What I just learned.......

If you like composing music, then why not just 'write as you go' so to speak? Like, write some stuff with what you know, then when you learn more, write something else. You don't have to wait, you know.

I don't worry about writing with theroy unless im stuck. That's what theroy is for anyways, just to help you out if your stuck.

Well, what I mean is that when you write a piece of music, I think you should try your best to make it achieve whatever musical goals you have in mind. And that, creating a piece you start playing and put out now, in lui of waiting when you could understand "hey wait I could change that third to a flat and it'd really sound more melodic and add a bleusy feeling" it's kind of cheating.

I think most songwriters do "write as they go" as DemoEtc put it. We are all limited by our knowledge and ability at any given time. All we can do is the best we can with what we know. I feel like if I wait until I'm "good enough" or "know enough", then I will never write a song. I say jump in. Continue studying your theory, but see what you can achieve with what you already know.

I see your point, and it's quite reassuring and helpful, it's just that the whole process of making a song is so complicated when you think about it, and the goals of making music quite clear, that making a song that does not do your best to accomplish this, can't really be justified in my mind. I mean putting out a song before it's really done, which means that by you having more training or experience you'd have made it better, that is pretty kuch done for selfish reasons no? Obviously no song is ever completely done, well most anyways, and the training you are going to recieve throughout your lfie is limited, but, playing a song which you know will change dramatically if you just knew something more, and you have a clear idea of what that is, seems a bit, well, selfish to me.

The process of making music is very complicated:
-the composition
-the arrangement
-the performance
It's pretty much as good as it's weakest chain, you want to start the music out on the right foot by having it composed to the best you think you could make it no?

There are just so many factors that determine things.
The things which make an artist write a song (from a dream to jamming with someone and coming unto a cool riff)>what the artist wishes to portray in his song, how the audience is suppsoed to feel>what melody is amde out of this>what melody is writen out (if the guy has a grea tune in his head, but can't write tab or music, it's not going to help anyone)>how the chords and rhymm are made out of this>how the song is arranged exactly, how the performer chooses to play it>what guitar he/she uses (ridiculous set of factors out of this one)>the little things involved (what pick is used, what mistakes the performer makes)>what equipment is used (lots of factors)>what the sound engineer uses to do>the mood of the audience.

That a lot of minor stuff that would, if added, make even less people read this message.

there is always the arguements "you need to know theory to write music" then you get the die-hard opposites "no no, write it, its in your head, just play maaaan and remmember it, no need for theory, its useless"..

did someone who thought theory was useless.. read this and see it in a different light?

Which is still a lot to deal with. Like you said, you have to, even with an idea or cocnept in your ehad, construct the feeling out of many parts which may or may not themselves have that effect. ie. speaking very basically, having happy and sad parts in a song you want to fundementally be a sad song.

Even sometimes a whole song is written in a way theoretically in which the intented effect on the audience is not intented to be the same as the musical effect. You could have a happy, upbeat song and lyrics throughout meant to create a sad, attentive mood (hey it's possible.) There is so much to think about, it's hard for me to see any attainable goals to look to.

Although I guess now I'm just bitching haha.

I guess you have to have or create a whole overall concept and work on making it happen on paper from there.

Which brings about a curious idea, are there any inherent or just typical differences in music built up rather than down? As ina song where, usign your example you want to start sad and end happy>you choose keys>choose intervals>make melody>choose chords and make chord harmony>etc. (sorry if this is wrong) and songs build up from let's say a riff that sounds cool>adding parts that correspond, even changing the original parts to make it better fit together.

Music is a language, and theory is the grammar of the language.

You can create music without knowing theory, just as you can speak without knowing grammar. Knowing grammar will allow you to communicate in a way that is 'standard' - that fits the common literature.

That's not to say you must fit the common literature. When e.e. cummings wrote without punctuation, or when James Joyce created stories through internal dialogue, they were doing things well outside the current literature.... just as Ives or Stravinsky or Schoenberg did in music. They knew the grammar, but chose to work outside it.

Knowing grammar without being able to speak the language doesn't make you a creator. I could take a Japanese-English dictionary, and a book in English on Japanese grammar, and create sentences that fit accepted structure. That's not the same as being able to write a story in the language.

I was probably 5 or 6 when I wrote my first piece of music; I knew absolutely nothing about theory. Now I know a fair amount about theory, harmony, arranging, composition, counterpoint, form... but I don't compose any differently than I did when I was young. I still try to record the melodies I hear in my head.

Knowing theory and other 'academic' musical topics doesn't stifle creativity - it allows you to record your ideas faster, to arrange them in terms that fit common musical conventions, and to understand and avoid (or choose not to avoid) problems that past composers have faced.

i know what you mean Tom, like you can argue Schoenberg, maybe but not as much Stravinsky, was like Picasso, doing wild stuff and getting respect / fame for it..

my point is, both of them knew music / art and then did their own thing, i think its different to do something like them, without knowing about the "conventional" thing.

My point was.. take two people who lets say had been dumped by their girlfriend.. sit them in front of a piano and say write a song expressing how you feel, and they were both REALLY sad..

one of them was a theory wiz..the other just know Happy Birthday and the first few bars of Fur Elise from a few years ago.

Who is going to sucessfully express themselves better than the other? im not saying DEFFINATLY the theory wiz, but well above 95% chance that will be the case.

^ i think that proves one of my points, well not proves, expresses it clearly.. now the other one.

****

10 year old boy and schoenberg in front of a piano..

10 year old whacks it with his fist and makes a bunch of noise.. sounds horrible.. is told to stop.

schoenberg does exactly the same thing, and maybe people wont like it, because he is respected for doing it.. because he knew and wrote books on harmony and its his choice to do it because he allready knows how music works and is on a quest to change it.

The thing is some things sound cool when used for a certain intention although theory might not neccessarily make it so. For instance I thind that accending bass into the higher chord and than playing a decending run into the tonic chord sounds really good in blues pieces, not neccessarily bluesy on it's own, just very cool in a blues arrangment. To me at least. Others may not find it has the same effect to them melodically. Therefore using theory might ensure you get your pooint accross to a larger audience no?