The Most Complex theory concept you've learned.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by Chazamatazz

Why did someone start out with "What is the most complex music theory concept you ever learned"? Why not, What is the most interesting thing about songwriting you ever learned. Can you imagine how much more productive and less devisive the query would be? Who asked that question and where are they now as we battle around the concept, is theory profound or is it garbage? I think it's diminishing returns. Does anyone have the idea that the thread could just be closed? I feel like its the Iraq war. the concept was misleading.

ExSaint1379 said he was curious about people's opinions, and those are what he's been given, albeit in a somewhat expanded form.

But you're right. After individual opinions are in, there's nothing for it but to either agree or agree to disagree, and move on.

[Ruzz]

Originally Posted by engelbach

The notion that knowing more about an art — or about anything else, for that matter — can "spoil" one's appreciation for it is nonsense.

Exactly.

And to offer up an answer to the original question...

How the tiniest changes can have huge effects. Yes, that's chaos theory - but exactly the same can be true in music - be it, melody, harmony, rhythm, whatever... It's a concept I learned and am still learning, every single day.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by Ruzz

Exactly.

And to offer up an answer to the original question...

How the tiniest changes can have huge effects. Yes, that's chaos theory - but exactly the same can be true in music - be it, melody, harmony, rhythm, whatever... It's a concept I learned and am still learning, every single day.

Artists are indeed lifelong students.

[Cailyn]

Originally Posted by engelbach

Art is a sophisticated activity, which one can learn to appreciate on more than one level. That's the goal of studying art, music, literature, and so on.

If one doesn't want to learn, that's their loss. The notion that knowing more about an art — or about anything else, for that matter — can "spoil" one's appreciation for it is nonsense.

For the record, the comment about ignorance being bliss was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. I just forgot to add this:

I stand by the remainder of my comment. Learning more about music, about a particular piece may improve my understanding of a piece, I may appreciate the craft of the composer, his/her skill with resolving conflict. It won't change the deeper visceral feeling I have towards a given piece of music.

Case in point. I heard the Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis (Vaughan Williams) many years ago while I was driving. I was so struck by the piece, I left the interstate, drove to the nearest music store and bought it. It is one of my desert island disks. I have since learnt a great deal about the composer and this piece of music: the source music, that it was written specifically for Gloucester Cathedral (it's on my bucket list to hear this music in the Cathedral), that he split the orchestra in to three unequal parts, I have studied the score intently. None of this has changed the visceral feeling of incredible beauty I get when I close my eyes, sit back and listen to the music.

I hope that clarifies what I meant.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by Cailyn

For the record, the comment about ignorance being bliss was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. I just forgot to add this:

I stand by the remainder of my comment. Learning more about music, about a particular piece may improve my understanding of a piece, I may appreciate the craft of the composer, his/her skill with resolving conflict. It won't change the deeper visceral feeling I have towards a given piece of music.

Case in point. I heard the Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis (Vaughan Williams) many years ago while I was driving. I was so struck by the piece, I left the interstate, drove to the nearest music store and bought it. It is one of my desert island disks. I have since learnt a great deal about the composer and this piece of music: the source music, that it was written specifically for Gloucester Cathedral (it's on my bucket list to hear this music in the Cathedral), that he split the orchestra in to three unequal parts, I have studied the score intently. None of this has changed the visceral feeling of incredible beauty I get when I close my eyes, sit back and listen to the music.

I hope that clarifies what I meant.

Indeed it did. Thank you. Sorry if I missed your tongue, and your cheek.

I don't equate the history of a piece of music with my understanding of it, as history is not music theory.

But I do find that studying a score makes me listen for things I might not have heard (recordings are not perfect), and to see what the composer wrote compared to how it's being interpreted.

That's why I try to own the scores for all my classical recordings. And why, for example, I have about six different interpretations of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra. They give me different degrees of pleasure, but it's knowing the piece and anticipating the changes as it enfolds that give me the greatest satisfaction.

BTW, I too am a great lover of Vaughn Williams' Thomas Tallis piece. And it was with that same instant revelation as yours that after first hearing the Bartok on the radio I ran out and bought the record.

[brandondrury]

But nobody lives in a vacuum, and the arts didn't develop via some mysterious intuitve assimilation.

Maybe you are right. However, being one of those guys with a "math brain" naturally where I'm naturally very analytical, very rigid, and look for the objective in everything I NEED to keep music protected from that for my own sake.

I have to think that the "arts" have more leeway than fields like electronics or physics. For example, to put together an "effective" electronic circuit, you need a very strong understanding of resistors, capacitors, etc. I've heard way too many "effective" pieces of music that didn't require near this understanding.

I don't debate that certain genres may require a similar level of understanding as my electronic circuit example above. However, this seems to be very genre specific issue to me.

Once you learn to "get" what's happening, you don't think about it any more

Is it possible to "get" what's happening without ever thinking about it?

I don't deny there are patterns. When I arrange a song for a client I SAY that I'm attempting to maximize the effectiveness of that song, but in reality I'm applying stereotypes, cliches, and patterns that I've learned over the years.

Afficionados derive a lot more pleasure out of their areas of interest than any lay person.

I don't agree. I think that dudes who are hardcore about a topic (afficionados) will find extreme pleasure when all their criteria are met. However, the likelihood that their criteria will be met is tremendously reduced. They will be more disappointed than the laymen when these criteria are not met. This has been my experience anyway.

In pop music land (where I hang my hat) people define the songs of their life when they are 12-16. Whatever they were listening to then is placed in a protective bubble for life. It can't be touched. It can't be scrutinized. I bet this is even the case with guys who go on to be musical experts. To claim that a person with a mastery of music theory derives more joy than they 13 year old girl singing along to her favorite song would require real-deal mega-rigid science. (A person with my brain type wouldn't be able to make the above claim without evidence to support it.)

But not everyone wants to expand their horizons.

That's one way of looking at it, but I think it's one dimensional, at best. I'm convinced that with my personality type, my horizons would be shunken by an understanding of music theory. Then again, my musical goals are different that yours.

I've FINALLY gotten to a place where I can tame my extreme over analysis of audio engineering and actually listen to a song again.

Brandon

[brandondrury]

Does anyone have the idea that the thread could just be closed? I feel like its the Iraq war. the concept was misleading.

No way!!! It's just now getting good!

It seems a travesty to compare that occurance in the middle east designed to lower the standard of living of people on both sides so a few could benefit with the sharing of ideas, the pursuit of knowledge, understanding, and, if nothing else, gaining a better respect for where the "other guy" is coming from.

But you're right. After individual opinions are in, there's nothing for it but to either agree or agree to disagree, and move on.

I couldn't disagree more.

This only works for the people who have made up their mind, locked the door, and thrown away the key. I'm in this to gain something, fellars, and I feel like I already have.

Someone mentioned this on the latest thread about religion. I can't see how the pursuit of understanding is ever a waste of time. That's my goal, anyway.

Brandon

[Chazamatazz]

I guess not mentioning a war is a good idea. I just meant that both started out with good intentions. I guess the title (Trying to find the most complicated thing about Theory) wasn't really followed anyway.which person mentioned anything complex abouttheory, mostly some said it was a waste of time and some said it wasn't.

[ExSaint1379]

Originally Posted by Chazamatazz

Why did someone start out with "What is the most complex music theory concept you ever learned"? Why not, What is the most interesting thing about songwriting you ever learned. Can you imagine how much more productive and less devisive the query would be? Who asked that question and where are they now as we battle around the concept, is theory profound or is it garbage? I think it's diminishing returns. Does anyone have the idea that the thread could just be closed? I feel like its the Iraq war. the concept was misleading.

First of all why don't you start that thread. Second of all it's because I was curious to how much recording peoples knew (I just mean people who record frequently and stuff), because I've frequently heard seperate stories about people who know absolutely nothing and I hear about recording people with Doctorates in Composition. I know obviously both happen I was just curious to which happens more often.

[ExSaint1379]

Originally Posted by Chazamatazz

I guess not mentioning a war is a good idea. I just meant that both started out with good intentions. I guess the title (Trying to find the most complicated thing about Theory) wasn't really followed anyway.which person mentioned anything complex abouttheory, mostly some said it was a waste of time and some said it wasn't.

There is no "most complicated thing about theory". I knew this from way before I started the thread. I was curious to where you people where. I'll start with my own thread after three pages. The most complex thing I have learned is Pitch Set Theory and Renaissance Counterpoint. They are very difficult and pointless (well you can get some really cool things with Renaissance counterpoint but it's not used commonly today and there is no reason it should be (there are a couple of bands that have used it; The progressive rock band from the 70s Gentle Giant often used Renaissance Couterpoint but I think thats the only modern application I've ever seen of it)).