Page 1 of 3
#1
I have wondered this for a while so decided to wonder out loud.

I have played with many musicians of different ability over the years and the main difference I see is between people who know theory well and follow all the "rules" and people who just play what sounds good to them.

Many times the people who just play what sounds good to them are criticized by the theory boffs and told that they are "wrong", I find this attitude rather disheartening.

Music is about expression and I don't think there is a "right" way to do things or absolute rules that you need to follow. I know a good amount of theory and I know it helps to aim in the right direction but I hardly ever find myself thinking, "ok this chord is playing so I can only use this and this note". I usually just start with the root note and from there let the sound and feeling take over.

I know there are many theory pro's here so I would like to hear you thoughts, especially for the new users. How important is theory really for song writing, lead guitar in particular.

Do you feel you need to know scales and chord progressions to write a song that everyday people can enjoy or would you recommend that someone learn theory first if they have an aspiration to be commercially successful.

Also, do you know of any bands that toss theory out the window and are still successful?
#2
I have two problems with your question here.

1. You make it sound like a one way road. Like either you play by ear or either you use theoretical concepts to compose, i would argue most people use both. Mainly using their ear, but looking to theoretical knowledge as an aid.

2. Music Theory is in no way "absolute rules". Music theory is merely giving a name to the sound you are making, it doesn´t tell you "this is how you do it", it explains what is going on. So in that sense i think a big part of your question is dismissed right there, in my opinion.

To me, it all comes to the ear first. I am a musician who learns everything by ear, so it feels natural to me. However, i do use theoretical concepts alot when doing songwriting or analyzing songs, and i am well versed in both the classical view on music theory and the jazz view on music theory.

Theory is important to me, but not for the reasons you mentioned. I knew scales and chord progressions and different families of chords before i knew theory, the thing was that i didn´t have a name for it. When someone would ask me how to play a pentatonic scale i wouldn´t be able to, when someone asked me to play a I - V - vi - IV it would be a whole different language to me. I knew all those things back then, but i didn´t know the theoretical terms that describe those things. I use theory everyday in that sense, since i work with playing music and teaching music i am always using these terms to communicate with others.

To be honest, in my view most successful artists knew theory, but they had their own terms for it. You can look at someone like Hendrix, he didn´t know the names for the things he did, but he knew the sound of them, that was the theory to him. Then look at guys like Allan Holdsworth, who invented his own symbols for different scales and chords, he invented his own theoretical language.

I hope that was a good answer.

Best Regards,
Sickz
Fusion and jazz musician, a fan of most music.

Quote by Guthrie Govan
“If you steal from one person it's theft, and if you steal from lots of people it's research”


Quote by Chick Corea
"Only play what you hear. If you don't hear anything, don't play anything."
#3
Quote by Sickz
I have two problems with your question here.

1. You make it sound like a one way road. Like either you play by ear or either you use theoretical concepts to compose, i would argue most people use both. Mainly using their ear, but looking to theoretical knowledge as an aid.

2. Music Theory is in no way "absolute rules". Music theory is merely giving a name to the sound you are making, it doesn´t tell you "this is how you do it", it explains what is going on. So in that sense i think a big part of your question is dismissed right there, in my opinion.

To me, it all comes to the ear first. I am a musician who learns everything by ear, so it feels natural to me. However, i do use theoretical concepts alot when doing songwriting or analyzing songs, and i am well versed in both the classical view on music theory and the jazz view on music theory.

Theory is important to me, but not for the reasons you mentioned. I knew scales and chord progressions and different families of chords before i knew theory, the thing was that i didn´t have a name for it. When someone would ask me how to play a pentatonic scale i wouldn´t be able to, when someone asked me to play a I - V - vi - IV it would be a whole different language to me. I knew all those things back then, but i didn´t know the theoretical terms that describe those things. I use theory everyday in that sense, since i work with playing music and teaching music i am always using these terms to communicate with others.

To be honest, in my view most successful artists knew theory, but they had their own terms for it. You can look at someone like Hendrix, he didn´t know the names for the things he did, but he knew the sound of them, that was the theory to him. Then look at guys like Allan Holdsworth, who invented his own symbols for different scales and chords, he invented his own theoretical language.

I hope that was a good answer.

Best Regards,
Sickz


This was a great answer Sickz, I'm sure you noticed a lot of theory banter is going around at the moment. You should copy that answer to the other threads

The theory argument does tend to get compartmentalised as one or the other, as you pointed out I am guilty of doing just that it the OP.

I remember the first band I played in, no one knew theory but the band lead was pretty good at explaining things in his own way and we all understood for the most part. Not knowing theory didn't stop us from making sick music, It was Heavy Metal and I feel like anything goes in that genre more so than others.

Funny thing is I analysed the music later and discovered that the scale we used just because we liked the way it sounds actually doesn't exists, there is no name for it.

Is that even possible? I don't know I was young then and might have made a mistake, il have to go back to the songs and figure out the notes again to confirm.
#4
Just a thought regarding your "scale with no name":-

I guess what you probably mean is that it wasn't one of the modal scales.

I can pretty-much guarantee that it has been used by other musicians, though: between western and eastern music, everything has come up at least once already

If you could post the intervals, we could have a crack at identifying it.
Gibson SG Special 60s Tribute
Boss TU-3, NS-2, CS-3, OD-3, CE-5
Ibanez DL10
Fender Blues Junior III
Delta Blue 5 string resonator banjo
Aria Pro II Passive P-J Bass
Aria Pro II Active Music Man Bass
Laney BC-120 Bass Combo
#5
I'm no theory pro but the golden rule is pretty much "If it sounds good, it is good."

I know a bit of theory and it's useful to understand what's going on and/or get out of trouble rather than fumbling around in the dark. I'm not sure anyone (or at least, anyone with sense) would bin something that sounded amazing if it was "incorrect" theoretically.

I'm not even sure if it's possible to be "incorrect" theoretically, anyway (hopefully the theory ninjas here can confirm)- I mean you can use accidentals, borrowed chords, etc. etc. pretty much as you like and still explain them theoretically just fine.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#6
Quote by Victorgeiger

I usually just start with the root note and from there let the sound and feeling take over.


That is one reason why a lot of guitarists sound the same, the majority of them just start on the most obvious notes and let their fingers do the work.

Also, it really depends on the style of music you play. Theory cannot hurt, it can only help. It really is as simple as that.

Quote by Victorgeiger

Many times the people who just play what sounds good to them are criticized by the theory boffs and told that they are "wrong", I find this attitude rather disheartening.


Well unless you're playing in a certain style and happen to start playing things that do not pertain to that style, then it will be wrong. But then again, who knows , maybe you will develop a new style of music...rare for most people though.

Another time it will be wrong is if you are playing things that are so screwy it is not even music...which is sort of rare.
Last edited by Unreal T at Jul 5, 2014,
#7
Quote by Victorgeiger
I have wondered this for a while so decided to wonder out loud.

I have played with many musicians of different ability over the years

Doubt it.

and the main difference I see is between people who know theory well and follow all the "rules" and people who just play what sounds good to them.

Then you have been playing with bad musicians.

Many times the people who just play what sounds good to them are criticized by the theory boffs and told that they are "wrong", I find this attitude rather disheartening.

Not true.

Music is about expression and I don't think there is a "right" way to do things or absolute rules that you need to follow.

Neither does anyone else.

I know a good amount of theory

No you don't

and I know it helps to aim in the right direction but I hardly ever find myself thinking, "ok this chord is playing so I can only use this and this note". I usually just start with the root note and from there let the sound and feeling take over.

Good for you, so does everyone else.

I know there are many theory pro's here so I would like to hear you thoughts, especially for the new users. How important is theory really for song writing, lead guitar in particular.

It's important for talking to other musicians in a universal language and for hearing things in your head that you've never heard before. It's very helpful for writing because rather than just "going by ear" you have a structured ear and understanding about music so you can do more things and now how to build and release tension more elegantly. All music is is building and releasing tension.

Do you feel you need to know scales and chord progressions to write a song that everyday people can enjoy or would you recommend that someone learn theory first if they have an aspiration to be commercially successful.

You don't need to know theory for any of that.

Also, do you know of any bands that toss theory out the window and are still successful?

Yes but I'm not going to name them because just because they don't use it doesn't mean that new musicians shouldn't learn theory.

Quote by Sickz
To be honest, in my view most successful artists knew theory, but they had their own terms for it. You can look at someone like Hendrix, he didn´t know the names for the things he did, but he knew the sound of them, that was the theory to him. Then look at guys like Allan Holdsworth, who invented his own symbols for different scales and chords, he invented his own theoretical language.

I don't think that this should be desired though because they are not going to be able to discuss what they think with other musicians. It's like learning a language that only you speak. It's useless, and you might as well learn the language that everyone else uses as its the same thing in terms of depth and understanding of the subject but other people will be able to use it.
Last edited by macashmack at Jul 5, 2014,
#8
Cool fact: traditional theory emerged from interpretation by the ear.
You might could use some double modals.
#10
Quote by AETHERA
Cool fact: traditional theory emerged from interpretation by the ear.


Yeah, but it does a hell of a good job explaining what is going on. Clears up a lot of things for those without a natural or talented ear.

If you want to play by ear of what sounds good, great. But if you find yourself limited and not getting anywhere or not thrilled with your compositions, theory should help.
Last edited by Unreal T at Jul 6, 2014,
#11
Theory is labelling and explaining things in music. That's it. You don't play theory.

I find that working with musicians who don't even know the basics doesn't go very smoothly, they simply lack the language to effectively talk about the music. It makes it very hard to give instructions and clarify things.
#13
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Theory has nothing to do with playing. Theory merely describes what has been played.

I disagree and agree. Theory has sometimes helped me with improvising. Especially if I improvise entire chord progressions and melodies at the same time.
Last edited by Elintasokas at Jul 6, 2014,
#14
Quote by Victorgeiger


Funny thing is I analysed the music later and discovered that the scale we used just because we liked the way it sounds actually doesn't exists, there is no name for it.



You asked if this is possible, it is not. For all the collection of notes in western music we have a name for it. A C major scale with a raised fourth and flattened seventh for example is given the name C lydian b7. We always have names for things, and most of the time we can use the major scale or minor scale as a basis for that analyzable bit. As said, theory is used to describe music in words rather than sounds so musicians can get a grip of it fast without having to listen to it, all the sounds in western music have names (for one we have all the intervals from the root, we have different constructed chords/arpeggios, we have inversions of those, we have those with added notes to make scales of different kinds) so we can always find a name for what we are doing.

Quote by macashmack


I don't think that this should be desired though because they are not going to be able to discuss what they think with other musicians. It's like learning a language that only you speak. It's useless, and you might as well learn the language that everyone else uses as its the same thing in terms of depth and understanding of the subject but other people will be able to use it.



I agree, i simply stated that these musicians knew theory, although not in the traditional sense. As said, i am all for having theoretical knowledge about music since i use it in my job all the time, i merely wanted to bring forth the argument that musicians that didn´t know theory in the sense that we talk about still knew theory in one way or another (most of them).
Fusion and jazz musician, a fan of most music.

Quote by Guthrie Govan
“If you steal from one person it's theft, and if you steal from lots of people it's research”


Quote by Chick Corea
"Only play what you hear. If you don't hear anything, don't play anything."
#15
Yes music describes sounds...but what it also does is describe musical form as well, which is also very informative and helpful. It's not always merely about scales and chords.
Last edited by Unreal T at Jul 6, 2014,
#16
There is so much theory cannot describe. One obvious example is spectral music, we still lack the terminology to describe a lot of music coming from the 20th and 21st century. It also why there is barely anything written in western literature about timbre, and lots on melody, harmony and rhythm.
#17
Could you elaborate on what you consider theory "rules"?

Usually when something sounds good, there's theory behind why things sound good together. So I agree with posts above that say that writing good music, and having solid theory behind it, goes hand in hand. You can't really "toss theory out the window" as you put it, because it's always there, you know? So it's not possible to completely disregard theory. Just from personal experience, learning theory certainly helps in playing music. It's never detrimental to a person to understand theory. Most beginners don't even go that in depth with theory though, because there are already so many things to learn in the beginning with reading music, learning where to put their fingers and so on. A person who doesn't know theory might come up with something that sounds awesome, but still has theory behind it that the new musician just doesn't know about yet.

However, I think I know what you mean when you say that there are teachers who are very strict about structure and theory. I think this applies most to people who listen to classical music, which always has a really strict structure, in comparison with people who study 20th or 21st century music, which is comparably "all over the place" regarding sticking in a lot of accidentals and adding notes that don't belong in the key of the song. 21st century music certainly sounds more free and less structured in comparison to say.... Bach. BUT, both styles have theory behind them. New music is certainly expressive and may not be as structured, but theory is still present. It's "rules" still apply.
#18
Depends entirely on the player. Music theory is not a rule to follow, but rather it makes you more adept at your instrument and the way music works, therefore making it easier to create the sounds and feelings in your head. If you lose creativity from music theory you only have yourself to blame.
#19
Theory helps because you can name things that you hear. And that makes you learn it faster. If we can categorize things, it makes us learn them a lot faster. Also applying different concepts is easier if you know their names. That's what theory is for - it can name things that you hear. It explains with words what is happening in music.

You need to play what sounds good to make good music. If you think theory limits you, you don't actually know theory and/or have misunderstood it. If you know theory, you still need to use your ears. Music is sound - theory can't really describe everything in music so well that you would have no use for the sound.
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#20
Quote by yamahaducky8910
Could you elaborate on what you consider theory "rules"?

Usually when something sounds good, there's theory behind why things sound good together. So I agree with posts above that say that writing good music, and having solid theory behind it, goes hand in hand. You can't really "toss theory out the window" as you put it, because it's always there, you know? So it's not possible to completely disregard theory. Just from personal experience, learning theory certainly helps in playing music. It's never detrimental to a person to understand theory. Most beginners don't even go that in depth with theory though, because there are already so many things to learn in the beginning with reading music, learning where to put their fingers and so on. A person who doesn't know theory might come up with something that sounds awesome, but still has theory behind it that the new musician just doesn't know about yet.

However, I think I know what you mean when you say that there are teachers who are very strict about structure and theory. I think this applies most to people who listen to classical music, which always has a really strict structure, in comparison with people who study 20th or 21st century music, which is comparably "all over the place" regarding sticking in a lot of accidentals and adding notes that don't belong in the key of the song. 21st century music certainly sounds more free and less structured in comparison to say.... Bach. BUT, both styles have theory behind them. New music is certainly expressive and may not be as structured, but theory is still present. It's "rules" still apply.


I don't think your post is aimed at me ,but I have a few problems with your assumptions. Firstly there is no such thing as something that sounds good .Secondly, you seem to have a few misunderstandings about New music. A lot of the time the parameter of pitch plays a less important roll then gesture,timbre, texture, etc. Of course there are ways to analyse them, but what I'm saying is that we don't have a standardise way to look at these. There are also no 'rules' for the organisation of sound, after all music is simply sound over time.
#21
While I'm huge into theory, the thing with "advanced chord progressions" and guitar solos is the old " If it sounds good, it is good". I'm experimental so I mix the two a lot. Everyone's given some great answers.
"I don't know what you're trying to suggest. There's no shame in taking what you need to hold your position!"

Super Buu (DBZ) on assimilation (it could also apply to blues guitar and guitar soloing in general).
#22
Theory is a means to explain, and it allows you, if you have that understanding, to repeat or expand what you're doing in various contexts. Saying that, if someone says "You can't do that! It doesn't fall between the bounds of my knowledge and expertise in the field of music theory!” they are either close-minded, or you are playing absolutely horrifically.
#23
Quote by Elintasokas
I disagree and agree. Theory has sometimes helped me with improvising. Especially if I improvise entire chord progressions and melodies at the same time.

The definition of improvising is spontaneous playing. As such, while having better chord knowledge may help, you shouldn't actually have time to use theory. Rather, your ear and intrinsic musical knowledge is what you use during improv sessions.
#24
Quote by GoldenGuitar
I don't think your post is aimed at me ,but I have a few problems with your assumptions. Firstly there is no such thing as something that sounds good .Secondly, you seem to have a few misunderstandings about New music. A lot of the time the parameter of pitch plays a less important roll then gesture,timbre, texture, etc. Of course there are ways to analyse them, but what I'm saying is that we don't have a standardise way to look at these. There are also no 'rules' for the organisation of sound, after all music is simply sound over time.


No not aimed at you at all. Rather, you just mentioning 21st century music reminded me of echoes of things my piano teacher taught me. And of course there are things that sound good. What sounds good to one person may not sound good to another, but people tend to listen to music that they think sounds good. Also, I was not stating the fact that there are rules for music, but in fact questioning the original poster's assertion that there are rules for music. Yes you do have a point that there are many many variables to consider when comparing music, and not just the notes that make up the song, but nevertheless my point of music today being more dynamic than stuff from the Baroque period is still valid. I'm not trying to argue or sound condescending or anything like that. I'm just going off of what I've learned and heard. Plus you're probably way more knowledgable than me about theory anyways so I rest my case. You're the boss.
#25
Quote by MaggaraMarine
Theory helps because you can name things that you hear. And that makes you learn it faster. If we can categorize things, it makes us learn them a lot faster. Also applying different concepts is easier if you know their names. That's what theory is for - it can name things that you hear. It explains with words what is happening in music.

You need to play what sounds good to make good music. If you think theory limits you, you don't actually know theory and/or have misunderstood it. If you know theory, you still need to use your ears. Music is sound - theory can't really describe everything in music so well that you would have no use for the sound.


+1

Quote by crazysam23_Atax
The definition of improvising is spontaneous playing. As such, while having better chord knowledge may help, you shouldn't actually have time to use theory. Rather, your ear and intrinsic musical knowledge is what you use during improv sessions.


(to bolded bit) Doesn't that more or less come from the theory, though?
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#26
Play something that sounds cool first, then use theory to describe what it is and how to play it to other musicians.

Definitely don't need knowledge of theory to write cool music, but it does take out alot of the guess work, pseudo mysticism and head-against-wall-bashing involved along the way.
#27
Quote by TV-Casualty

Definitely don't need knowledge of theory to write cool music, but it does take out alot of the guess work, pseudo mysticism and head-against-wall-bashing involved along the way.


Well put, agreed.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#28
Quote by Dave_Mc

(to bolded bit) Doesn't that more or less come from the theory, though?

Hahaha. Exactly. That IS theory you're using there. But I guess he means using it in a more subconscious way.
Last edited by Elintasokas at Jul 6, 2014,
#29


Seriously, though, I mean I don't really disagree with what he's saying (if I'm improvising I'm pretty much going with a mix of my ear, muscle memory and ingrained theory... or just ripping off other people's licks ), but at the same time a lot of these things are almost just semantics, too. I mean, even the ear and muscle memory thing I mentioned there probably originated from the theory. I guess it just depends on how you define these things.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#30
Quote by Dave_Mc


Seriously, though, I mean I don't really disagree with what he's saying (if I'm improvising I'm pretty much going with a mix of my ear, muscle memory and ingrained theory... or just ripping off other people's licks ), but at the same time a lot of these things are almost just semantics, too. I mean, even the ear and muscle memory thing I mentioned there probably originated from the theory. I guess it just depends on how you define these things.

Yep, you're right. If I didn't know any theory my improv would surely be pathetic. Also it's not really that impossible to think fast enough to think about theory while you're playing. It just requires really good knowledge and fast thinking.
#31
Yeah. And also sort of thinking in shortcuts and/or a sort of combination of the theory and the ear. I mean if I'm letting rip in that sort of 80s rock minor pentatonic/bluesy zero taste (hey it's me ) way, I don't know if I necessarily know exactly each note I'm hitting, but I know the rough gist of what I'm doing, and that stems from the theory (and from my ear, which also sort of stems from the theory).

Plus even if your ear's good and you didn't sit down to specifically learn the theory, what you think sounds good probably stems from listening to lots of music, and they were probably using theory (or the people they listened to, etc. etc.).
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#32
Theory is the names of things. If you know the names of techniques and ingredients, that facilitates cooking. But knowing the names of these things, doesn't make you a great cook. That information doesn't tell you how to invent great new recipes.

But, you will learn some recipes along the way. And you will be a cook from learning it. There is no textbook information though that can tell you if a recipe will be good or not. You have to taste it. And there is no algorithm that can create delicious recipes on its own. It requires a chef.

Music is this way.

Theory, imo, is only meant to be the naming of things so that you can play through your instrument what you hear and feel. It is not at all what to play through your instrument.

You and your creativity are the what. You are the source. The theory is the how to get your body to play that source to play through your guitar. I don't think it is even the why.

Your mind is the CD, your hands and theory are the CD player, and your guitar is the speaker.
Last edited by fingrpikingood at Jul 6, 2014,
#33
The definition of the word theory seams to get mixed up a bit. Clearly it covers a broad topic so that is understandable. It is a language we use to communicate with other musicians, it is the labels we put to the things we play.

But it is also a guideline, the main thing being scales and key. If you don't have a basic understanding of these things and you try and write an entire song (guitar, bass, synths, keyboards, vocals) things are going to get very messy very fast. This was my experience at least, only once I understood the basics was I able to write a full song that could actually pass for a song and not a steaming pile of poo poo noise.

It just helps avoid frustration and head-butting when writing. (As someone else here put it). So basically if I plan to play with seasoned schooled musicians then I better learn the language fully so that we can understand each other.

If I am just playing on my own or with a couple of weekend musicians then knowing the basics and fundamentals is going to help from a song writing point of view.

Quote by EMarkM
Just a thought regarding your "scale with no name":-

I guess what you probably mean is that it wasn't one of the modal scales.

I can pretty-much guarantee that it has been used by other musicians, though: between western and eastern music, everything has come up at least once already

If you could post the intervals, we could have a crack at identifying it.


I'm going to dig up one of those old songs and figure out the intervals again, I can't remember them because it was a long time ago but I would really like to know what scale we were playing. I can't find it in guitar pro so it must be really uncommon, hopefully we can shed some light on that. Will post it tomorrow.
Last edited by Victorgeiger at Jul 6, 2014,
#35
Quote by Victorgeiger

Do you feel you need to know scales and chord progressions to write a song that everyday people can enjoy or would you recommend that someone learn theory first if they have an aspiration to be commercially successful.

to be commercially successful use 808 drums

to be wacky use 909 drums and granulate everything

theory is no longer relevant in the digital age in which it barely describes anything available to the modern musician
#36
If there was a theory describing timbre then it would be relevant. As far as I know there is no such thing, and there should be.
#37
schaeffer's whole tartyp thing tried to create a system to group different sounds into a bunch of useable categories

but basically everyone thinks it was a bit shite
#38
Quote by NewDayHappy
Often times when I play what sounds good, I check back and it's theoretically correct.



Everything that sounds good is theoretically correct. That's how they discovered what theory is. There was a time where no theory existed. They way they started figuring it out, was to play music, and then they discovered patterns and trends in what sounded good.

What sounds good is what defined theory.
#39
Quote by willT08
schaeffer's whole tartyp thing tried to create a system to group different sounds into a bunch of useable categories

but basically everyone thinks it was a bit shite

Oh man, I forgot about that. That thing is actually worthless. I remember doing an assignment on classifying sounds with it and just getting so angry. In no small part because it was in some god damn gypsy language. My prof was a real big fan though.
#40
Quote by macashmack
If there was a theory describing timbre then it would be relevant. As far as I know there is no such thing, and there should be.


There are theories which deal with timbre and they basically amount to Fourier Analysis, temporal envelopes describing various parameters of a sound, reverse-engineering of effects modulation (such as flanging, reverb, phasing, distortion, etc.), and various analyses of spectrograms.

Mao pls
You might could use some double modals.
Page 1 of 3