced and knowledgeable musicians
Sure, buddy.

Um, yes?

You don't know much about The Beatles, do you?

>Um, yes?
Ah, you're genuinely braindead. Okay then. Cheers.

Not an argument

That's like asking if grammar can ruin poetry

Best post itt

Not an argument