Emotion vs theory?

I definitely agree with Paul here.

Theory came after the music, not the other way around. It was a way of quantifing what was being heard. But not knowing the "rules" didn't prevent music from being created.

Yea Nick you can say they go together and your right they do, you make music and then you can go back and see that it follows some theoretical rules. But the rules came after the music

And King I have to say I can't really agree with your about having to know theory, I would agree it's great to know and may help you get your musical point across easier but in no way is it the be all end all to make music that someone likes. Everyone keeps saying that all these great players had to know theory, to me that's crap, they didn't know any theory. They made music that sounded good to them. By their own admission they say they didn't know theory, but it's other people that go back and check their music against the theoretical rules and then say..See all Hendrix's music follow these rules so he must have known his theory...Wrong he knew what sounded good to him and it just happened to "fit" the rules.

So tell me King if I made "music" that completely went against every known theoretical rule would it still be music? I would say yes. It may sound like crap to you and me but it would still be music.

I think you two differ on what 'knowing theory' is. I know how to speak reasonably in English, yet I can't tell you anything about the grammar. Yet, my sentences pretty much follow standard English 'theory' and I'm not making it up myself. So I know theory and I don't. Hendrix knew how to play a Cm7 chord, although he might have called it differently. He knew theory, and didn't know theory. And I guess King is saying you need some kind of understanding of music in general (theory) to make music yourself whereas you say you don't need to know the offical terms for it.

I agree with cnev - theory is just a load of observations, by musicians, about what sounds good and what doesn't.
And King I have to say I can't really agree with your about having to know theory, I would agree it's great to know and may help you get your musical point across easier but in no way is it the be all end all to make music that someone likes

The fact is, that, in order to observe music and form theories about it, you have to have the music to analyse. Theory was, after all, derived through observation of existing music. That music was made by people who had no formalised theory to base their music on, so not knowing theory is not a hindrance to making music.

Take the composer, who says "I'm not going to bother with anything that's happened in the past, I'm starting with a completely blank sheet". Give it a few years and you'll find he's kept notes of things that work for him and things that don't work, to avoid having to make the same mistakes over and over again. So, what's he done? He's created his own music theory (and I bet that, if you were to take a close look, you'd find that most of it would consist of recognised music theory - he just had to re-invent it, for himself).

Put me in the Paul and Greybeard camp on this. Music theory is really only theory in the narrow definition that it is a set of rules (one of Webster's defs). MT explains nothing about causes. It is a set of rules derived heuristically, comprising a summary of observations about the effects of music on the listener. Harmonic theory might seem to be a mathematical explanation for music, but does this theory actually provide a psycho-acoustic or neuro-physical explanation of why music sounds good or bad? Nope -- if it did there would be incredible implications for further the creation of new musical systems. Music theory is a well documented description, not a reason.

Sorry Nick, there may be a zen connection between music and people in that we are part of the music and it is part of us, but music theory is just a way of documenting a very superficial aspect of a phenomenon that pre-exists.

Just an observation, when talking to my band buddies, many of them (interestingly all string players) say they could care less how the music is constructed, just as long as it sounds good, which is contrary to what I think many people believe about classical musicians, that is they are more focused on integrity of technique and technical perfection rather than pleasing the common listener.

Theory is an attempt to explain why we like particular patterns of notes.

Theory doesn't try to expain that, pschyologists do. And so far scientists are completely at lost why a C E and G notes sound universally good whereas a B, C and C# don't. Theory describes what has happened, it doesn't explain why. Musicians have tried to find pseudo-explainations (dominant creates tension) but *why* our brains react like that is a total mystery.

Unless someone here has some more info, in which case I would be very interested to hear more.

I disagree.

Theory will tell you why a particular chord will resolve to one particular chord but not another in terms of it's own domain -- music.

That doesn't make them pseudo-explainations, it just means that music theory isn't neuro-psychology.

Just as an artist can tell you why one composition of objects in a still life is aesthetically pleasing while another is not in art terms (space, line, color, etc.) The explaination is valid, it's just again not neuro-psychology.

Why particular aesthetics please us and why others don't is an interesting are of scientific inquirery. But simply because an explaination isn't science based doesn't make the explaination invalid or "pseudo-".

To state otherwise is to make the claim that the only warranted knowledge is science based. And frankly, that's simply not a correct statement. In fact, from a viewpoint of epistemology (the study of how we know) most of the licit (justified and warranted) beliefs we hold on a daily basis are anything but science based. But that doesn't make them invalid it just makes them not scientific.

A very simple example -- I know that my kids love me. I hold that as an absolute certainty and I am perfectly justified and warranted in doing so. But there is absolutely no scientific basis for that belief. Moreover, there never could be.

but yoyo not all emotion is in the singing. some may find an angry emotion in the tuned down guitar riffs etc etc

I know that, but to me, lyrics are a big part of the music. I'm a fan of instrumentals, also, because if it's a good instrumental, it's doesn't need words. As somebody has said before, take Hendrix's Woodstock version of the Star Spangled Banner. If you just listened to it, and didn't pay attention, then you'd think it was a screwed up version of the Star Spangled banner. But if you really listen to it, you can tell, without words, that it's definatly a protest song. You can here bombs being dropped, etc. etc.

I was thinking more about this topic, and I've decided that there is no good or bad music, that is just a perception of the listener. 8) To me, I find little emotion in extreme death metal, to put it more clearly, I don't enjoy listening to most of it. But there are a few exceptions... System of a Down (Again, mostly their older stuff), Metallica, Some Motley Crue stuff (Again, mostly their older stuff), Some Whitesnake, etc. etc..

I agree that music theory as a formal statement of developed principles is not necessarily something you need to know in a formal way in order to create good music.

I don't believe that's all music theory is.

I don't believe that anymore than I believe that physics is only equations. The real world was first, and physics is the explaination. A 2 year old knows the theory of gravity. Oh, they don't know it formally, they don't know the gravitational constant, they don't know if objects accellerate at the same speed or at different speeds. They don't know anything about objects in space. They have no grasp of the mathematical models and couldn't understand a college text on the subject. But they know that if they drop an object it will always fall to the ground. And that, folks, is physics. A few hundred years ago, dropping two objects to see if they hit the ground at the same or different times would be considered a pretty advanced physics experiment in fact.

So yes, an adult knows far more physics than a child. But that doesn't mean the child is unaware of physics. They're not. And they use physics in their every day life. When a child wants the ball to be on the ground, the child will drop the ball, totally confident (and justifiably so) in the knowledge that the ball will fall.

Consider that compared to a musician playng the progression I VI II V and then resolving it back to I. He might not know a bit of formal theory. But he knows before he plays the I that it will resolve. It will release the tension he's created and it will sound pleasing and he knows before he plays the chord the effect it will have on the audience. He's using theory. He might not be able to articulate it any more than the kid can articulate gravitational equations - but they examples are entirely analogous.

In order to consciously string musical ideas together in a way that you know prior to playing them will sound good you must know musical theory. There's no way around it.

Otherwise, you're not playing music, without intention you're merely creating noise and hoping. Some noise is musical, but it can't be said you're creating music for the same reason that there's a difference between an abstract artist and someone who spills paint on the floor.

Theory will tell you why a particular chord will resolve to one particular chord but not another in terms of it's own domain -- music.

Well, then I either disagree or you know more then I do. Or both. I've read that in a I IV V progression the V will create tension, and then going back to the I resolves it. That's not explaining, that's just stating the effects of certain actions. And you can't give the 'why' while staying in the domain of music: the fact that a certain interval will result in a certain effect is not explaining but observing.

But if the Official Definition of theory is what you say it is ('using your mind to produce the sounds you wish to hear' if I understand you correctly) then I agree with the rest of your story.

What I don't find true emotion in is more along the lines of Death Metal, like Korn (Although they've broken up, or something like that, I don't remember), and Slipknot. If there is emotion in those songs, I can't regognize it because the singer is screaming or something like that... :roll:

Yeah, I agree with you completely on that one. It seems like there is a lack of honesty and talent with alot of newer bands.

Honestly I think this topic is all over the place, and that's cuz i think the idea of playing with 'emotion' and 'theory' has to be defined. To me, theory is just knowledge... i mean, someone could know that something as simple as going from a G5 chord to a E5 good will sound good, and think it's a natural human process to set these kinds of rules in life in general, nevermind music. As far as emotion in music goes, I think if you have a passion for playing, and truly get a good feeling for your music (or someone else's music) then that's emotion in music... my opinion though.

And you can't give the 'why' while staying in the domain of music: the fact that a certain interval will result in a certain effect is not explaining but observing.

Here's an interesting question. Are all explainations eventually just tautologies?

Why do objects fall to the ground.
Because of Gravity.

Why does gravity cause an object to fall to the ground.
Because gravitational force accelerates the object to the gravitational center of it's reference frame with a force determined by the masses of the objects involved and the distances between them.

How do we know that?
Because objects fall to the ground in a way we can measure.

Why do objects fall to the ground?
Because of gravity.

When I think of music theory, I think of the set of rules and explanations (which are limited in many cases) that make up Western music theory. I don't think it's universal enough to be a Theory of All Music. There's a lot to know about music and the way we hear it which isn't part of music theory. Theory is too specific to the music it arose from to be a general explanation and system for making music. It only quantifies one possible system of music.

To me, calling it music theory is a little misleading. It makes it seem like it does apply to all music, which simply isn't true. Rather than being an explanation of music, it's one explanation of one kind of music. To assume it's universally applicable marginalizes all kinds of music traditions and microtonal music (there's some overlap). It's a theory of some music. And it's arguably incomplete, since it doesn't offer explanations; only observations. If I were to rename it, I'd call it the system of Western music (or something to that effect -- it could be catchier), rather than Music Theory (note the caps).

When I think of this thread, my brain keeps drifting back to Steve Vai. Vai's amazing with the technique and talent, and his knowledge of theory is prolly second to none. But honestly, I can't stand to hear his music. He puts so much emphasis on the fact that his knowledge is so vast that I think it overshadows the music itself. I may be getting off track here, but I know a few Vai fans and fans of other such "shredders," and for the most part it seems that these people equate theory, and the knowledge thereof, with good music. So in other words, if you have a vast abyss of theory at your fingertips, you automatically make good music. I think that statement/idea is faulty.

Back to Vai.

Vai's a great musician. He's a great guitarist. But, the way I see it, he's not that great of an artist. Sure, there is beauty in precision to some, but for the most part, I think that kind of precision is a little boring. I mean, no one would really care if that tower in Pisa were perfectly straight. But the fact that it's crooked and still standing is amazing and makes people wnat to see it. I think Vai (read: musical ideas of theory and knowledge being brought to the forefront) is that straight tower, nice to look at, you can marvel at the architecture, but in the end, it's just another tower. On the "emotion" end of it, other, lesser theory oriented musicians constitute that leaning tower...it's far from perfect and it's because of that that the music becomes beautiful.

Now I'm not saying theory is bad. ANYONE who plays ANY instrument has a fundamental, unconscious knowledge of theory, even if you're playing a kazoo. I'm also not saying that knowing alot of theory makes you an emotionless player. I just feel that musicians who put soooo much emphasis on theory limit themselves. I have a friend at college who learned scales and devoted himself to theory in the hopes to make himself better. And he became a good guitarist, but whenever I'd jam with him, i found it hard because his style was mechanical, his solos/improv was stilted and he didnt stray out of "the box." And sometimes I'd be in a good groove and he'd be so frustrated that he couldnt solo and improv like me...and i've never had any lessons, i cant read a lick of music and i really dont know any proper scales. I just play and let my fingers go where they want and that's how i learned. I know a few scales, but I discovered them simply by putting my fingers places until they sound good.

And I agree with whoever said that music came before theory. It totally did. The theory was a way to describe the way things happened. That's why I would classify "emotion" as the core of music over knowledge. To me, knowledge doesnt mean crap if you dont have a feel for what you're playing.

I'll have to disagree on the argument that music came first, theory later.
I'll also disagree with theory being a set of rules.

They co-exist and always have.

From the moment of the first note, theory was there. It's just it didn't have much to draw on at that moment.

I like the gravity analogy. If you don't understand it would you suddenly float away? Nah....

And just because you do or don't understand theory, it doesn't mean you can't make beautiful music.

And just because you don't understand theory, it doesn't mean that what you are doing isn't encompassed by it.

Nick,

I disagree, theory is a “hypothesis” starting from the origin of music till present day. You can not come up with an acceptance OR argument before you can come up with a subject. Therefore, I would think/know music did come first weather it was banging or saying “ugugug”.

Yes, theory is NOT a set of rules but, theory IS a guide/hypothesis that helps many people.

I really try to stay out of this area…………