Music theory kills your creativity

any other terrible analogies you'd like to share?

>This made a cobweb in the back of my brain cough up an elderly fly, like, "hey, back in my day, I used to know this! Get out of here, spider, before I take your 8th leg and use it for a cane!"

>>purely unconscious or emotional
It literally isn't, but okay, retard.

but it is

Nope. You'll have to accept the fact that the artistic process is an observable fact and is in fact mainly rational, not emotional.
>jstor.org/stable/43496511
>dailygamecock.com/article/2017/08/column-art-is-rational-and-rationality-is-art

>a social sciences study and an article
oh wow case closed

It is not, stop romanticizing things. Art is work and if you don't put your head in your work you're a retard. Even if you don't know any theory you need to work on your stuff anyway even if you don't have a name fot the shit you're producing.

That's what's theory: naming shit you're doing and knowing other shit that you may not do otherwise,

Where's your evidence?

If it was then any great jazz musician would be shit, there would be no great classical composers. I'll say it can have some effect on your stylistic choices, but aesthetic discussions are hell on Earth.

actually musician here

you dont need advanced music theory, just learn how to make chords, learn inversions and octaves, learn an easy numbering system, memorize some scales that sound nice to you, and then stick to those scales for long time because why not

>Paint brushes kill creativity because it limits the thickness of the brush strokes

Uh, yeah.

There's been countless of other psychological studies. Feel free to check them out because I'm done spoonfeeding your stupid ass. Or stay deluded and ignorant, I guess.

Here's another one
>researchgate.net/publication/258173181_What's_your_music_Subjective_theories_of_music-creating_artists
Here they switched between "intuitive bursts of inspiration" and "rational deliberate rational construction" during the creative process.

If art was rational people who go to college and learn about it from that perspective would be killing all industries, and that's not the case by far. So I guess my evidence is just observable reality in general? I don't think I need a paper to suggest people who are attractive get more women or anything very easy to see for yourself like that.

>study autism
Hmm a lost redditor I see. Sorry to tell you but most of those will be worth shit in a few decades when new factors and methodologies are added to their respective fields, so maybe not base your entire worldview on those?

It's not romanticizing and "putting your head" in something doesn't necessarily mean following rules.

i think the misconception with knowing music theory is that people automatically assume it deletes all prior artistic instinct, which just isn’t true. music theory can help you learn the intracacies of how music works, but it CANNOT develop artistic skills/creativity. someone like frank zappa, who already had that creative spark, only got better when his music became more composition focused, while adam neely for example never had that creative energy to begin with, thus his music is boring

...and? What? Did the people who used "rational deliberate rational construction" made critically acclaimed music there on the spot or something?

Music theory is just a way of classifying things and analyzing music to put into your own music.
If you know theory, it's easy to hear an idea in your head and say "oh that's a Lydian mode" or "that's a plagal cadence" and immediately translate that into actual music. You could come up with the same end result through dicking around/trial and error until you figure it out, but it's easier to just remember that "this chord can go with these notes" and "this is what a #9 chord sounds like" and translate it directly from the sound in your head.

>>If art was rational people who go to college and learn about it from that perspective would be killing all industries, and that's not the case by far.
>implying art = industry
>implying success in industry = worth of art or innovation/creativity
I could go fucking on, but it's pointless at this point. This is quite pathetic, you have literally no coherent arguments.
>So I guess my evidence is just observable reality in general?
It really isn't. It's just you projecting your own subjective thoughts unto reality and lumping things that don't quite fit together. You're equating quite a lot of things here that make absolutely no sense. Making art is a rational process. That's it. That'a a cold, hard, dry fact. There is nothing more to be said here. Your own subjective preferences and what you think success is in some business or industry have literally nothing to do with this.
>>study autism
The science is right until it's proven wrong. Feel free to debunk these studies as you wish, but any sane person would agree that you've made absolutely no effort or sense to change anybody's mind. But I know your mind, you'll be presented with some sources and then in kindergarten style just scream that they're stupid and wrong without actually putting any effort into it. You don't care about the truth, you only care about being right in your head.
>It's not romanticizing and "putting your head" in something doesn't necessarily mean following rules.
It absolutely is romanticising, your definition and conception of the artistic process is literally 19th century tier bollocks. And nobody mentioned following any rules.

That is literally not the point and the topic at hand, you stupid fuck.

Where's your evidence?

music theory doesn't tell you what is good. it tells you that a tonic and dominant are consonant so you might want to put them together if you want to produce a pleasant sound. Otherwise if want put some dissonance cause you want to express some other feeling you might want to go with a minor seventh interval.

Saying that music thory hinders your musical creativity It's like saying that knowing a jalapeno is spicy ruins your cooking creativity

Frank Zappa is shit tho

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand this lol

if you dont want any theory you might as well not even tune up because
>notes are just a system, man
if you want all theory you should listen to Jacob collier and get in with the "woah dude reharmonization" crowd.
the rest of us learn enough to have a good foundation and then just play our damn instruments. so sick of the MUH MOJO vs MUH INTRICACY debate all the time.

Theory is descriptive. It's a language that refers to sonic phenomena, and what they're doing with that language is try to talk to eachother about what makes the music in question good... Just like you try to do with your friends.

The difference is you don't have any language for it, so you're stuck idiotically stating "it just feels RIGHT"... And the worst part is, because of this, you probably think you're in touch with something theory fags aren't.

I didn't mention Frank Zappa.

Assuming this is true there's still one piece you're leaving out.
You aren't Hendrix nor are you The Beatles and you never will be.
At least Jimi and The Beatles weren't prideful of their ignorance.
Stop toting around this romantic notion that good art can come from the pure drive to create, it'd be like an artist who doesn't know which brush or colour to use when.

>>implying art = industry
>>implying success in industry = worth of art or innovation/creativity
Ah yes, art is not industry, or success, or being liked by the audience, or critical acclaim, or cultural impact, or anything. Art is being respected in "academic art" scenarios that are built around the proper academic training in the first place! Come on kid. If if that's easy, if it's rational, if it's rules, go make something people want to listen.

>Making art is a rational process. That's it. That'a a cold, hard, dry fact.
Then... what's your explanation for your lack of success?

>The science is right until it's proven wrong.
This is what people too young to have been near academia think. Social/human sciences are a lot more complex than you think, "dude study said X" is something only simpletons say.

Also, you're sperging out a bit too much over something so trivial. You're clearly not in the best mental health, maybe that's what being an unsuccessful musician trying to escape reality leads to, but take some time off for your own good.

>learn how to make chords, learn inversions and octaves, learn an easy numbering system, memorize some scales that sound nice to you, and then stick to those scales for long time because why not
Tldr musician here; learn theory

if you know how to use theory its ok (basically evey good jazz musician)
if you are a faggot (like adam nedle and that kind of youtuber "i know music" but actually dont know shit) you suck

>Ah yes, art is not industry, or success, or being liked by the audience, or critical acclaim, or cultural impact, or anything
Literally not the topic at hand, buddy. You are shoving your own perception and definition of what art means to you into the discussion whether art is rational or emotional.
>Art is being respected in "academic art" scenarios that are built around the proper academic training in the first place! Come on kid. If if that's easy, if it's rational, if it's rules, go make something people want to listen.
Literally don't care about your opinion about shitty academic circlejerks, dude.
>Then... what's your explanation for your lack of success?
Not relevant to the discussion.
>This is what people too young to have been near academia think. Social/human sciences are a lot more complex than you think, "dude study said X" is something only simpletons say.
Making art is mainly a rational process. I've yet to hear a single argument as to why it's not from you. I'm not going to get it, so I'm leaving this thread. Take it easy.

post your music

>music theory doesn't tell you what is good. it tells you that a tonic and dominant are consonant so you might want to put them together if you want to produce a pleasant sound.
Yes yes, we've heard this before. And yet all the people who say "descriptive not prescriptive!" can't make good music, while people who can barely play their instruments make hits.

IMO, some theory can be good, but too much can ruin the way you process music. It's like how psychologists say that if you're about to cry you should start making math equations in your head, because the cognitive load and the activation of other parts of the brain basically neutralizes that impulse by removing your focus on your own emotions and changing the blood flow in your brain. Processing music having an eye/ear for that type of stuff can itself guarantee you're not training the right "muscles" enough. You can't separate one thing from the other once it's just part of how you understand music.

Yeah because this retard thought he was replying to

Alright buddy you too, and take a break from Yea Forums or something.

>And yet all the people who say "descriptive not prescriptive!" can't make good music
Is your only source for this shitty claim Adam Neely?

>implying that theory can never be circuitous laboured or imprecise in its explanations

Neely is not even particularly terrible as far as these people go.

>but too much can ruin the way you process music
That doesn't happen though. An analytical point way of thinking about music doesn't destroy the emotional aspect. When you listen to music you like you can still close your eyes and just feel no matter how much you know.

Obviously, language is limited.

>while people who can barely play their instruments make hits
Max Martin knows theory.

So people who say theory is "prescriptive not descriptive!" would make good music then?

>Then... what's your explanation for your lack of success?
not him, but you can still be lazy and/or a retard.

You have to be thoroughly engaged with the process in some way... That doesn't reduce to understanding polyrhythms... That kind of theory is a small, but ultimately still useful, subset of the thinking that will help you shape a creative process.

Sometimes there are people who do it for a while, but then they "lose it", as Bob Dylan says of himself, because they ultimately didn't understand what they did.

The hardest part about it is asking the right questions really. There's almost nothing to hold on to, which is why many people end up burried in music theory excavations, or come up with otherwise contrived masturbatory shit

>not him, but you can still be lazy and/or a retard.
Or you can literally be a bedroom musician like I actually am lol I have a real job.

Post music you have written

Post music you have written

>hurr jimi Hendrix didnt know theory
fuck off he could tell you what fucking chord he was playing and clearly knew how fucking blues scales worked jesus christ people are retarded. people talk about music "theory" like its separate from music MUSIC THEORY IS LITERALLY HOW ALL MUSIC WORKS PLEASE TRY TO LEARN IT A LITTLE OR WE WILL HAVE POP PUNK AND HIP HOP ONLY IN THE FUTURE

Post music you have written

Post music you have written

Yes, Stevie Wonder's creativity was obviously dead.

You first theoryfag

Well, what I tried to explain is that theory is very sparse in its explanations of anything. It's really just language for saying what you're hearing, so that others will know which aspect of the music you're talking about, for example.

The explaining is done by people trying to dissect how the music feels to them, and where it comes from. And then they use the language of theory to tell eachother what they've arrived at.

Often they haven't actually fully understood it, and if that's the case, you will hear it in their music as well.

It's only very overall things that have a generally accepted "explanation". That's how it seems to me, I didn't go to music school though

> Needing attention so badly you reply to every post in a thread
Kill yourself

IMO music and creativity should be approached from several different angles.

Some theory to understand the principles and to have a "map" is good, repetition and consistency to develop creativity as a skill is good, seeking other sounds and influences is good, personal rituals are good, etc. You can't invest only in one thing.

I also have seen too many musicians (and artists in general) say that a certain emotional state is vital for their creative process for me not to think there's something about that. I don't think it's a completely rational process like some are suggesting.

>inb4 Post music you have written
youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

It's an old one because my current project is taking off a bit and I don't want to be doxxed

no one mentioned the beatles

*proves you wrong*

Attached: v3oSyDZktnRSJzuN7VKg7XtJ.jpg (1950x1500, 2.2M)

You first theoryfag

don't compare to any of my favourite midwestern (california) emo sadboi bands

>muh classical
who cares. computers make music that is indistinguishable from 50% of that list.

those bands definitely understand the "theory" behind the music they're playing, even if its emo rock that stays in one key. stop being stupid, people dont just walk up to a fucking guitar and randomly pluck notes until they get your favorite emo songs

>89883066
Don't take the bait.

>some theory can be good, but too much can ruin the way you process music
You do not know what you're talking about. This would imply that there is a threshold of theoretical complexity which will ruin music that otherwise could be good. That's a retarded idea. If you're listening to music that uses 'too much' theory for you to comprehend, you'll tune out the complexity and focus on whole of the piece. What I mean by this is that you can't 'feel' something in 7/8 if you have no clue how to count that or what that denotes, likewise other details you don't understand will go over your head. These details often aren't even processed consciously yet you claim composing like this can ruin your whole perception of the piece. Money by Pink Floyd is not ruined by it's odd metre, people like you who don't know theory just tune it out and accept the piece as a whole.

Low IQ posts.

>You do not know what you're talking about.
Story of Yea Forums regarding anything that takes more than 15 minutes to study.

Based MAGA Mike checking in

Attached: mike-stock-once-of-stock-aitken-and-waterman-at-home-9-9-2004-shutterstock-editorial-2409177a.jpg (1500x967, 183K)