RE: Music Theory: Why? (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - General: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=13
- - - RE: Music Theory: Why?: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=56216



Message

Sr. Martins -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 2:01:31)

After the grave digging (8 years) to this moment, I don't think I remember a post where someone who knows theory implied that theory is needed to be good at flamenco guitar.

If that's your argument, you won. Just don't ask me who your opponent was.



estebanana -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 2:07:51)

quote:

I never understood the need that people have to come throw their feces at what they supposedly don't care about.


If theory is just crap to you, do you feel you've added anything insightful to the debate?


It would make sense if the topic was about "Is theory needed to play flamenco?"... but it isn't.


Yes I feel I've added the insight that I think listening deeply is more important.

Can you play palmas? If not harmonic analysis will not make you play palmas better.

I am not arguing, I'm just amused. And you have ruffled feathers quite often I notice. Perhaps a bit off line preening of your wings will help you put your hackles back in proper order.

The OP original questions: Let's continue.

Music Theory: Why?

Hehe ... The title sounds like some sort of philosophical book or something. But the point of this topic is to ask the following questions:

1- Do we need to know / understand music theory in order to be good flamenco composers?

2- Can somebody with no talent be able to (if he has a firm grasp of theory) "scientifically" compose (by knowing what chords fit with what scales, etc.) something that will generally be accepted as "nice-sounding?"

3- Do the masters (PdL, Sanlucar, Sabicas, Ricardo [and by that I mean Nino, and not Richard - we already know he is a master of theory just by reading his posts with guitarbuddha and Romerito!!! CHINESE to me) know this theory? I know that PdL cannot read music, so I think he does not know theory, yet his compositions are super ... is that pure talent?

4- How important is a grasp of theory to be an all-round "good musician" or "good guitarist" or "good improviser?"



Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px



Sr. Martins -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 2:47:01)

In case you didn't notice, Iam very amused.. probably not for the same reason though [:D]

In fact harmonic analysis can help anyone regarding the rhythmic aspects of music, being it palmas, strumming chords, anything really.

Harmony isn't just the "vertical thing". The horizontal placement of that vertical event matters just as much.



Pgh_flamenco -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 13:30:04)

quote:

In case you didn't notice, Iam very amused.. probably not for the same reason though

In fact harmonic analysis can help anyone regarding the rhythmic aspects of music, being it palmas, strumming chords, anything really.

Harmony isn't just the "vertical thing". The horizontal placement of that vertical event matters just as much.


It looks like this thread is still relevant to you--but only as long as the distinction (such as theory versus no theory) is a simple one. You seem more than willing to share your opinion in that circumstance, but when the distinction is more subtle you seem unable, or perhaps unwilling, to accept it.

I can assure nobody picks up a guitar because they want to become a musicologist. This is exactly what happens to so many people with college degrees in music. A few years ago a young virtuoso posted his impressions of college music majors who were studying guitar--most couldn’t “play” and were basically beginners.

Knowledge of music theory is critical in the development of many players, but theory should never be treated as a substitute for the ability to play an instrument. Too many people with degrees in music hide behind music theory and all this does is confuse the public—especially those interested in becoming good players.



Sr. Martins -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 13:40:38)

quote:

It looks like this thread is still relevant to you--but only as long as the distinction (such as theory versus no theory) is a simple one. You seem more than willing to share your opinion in that circumstance, but when the distinction is more subtle you seem unable, or perhaps unwilling, to accept it.



The only trouble with this thread is that some people (you for instance) have been trying to twist the subject into their own answers.. even though some of those unasked for answers have also been proved wrong and inconsistent.

That's exactly the part I find amusing in all this. Iam just waiting for someone to answer the "Music Theory: Why?" question with "You have to be born a gitano" [:D]



Pgh_flamenco -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 13:46:50)

quote:

The only trouble with this thread is that some people (you for instance) have been trying to twist the subject into their own answers.. even though some of those unasked for answers have also been proved wrong and inconsistent.


It would help if you could understand the questions in the first place, but I guess only people who are "genuinely" interested in theory are capable of that...



Sr. Martins -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 13:49:26)

If you don't understand the questions, why did you answer them?



Pgh_flamenco -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 13:51:11)

quote:

If you don't understand the questions, why did you answer them?


You are the one who didn't understand them.



jmb -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 13:58:28)

quote:

You have to be born a gitano"


[:D] Yeah! jaja!

That's always the best answer ...

For me, reading this threat from the first post, the only thing that seems clear is that what is call in Andalucia 'La Mala Follá Granaina" is an universal concept.[:D][:D]



Sr. Martins -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 14:00:16)

quote:

You are the one who didn't understand them.


Really? lol

You might want to get back to your answer on this one:

2- Can somebody with no talent be able to (if he has a firm grasp of theory) "scientifically" compose (by knowing what chords fit with what scales, etc.) something that will generally be accepted as "nice-sounding?"



You said it was "unlikely" when there's plenty of proof otherwise.

Unless you meant that Ramzi didn't know what he wanted to ask, I would say that you are the one (among others) who's trying to push the questions towards their own answers... and that might be because you don't understand the questions.



Pgh_flamenco -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 14:07:45)

quote:

2- Can somebody with no talent be able to (if he has a firm grasp of theory) "scientifically" compose (by knowing what chords fit with what scales, etc.) something that will generally be accepted as "nice-sounding?"

You said it was "unlikely" when there's plenty of proof otherwise.


I asked you for proof that anyone has and you did not provide any. Where are all of the uploads of music generated solely by the application of theory on this forum? Does the fact that there aren't any prove my statement that "it is unlikely" right or wrong?



Sr. Martins -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 14:20:45)

quote:

I asked you for proof that anyone has and you did not provide any. Where are all of the uploads of music generated solely by the application of theory on this forum? Does the fact that there aren't any prove my statement that "it is unlikely" right or wrong?


Guitarbuddha answered that for you, didn't you read it?

You could do a bit of homework yourself.. maybe that's the problem, you assume everything you don't know doesn't exist.


As I've said, if you care for music go read a bit about it's history. Iam not going to look it up for you.



Pgh_flamenco -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 14:30:14)

quote:

...you assume everything you don't know doesn't exist.


You couldn't be more wrong and you don't do well when challenged. Also, dealing with ambiguity is not your strong point.



Sr. Martins -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 14:36:12)

*facepalm*



Miguel de Maria -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 14:36:16)

Steven, looks like some of the woodpeckers we have here in Arizona. Cute!

FWIW, I agree with Steven. It's about deep listening to the masters, not the sort of quasi-scientific analysis done by classical music professors. I mean, music is...

With the first path, you learn to understand and speak the language, same as musicians throughout thousands of years of history. With the second path, you get a sometimes-useful framework to describe what musicians already intuitively do. Sometimes that framework is abused to create disgustingly-boring harmonic exercises!



Pgh_flamenco -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 14:41:19)

quote:

*facepalm*


Lol-not a problem. I'll be listening to some "nice-sounding", computer generated falsetas if you need me.

Oh wait--there aren't any. My bad...



guitarbuddha -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 14:42:57)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miguel de Maria



With the first path, you learn to understand and speak the language, same as musicians throughout thousands of years of history. With the second path, you get a sometimes-useful framework to describe what musicians already intuitively do. Sometimes that framework is abused to create disgustingly-boring harmonic exercises!


There are always two paths running in parallel. One for you and one for your luggage. A wise man keeps in sight of his luggage, lest it be hijacked by a gang.

D.



Sr. Martins -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 14:48:56)

Arguments based on personal opinions and taste... oh, so valid! That really clears up the "Music Theory: Why?" question. Now I know how the true gitanos composed their Bach-like fugues...and Schoenberg music is all theory crap so no one should care about that anyway. I believe he was no gitano either so that proves my point.



Sr. Martins -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 14:56:20)

Everyone noticed that music theory threads are just like the Conde ones? [8D]



Pgh_flamenco -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 15:02:20)

quote:

Arguments based on personal opinions and taste... oh, so valid! That really clears up the "Music Theory: Why?" question.


Well only for those who have a "genuine" interest in music theory; for those who are only interested in music theory, not so much.

[:)]



Sr. Martins -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 15:11:40)

Just buy a Conde and be done with that.



Pgh_flamenco -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 15:21:50)

quote:

Just buy a Conde and be done with that.


I had one. It was an EF5. Maybe the debate should be whether or not the EF5 model is a Conde.



Sr. Martins -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 15:27:43)

I think we moved on to "Music theory isn't needed because I don't particularly like any genre where the musicians/composers are well versed on it".



Pgh_flamenco -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 15:34:26)

quote:

I think we moved on to "Music theory isn't needed because I don't particularly like any genre where the musicians/composers are well versed on it".


Lol--I'll have to keep that in mind.



ToddK -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 16:55:39)

Massive confusion due to making something simple into something complex.
A foro staple.

Trying to write something "flamenco" using only "theory" is like
finger painting with a pencil.
Why not just drop the pencil, and get your hands dirty.

To messy for you? Not clean and organized enough? Not predictable and safe enough?

The only way to have a good story, is to have experience.

Not reading the "How to tell a story" handbook.



Sr. Martins -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 17:17:12)

quote:

Massive confusion due to making something simple into something complex.
A foro staple.

Trying to write something "flamenco" using only "theory" is like
finger painting with a pencil.


Exactly.


Trying to answer any question with "flamenco this & that" leads to that confusion.

I truly believe that the answer to the topic's question doesn't even involve the word "flamenco" but hey, let's all do some palmas and the answer shall arrive.


edit: To make things clear, I know that the topics on the original question had also something to do with flamenco and what I've been saying earlier isn't directed towards people who make the distinction.

My point is exactly towards the ones who immediately piss at theory and use flamenco as an argument for that.



Kevin -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 17:35:30)

Everyone is speaking of theory and practice as if they are two distinct things. They are not!!!

If you do not study theory FORMALLY, you will still have theories in your head. IT IS BASIC COGNITION. We can't function without analogy, metaphor, and other types of comparison that lead to basic theorizing.

Flamencos like Paco have formulated tacit theories. They don't articulate them in words, they articulate them in falsetas. To know that you can play a melody like this with a chord like this without knowing the names is still to have a theory about how music is put together. It is called tacit (hidden) knowledge contrasted with explicit or discursive knowledge (knowledge you can put into words.

THEORY/PRACTICE ARE A COIN. If you play music, you possess this coin. The question is, "Do you need to refine/translate your experiential theory into Western terms." Does your tails side of the coin need to be a Western theory. NO. But if you do study Music theory formally, your practice and theory will constantly align, evolve AND, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE IT to other people.

"How to tell a story" is a strawman argument. Obviously music theory is gaining recognition in Spain. There are already books beginning to hit the market. Soon we will be flooded. Some are useless, some are decent, a couple are good. Get this, THEY ALL TRANSLATE using Western music theory.

I suppose a better question is, should theory be a substitute for practice. NO. IT SHOULDN'T.



Sr. Martins -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 17:46:21)

Don't forget the third side of the coin [:D]


There are many who play only by tab/notation or by copying things from others. Usually they have no interest on coming up with their own stuff and their "aural" skills are pretty weak, they seem to go by no theory at all (tacit other otherwise).


Strangely, most of the people I've met who are like this come from the conservatory. Can't even play happy birthday without sheet music.



Sr. Martins -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 17:50:00)

Also, this thread got sidetracked from it's former debate. Maybe we can use the new thread for that and come up with the best way possible to make people friends with theory when the "Why?" question arises.



BarkellWH -> RE: Music Theory: Why? (Jan. 31 2015 17:54:04)

quote:

The only trouble with this thread is that some people (you for instance) have been trying to twist the subject into their own answers.


...says the man who in an earlier post on this thread tried to create a straw man to knock down in order to fit his Met-Narrative by twisting and misrepresenting what his interlocutors said about theory: "Never heard anyone who understands theory saying that knowing nothing is the way to go."

His suggestion that contributors to this thread said, "Knowing nothing is the way to go," was untrue, but no doubt was his disingenuous attempt at laying the groundwork for the juvenile epithet he threw out at those with whom he disagrees: "...you're coming off as ignorant douches."

What an elevated level of discourse! To label those with whom one disagrees (whether over music theory or anything else) as "coming off as ignorant douches" says much more about him than it does about those with whom he disagrees. I don't think I've heard that term applied as an epithet since I was a high school sophomore.

Bill



Page: <<   <   3 4 [5] 6 7    >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET