Re: Scales: What is the "proper" method to learn?

On 26 Sep 2005 19:34:36 -0700, roberts.noah@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

>
>Lumpy wrote:
>> Lumpy wrote:
>> > > Music theory is not an attempt to
>> > > tell you what might sound good.
>>
>> roberts.noah@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > Oh, then I guess all that crap about harmonizing,
>> > substitutions, etc... is just a bunch of hot air.
>> > Should I stand corrected? I think not.
>>
>> I think so. You want to tell a bluegrass banjo
>> player that a tritone sub would sound good instead
>> of a V7 - I? It wouldn't sound good to that 5 string
>> picker. But it would work for Miles Davis.
>>
>> You want to tell Bach or Beethoven that they should
>> have used a lot of augmented 4ths? They'd get burned
>> at the stake for that. But Leonard Bernstein and
>> Strauss used them all over the place.
>>
>> Bernstein "knew" that the 4+ interval "sounded good"
>> just like the monks "knew" that the 4+ meant you
>> were working with the devil. It's all a matter of taste.
>>
>> What I'm saying her, Noah, is that ALL music is
>> subjective. Using theory to describe music is
>> a way of putting labels on what we like and
>> dislike. But you and I and the next listener
>> don't like the same thing. You might think
>> that XYZ progression sounds horrible, while
>> I might think that the XYZ is fabulous.
>>
>> Theory labels and describes the sounds and
>> allows us to communicate about those sounds.
>> Theory does NOT proscribe what sounds good
>> or bad.
>
>I think I need to requote myself because you have obviously totally
>missed what I said:
>
>"Theory tells you what might sound good...an experienced ear tells you
>what
>WILL sound good."
>
>And that is all I have to say on the matter. I don't feel like getting
>pulled into yet another BFA over something so stupid. You say theory
>is nothing but a way to communicate (which I guess begs the question,
>why do they call it a theory then?). I think it offers much more and
>says a *great deal* about what to expect from the combination of
>certain sounds.
>
>I'm moving on...


I love it when you guys argue! :-)

Pt
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Scales: What is the "proper" method to learn?
    ... Lumpy wrote: ... >> tell you what might sound good. ... that XYZ progression sounds horrible, ... Theory labels and describes the sounds and ...
    (alt.guitar.beginner)
  • Re: Scales: What is the "proper" method to learn?
    ... >> Lumpy you just got caught in the same trap that you are rightly trying to ... >> sound good, ... but your learning curve is greatly improved by knowing. ... >>> that musicians use to communicate. ...
    (alt.guitar.beginner)
  • Re: Scales: What is the "proper" method to learn?
    ... > Lumpy you just got caught in the same trap that you are rightly trying to ... > does tell you a set of notes that will sound good or will sound dissonant. ... but your learning curve is greatly improved by knowing. ... >> that musicians use to communicate. ...
    (alt.guitar.beginner)
  • Re: Scales: What is the "proper" method to learn?
    ... > Lumpy wrote: ... >>> tell you what might sound good. ... > that XYZ progression sounds horrible, ... > allows us to communicate about those sounds. ...
    (alt.guitar.beginner)
  • Re: Learning but need to be quiet
    ... Lumpy wrote: ... Take Photoshop for example. ... I plan to combine Logic Studio with Final Cut Express to do and synch sound and sound effects to my animations. ... ....and - I know a nest of programmers that I work alongside that have the skills between them to have put together an indie film company - one is a Guilded writer, another is a writer/camera operator/director and owns all of production the hardware. ...
    (alt.guitar.beginner)