Foro Flamenco


Posts Since Last Visit | Advanced Search | Home | Register | Login

Today's Posts | Inbox | Profile | Our Rules | Contact Admin | Log Out



Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.

This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.

We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.





RE: Music Theory: Why?   You are logged in as Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >>Discussions >>General >> Page: <<   <   1 [2] 3 4 5    >   >>
Login
Message<< Newer Topic  Older Topic >>
 
etta

 

Posts: 342
Joined: Jan. 20 2010
 

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to rombsix) 
You do not need to know "theory" in a formal sense; if you are a musician you already know at least some theory even if you cannot apply the correct nomenclature to what you do. Most of all you need an ear for music, a sense of tone, time, and how notes, chords go together to do what is in your head or what you hear others doing. I belong to a small guitar group with all classical players except for me the only flamenco. They ask me theory questions about what I am doing for which I have few technical explanations. However, I have even helped them finding the mechanical methods to reach notes or play passages on the paper which they find difficult. We enjoy the contrast between flamenco and classical, but to me they seem very restrained by "theory" and the notes of paper.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 16:11:55
 
Kevin

 

Posts: 294
Joined: Sep. 7 2008
 

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to jmb) 
quote:

The conceptual frame of Raimundo Amador o PdL is/was different to academics, but.. it works. I belive that the key sentence above is Sanlucar’s sentence. But probably, Western academic conceptual frame should converge with traditional conceptual frame and not replace the traditional. Replacing traditional frame is a mistake.

Great quotes.

Some people separate inspiration from hard work as if they were distinct things. Much inspiration comes through "perspiration." The hard work leads to the discovery of cool new ideas (inspiration).

Tele:
quote:

Most flamenco guitarists know very little theory yet it doesn't mean they don't understand the fretboard almost just as well. Ear and eye training seems to be most important.

All people have theory. Paco understood very well that b-f resolve inward to c-e and that f-b resolve outward to e-c. He knew what a VII-I cadence was (used in El Chorruelo), he knew how to stick modal inflection into an overall tonal framework...he just lacked the theoretical concepts to articulate that. In fact, Paco's theory was every bit as advanced as a Beethoven or Chopin. EVERYONE THEORIZES, it's basic cognition.

For those who missed it...Theory is a tool to be mastered in practice (composing, improvising) but one can also master it in the discursive field (writing it, discussing it, etc.) What we are all really talking about is aligning one's own personal understanding of putting notes together with the conceptual toolbox acquired in studying Common Practice theory.

_____________________________
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 16:51:36
 
tele

Posts: 1464
Joined: Aug. 17 2012
 

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to etta) 
And on the topic of "Music theory: why?", I think it's essential to understand the basics to play fluently with any other musician

_____________________________
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 17:34:34
 
Bliblablub

 

Posts: 60
Joined: Oct. 9 2013
 

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to Kevin) 
Doing something by intuition or practical knowledge is not called theory though. That is only your wishful thinking. Especially basic cognition is not what theory is. Theory goes beyond that.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 17:39:36
 
guitarbuddha

 

Posts: 2970
Joined: Jan. 4 2007
 

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to Bliblablub) 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliblablub

Doing something by intuition or practical knowledge is not called theory though.



If you build a machine and then destroy the blueprints does that mean that the machine doesn't exist ?

If you build a machine through trial and error over a long period of time does that mean that you would be unable to help someone else assemble the machine more quickly ? If you are not the best equipped person to draw the blueprints does that mean that they could not be drawn ?

My father had perfect pitch and he noticed it when he learned to play the accordian as a child. I asked him about music a lot and he repeatedly said that he had not theory at all. One night he admitted that any tune he played in his style (Scottish folk music) could be harmonised with three chords and he just bluffed for a bit while playing tunes from memory until he got just the ones he preferred.

This is a great theory and a great starting point for all guitarists.

D.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 17:55:25
 
Bliblablub

 

Posts: 60
Joined: Oct. 9 2013
 

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to guitarbuddha) 
I don't understand your example. Neither a machine nor a blueprint is considered to be "theory". Theory would be the piece of written text or oral LANGUAGE that describes what a machine is or how it works.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 18:05:53
 
guitarbuddha

 

Posts: 2970
Joined: Jan. 4 2007
 

The White Elephant in the Room (in reply to guitarbuddha) 
I suppose we all know deep down that the most widely held music theory is the following.

'Noone knows better than me about anything'

Online this is the pervasive theory of everything. Einstein must be jealous.

We all fall for it from time to time.

How often we benefit from it is open to debate.

D.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 18:06:30
 
guitarbuddha

 

Posts: 2970
Joined: Jan. 4 2007
 

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to Bliblablub) 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliblablub

I don't understand your example


How much time did you take, and was understanding it your goal ?

D.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 18:08:43
 
Kevin

 

Posts: 294
Joined: Sep. 7 2008
 

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to Bliblablub) 
quote:

Doing something by intuition or practical knowledge is not called theory though. That is only your wishful thinking. Especially basic cognition is not what theory is. Theory goes beyond that.


Says who?
I suggest you read Lawrence Zbikowski, Thomas Ward (Conceptual Structures), Michael Tenzer, and Marc Perlman. Especially informative is Zbikowski who cites a study on children's theorizing of Mary Had A Little Lamb.

Basic cognition is not theory, it is used to arrive at theory. EVERY musician has a theory. The point is to attempt to align the theory of Common practice music with the practice and theory of flamenco...AGAIN, it is something the guitarists and musicians I listed are already doing although not in culturally sensitive nor even completely practical ways.

quote:

This is a great theory and a great starting point for all guitarists.

Exactly. A great theory. There are many others.

Before I went to grad school I thought I knew alot about music. In grad school I realized that I didn't really know as much as I thought. On a practical level, the theory I knew was adequate to analyze classical guitar music and make decisions about phrasing, timbre choices, etc. I learned that there is not one theory. There are many and they have to be understood in their social/cultural/historical contexts. Everyone speaks as if there is THEORY. Basically we have inherited Rameau's and Riemann's theory modified over time. We also use Schenker. The texts we study in American institutions are Aldwell-Schacter or Kostka-Payne. These differ on some very important details. For example, AS use capital Roman numerals for all chords. Kostka and Payne use miniscule for minor/dimished chords, and mayuscule for major/aug chords.

In graduate school things are much more complex. NO ONE believes anymore (at least in American Institutions) that modality led to tonality. There were actually many coexisting modal practices, some of which evolved into tonal practices so that many modalities and tonalities were coexisting. Even in Bach there are still traces of modal practices.
It is amazing how many people still believe this on internet forums.

quote:

Theory would be the piece of written text or oral LANGUAGE that describes what a machine is or how it works.

Nope. Please cite some authors to defend your position. Text or language that describes what a machine is the cultural/physical manifestation of theory that begins at the individual theoretical level. Work in neuroscience and anthropology demonstrates this. See Bergen Louder Than Words for a start.
quote:

How much time did you take, and was understanding it your goal ?

Haha.

_____________________________
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 18:29:04
 
Kevin

 

Posts: 294
Joined: Sep. 7 2008
 

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to etta) 
Hey Bliblablub, what's your full name and where you from? You love flamenco huh? This is a cool forum to share that passion with others (although we can all agree that it is more fun to actually DO/LIVE flamenco).

I haven't been on this forum in awhile so I'm interested in meeting new members.

_____________________________
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 18:33:37
 
guitarbuddha

 

Posts: 2970
Joined: Jan. 4 2007
 

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to Kevin) 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevin

quote:

This is a great theory and a great starting point for all guitarists.

Exactly. A great theory. There are many others.




Of course there are many many other theories. Like all theories they should be judged on how they match up with actual material. Ie if a Bach piece is written with one flat is it necessacarily in F or Dm (no sometimes Gm). And does the barline nessecarily follow the harmonic rhythm ? Well not if it is a Gavotte. Bach followed common usage for his contrapuntal works and indeed codified it as noone else before had. For his composition in archaic styles ( French Ballet suite Toccatta and prelude for example) he borrowed from all music he had ever copied out for study purposes (and that is a lot of history there).

I remember there was a guy on the foro whose name I won't mention. Nice guy and kind of a theory buff. But all he knew he kind of half knew or had gotten it wrong. We used to argue a lot then he went off and failed a theory exam. He wasn't dumb or anything but he had read too far ahead of his ears.

Like every other facet of life that can be analysed a theory is only good for a rather narrow range of phenomena. Problems arrive, as you suggest, when one tries to extrapolate too far.

The three chord theory is just one theory amongst many. But I will say categorically that in my experience it is the best starting point I have found for guitarists. I have said it before but I will say it again, if you don't have a good three chord trick you've got nothing.

D.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 18:39:37
 
Kevin

 

Posts: 294
Joined: Sep. 7 2008
 

RE: The White Elephant in the Room (in reply to guitarbuddha) 
quote:

'Noone knows better than me about anything'


There is a way around it. It is to acknowledge that one's own perspective is only that, A PERSPECTIVE. My problem is not with everyone having their own perspective. It is with people who lack credentials (either performance or academic) insisting that another's way is wrong, especially when they don't cite anyone to defend their position. I even prefer a "My teacher" or "a guy on the street in Jerez" or "my friend's high school music teacher said" to a first-person assertion.

_____________________________
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 18:42:09
 
guitarbuddha

 

Posts: 2970
Joined: Jan. 4 2007
 

RE: The White Elephant in the Room (in reply to Kevin) 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevin

quote:

'Noone knows better than me about anything'


I even prefer a "My teacher" or "a guy on the street in Jerez" or "my friend's high school music teacher said" to a first-person assertion.


I kinda dislike that kind of positional authentication. It removes the onus from the person espousing a position from any kind of responsibility to explain it. Any position which a person is prepared to advocate should be at least well enough understood by them to allow them to refine and reframe it.

And of course these are precisely the skills which will allow them to grow and to reevalute and refine their understanding.



D.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 18:48:44
 
Kevin

 

Posts: 294
Joined: Sep. 7 2008
 

Whatever happened with the tab function? (in reply to etta) 
Whatever happened with the tab function?
Theory means nothing without examples.

_____________________________
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 18:49:53
 
Mark2

Posts: 1872
Joined: Jul. 12 2004
From: San Francisco

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to guitarbuddha) 
I'd say you need three chords for popular styles. In flamenco, two chord tricks get you through a lot. That said, I'm spending my nights with the real book these days. I think flamenco guitarists are going to continue to move in a direction that will encompass the skill of jazz style improvisation. That's not why I'm doing it though. I just like to learn new stuff.


quote:

ORIGINAL: guitarbuddha

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevin

quote:

This is a great theory and a great starting point for all guitarists.

Exactly. A great theory. There are many others.




Of course there are many many other theories. Like all theories they should be judged on how they match up with actual material. Ie if a Bach piece is written with one flat is it necessacarily in F or Dm (no sometimes Gm). And does the barline nessecarily follow the harmonic rhythm ? Well not if it is a Gavotte. Bach followed common usage for his contrapuntal works and indeed codified it as noone else before had. For his composition in archaic styles ( French Ballet suite Toccatta and prelude for example) he borrowed from all music he had ever copied out for study purposes (and that is a lot of history there).

I remember there was a guy on the foro whose name I won't mention. Nice guy and kind of a theory buff. But all he knew he kind of half knew or had gotten it wrong. We used to argue a lot then he went off and failed a theory exam. He wasn't dumb or anything but he had read too far ahead of his ears.

Like every other facet of life that can be analysed a theory is only good for a rather narrow range of phenomena. Problems arrive, as you suggest, when one tries to extrapolate too far.

The three chord theory is just one theory amongst many. But I will say categorically that in my experience it is the best starting point I have found for guitarists. I have said it before but I will say it again, if you don't have a good three chord trick you've got nothing.

D.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 19:13:56
 
Kevin

 

Posts: 294
Joined: Sep. 7 2008
 

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to Mark2) 
quote:

I'd say you need three chords for popular styles. In flamenco, two chord tricks get you through a lot. That said, I'm spending my nights with the real book these days. I think flamenco guitarists are going to continue to move in a direction that will encompass the skill of jazz style improvisation. That's not why I'm doing it though. I just like to learn new stuff.

I really agree with you there.

All you really need is II and I (Bb and A, or in any other key). Four chord phrases are also very useful. From four chord phrases you can make an idea cuadrado but also extract three chord ideas or even two or one chord ideas. IV-III-II-I is everywhere. VI-III-II-I, or VII-III-VI-II or II-III-VofVII-VII. There may come a time when they are composing flamenco phrases over these chords that get reified, borrowed, recontextualized. Who know. EXCITING TIME IN FLAMENCO.

_____________________________
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 19:22:06
 
Bliblablub

 

Posts: 60
Joined: Oct. 9 2013
 

RE: Whatever happened with the tab f... (in reply to Kevin) 
Brain activity that is used to generate theory is just brain activity, not the theory in itself. That is, again, a wishful thinking by you and your neuro-philosophists, who are falsely confusing the actions and thoughts someone does or has with their neural representation in the brain.

guitarbudda, I thought your example was kinda off. We were discussing theory and your post didn't even have theory as an object.

You don't need citings to generate thoughts (both correct and false ones). You also can't dismiss someones thoughts because he is not citing. That is theoretically poor. Citing means reproducing what someone else has said. That doesn't generate new thoughts and there even may not be anyone that has exactly thought the thought I had (let alone the amount of work searching for someone with the exact thought lol). Unfortunately even if someone else has already had your thought, or a million people had it already, that doesn't mean it is correct.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 19:26:25
 
Sr. Martins

Posts: 3079
Joined: Apr. 4 2011
 

RE: The White Elephant in the Room (in reply to Kevin) 
quote:

There is a way around it. It is to acknowledge that one's own perspective is only that, A PERSPECTIVE. My problem is not with everyone having their own perspective. It is with people who lack credentials (either performance or academic) insisting that another's way is wrong, especially when they don't cite anyone to defend their position. I even prefer a "My teacher" or "a guy on the street in Jerez" or "my friend's high school music teacher said" to a first-person assertion.


On this subject, I agree with everything Kevin said except this last bit.

To me, credentials are what stupid people usually look for. When lacking arguments or a train of thought, nothing better than "my teacher said".

Needless to say that a lot of teachers are also idiots who need to take lessons, not give them.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 19:28:32
 
guitarbuddha

 

Posts: 2970
Joined: Jan. 4 2007
 

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to Mark2) 
Good point Mark.

For flamenco you can build a lot of flesh around a two chord 'skeleton'.

F ..FMaj7,Fmaj7+11,B7,B9,Fm,Dm,Bm7b5,etc
E.... ,E7,E7b9,CMaj7(Vicente likes this),

then you could add a third chord

say

G........ ,G7,G7b9,G9,G6,D7m-G7,Db7,Db7b5,Dm7,Bm7b5

Ok this is all theory.

So therefore Moraito didn know this ???????

Yeah right.

If you believe that then you need to do A LOT more listening.

D.

(if any of this seems pointed it is not pointed at Mark).
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 19:29:10
 
guitarbuddha

 

Posts: 2970
Joined: Jan. 4 2007
 

RE: Whatever happened with the tab f... (in reply to Bliblablub) 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliblablub

Brain activity that is used to generate theory is just brain activity, not the theory in itself. That is, again, a wishful thinking by you and your neuro-philosophists, who are falsely confusing the actions and thoughts someone does or has with their neural representation in the brain.

guitarbudda, I thought your example was kinda off. We were discussing theory and your post didn't even have theory as an object.

You don't need citings to generate thoughts (both correct and false ones). You also can't dismiss someones thoughts because he is not citing. That is theoretically poor. Citing means reproducing what someone else has said. That doesn't generate new thoughts and there even may not be anyone that has exactly thought the thought I had (let alone the amount of work searching for someone with the exact thought lol). Unfortunately even if someone else has already had your thought, or a million people had it already, that doesn't mean it is correct.


Hi Bliblablub. this was a more measured post than my glib rebuttal deserved, thank you.

I actually cited three examples in the post you replied to.

Application is THE MACHINE, the living subroutines in the brain of a competent practitioner. Theory is THE BLUEPRINT. The third, involving my father was meant to illustrate the gap between the assertion unconsciousness of a practitioner and the implicit theory which was there the whole time whether it was articulated or not.

In my last post (above)I hope my idea of theory is expanded a little as is pertains directly to flamenco.

I understand the axe you have to grind with the semantics of cognitive science but I do not find the postition that you arrived at helpful at the moment.


D.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 19:34:37
 
Kevin

 

Posts: 294
Joined: Sep. 7 2008
 

RE: Whatever happened with the tab f... (in reply to Bliblablub) 
quote:

Brain activity that is used to generate theory is just brain activity, not the theory in itself. That is, again, a wishful thinking by you and your neuro-philosophists, who are falsely confusing the actions and thoughts someone does or has with their neural representation in the brain.

So you didn't read the Zbikowski?
The point isn't that neural activity and theory are the same, they are not. The point is that all humans (healthy) possess the same cognitivestructure (a mind and a body, yes we also think with our bodies according to some work in cognition) and therefore they all generate theories whether it is about what the best way to get home in 5:00 pm traffic, or why the pitch class set Bb-G#-D-F-C sounds good moving to A-C#-E, C-E-G or even sometimes F-A-C.
quote:

You also can't dismiss someones thoughts because he is not citing. That is theoretically poor.

Hmmm. So you dismissed what I said EVEN though I defended it with citations but are now arguing that I can't defend my original point which you tried to refute without any citations? And calling that theoretically poor? Not sure what you mean by that but I am too dumbfounded to even proceed.

I do agree that the argumentam ad populum is a problem logically speaking. But I have to go with published musicologists, cognitive scientists on this one. Sorry.
At Sr. Martins
quote:

To me, credentials are what stupid people usually look for. When lacking arguments or a train of thought, nothing better than "my teacher said".

Needless to say that a lot of teachers are also idiots who need to take lessons, not give them.


Ouch. So you are saying that Joe Shmoe can teach physics better than Neil deGrasse Tyson?
So smart people do not also look for credentials? If a genius is looking for credentials because someone else might have an informative perspective does s/he become stupid by default?

There are great players that are horrible teachers. Does that make them dumb by default? Is it possible that someone could be relatively experienced in flamenco performance but very experienced in the musical analysis of many world musics and therefore have something to offer about the analyses of those musics?
I get your point but citations are usually used the bolster a particular aspect of a larger ORIGINAL argument. Even non-literate culture appeal to "credentialed" people. "The elders used to say...,""Ask Grandfather," etc.

_____________________________
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 19:46:32
 
Kevin

 

Posts: 294
Joined: Sep. 7 2008
 

RE: Whatever happened with the tab f... (in reply to Bliblablub) 
Bliblablub...we still have not been formally introduced. I feel bad arguing with a perfect stranger. What is your name and background?

_____________________________
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 20:10:41
 
Bliblablub

 

Posts: 60
Joined: Oct. 9 2013
 

RE: Whatever happened with the tab f... (in reply to Kevin) 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevin
Hmmm. So you dismissed what I said EVEN though I defended it with citations but are now arguing that I can't defend my original point which you tried to refute without any citations? And calling that theoretically poor? Not sure what you mean by that but I am too dumbfounded to even proceed.


You only needed to read and not ignore the sentence before that "You don't need citings to generate thoughts (both correct and false ones)". Has it ever occured to you that (any senseful) discussion may resolve in agreement or disagreement based on what discutants SAY as opposed to whether they cite or not...
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 20:58:21
 
Kevin

 

Posts: 294
Joined: Sep. 7 2008
 

RE: Whatever happened with the tab f... (in reply to Bliblablub) 
quote:

Has it ever occured to you that (any senseful)
discussion may resolve in agreement or disagreement based on
what discutants SAY as opposed to whether they cite or ot
...

Of course. I disagree with you based on what you said. Not citing anyone just entrenches my disagreement with you.
Have a good day, stranger.

_____________________________
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 21:20:39
 
runner

 

Posts: 357
Joined: Dec. 5 2008
From: New Jersey USA

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to etta) 
Much earlier in this thread, jmb referred to Benoit Mandelbrot and the powerful insights that Mandelbrot's elucidation of fractals has brought to the attention of the greater world. This thread perfectly illustrates the fractal proposition that the deeper and more minutely one probes into an initially vaguely and poorly articulated thesis, the more one encounters the same thing repeated over and over again. I like this gem-- Question: What does the B. in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? Answer: Benoit B. Mandelbrot.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 21:24:00
 
Sr. Martins

Posts: 3079
Joined: Apr. 4 2011
 

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to etta) 
Music theory isn't science, it depends on a lot of factors.. specially context.


Citing names won't get you far. Someone says something based on X, another one says the opposite based on Y... who wins?


There are so many misconceptions about music theory... people don't realize that context is the key. More often than not, the ones who diss theory are those who think that theory is classical music analysis or reading notation, no wonder they can't fit it into their blues rock guitar player mentality... sigh.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 21:36:00
 
Kevin

 

Posts: 294
Joined: Sep. 7 2008
 

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to Sr. Martins) 
quote:

There are so many misconceptions about music theory... people don't realize that context is the key. More often than not, the ones who diss theory are those who think that theory is classical music analysis or reading notation, no wonder they can't fit it into their blues rock guitar player mentality... sigh

That is something I can totally agree with.

Is F-A-C-D# the same as F-A-C-Eb? Depends on context and also a lot of other factors. One of the factors is "Who is this emerging flamenco music theory for?" If it is for flamencos it should reflect and be sensitive to flamenco's historical evolution. It is also about authorial choice. What is required is a large body of people working TOGETHER to decide whether the above-mentioned chords are the same or not. When should the chord be labeled on way over another. And that is not even the tip of the iceberg.

Unfortunately many people on this forum can't even get past the "That's not theory" stage even though you cited several works that convincingly argue that it is.

Oh well. I guess that work will be left to Sanlucar, Fernandez, Granados, Ojesto, Alvarez, and the few others that are working on it.

And why does everyone use the win/lose game metaphor for a discussion. I for one am not trying to win. Cant' one persuade someone to be open to their position without couching it in win/lose terms? I'd like to think that I could go out for a beer with anyone on this forum whatever squabbles we might have.

_____________________________
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 21:50:21
 
rombsix

Posts: 7815
Joined: Jan. 11 2006
From: Beirut, Lebanon

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to Kevin) 
quote:

By the way Ramzi, you still in Nashville?


Yup.

_____________________________

Ramzi

http://www.youtube.com/rombsix
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 23:21:30
 
Kevin

 

Posts: 294
Joined: Sep. 7 2008
 

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to rombsix) 
How much longer do you have in school?

_____________________________
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 29 2015 23:24:52
 
chester

Posts: 891
Joined: Oct. 29 2010
 

RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to Sr. Martins) 
Get a room you two. Let's keep this thread on topic.

quote:

There are so many misconceptions about music theory... people don't realize that context is the key. More often than not, the ones who diss theory are those who think that theory is classical music analysis or reading notation, no wonder they can't fit it into their blues rock guitar player mentality... sigh.


I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, but from my experience 'classical music analysis' can be applied to pretty much to harmony in all forms of music. It all boils down to tension and resolution, dominant and tonic. Mozart and BB King used the V7 chord, Moraito used the bII. As far as I can tell, you can take that to the bank.

Kevin - I'm a 30-something year old amateur guitarist with a BMUS in classical guitar performance from a no name university. I live in California. Now that you know a little about me please feel free to school me about obscure cadences in classical indian music.

Nice to see some music heavyweights riffing off of each other here for a change!
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Jan. 30 2015 0:03:11
Page:   <<   <   1 [2] 3 4 5    >   >>
All Forums >>Discussions >>General >> Page: <<   <   1 [2] 3 4 5    >   >>
Jump to:

New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


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

9.277344E-02 secs.