# incomprehendable!



## macalpine88 (Dec 17, 2004)

http://www.lydiandominant.com/theory/lydian-dominant_theory.html i accidently stumbled upon this and have read it about 4 times and it is still gibberish


----------



## Vegetta (Dec 17, 2004)

when it stops being creative and turns into programming language its time to just turm the amp up louder and start shredding!


----------



## Leon (Dec 17, 2004)

end of the first paragraph...



> This sounds like modern physics to me.



yeah, the writer has no idea what he's insinuating  

but on another note, i think i'd like to know more music theory, since i know none. it would be nice since i've been playing guitar for about 10 years now


----------



## Vince (Dec 17, 2004)

This guy's overcomplicating things. If this is his way of having fun, cool. For example, you don't have to scare people away with stuff like TT2 = { E - Bb/A# }, it's easier to say a note has a tritone and it's a flatted fifth. That's more like musician speak.


----------



## WayneCustom7 (Dec 17, 2004)

wildealien said:


> end of the first paragraph...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm the same way, however I visited a site from a guy who posts here, and he had some free lessons on board and I actually learned some theory...and I like it, so I plan to expand what little knowledge I have...and I own it all to my 7. Oh on a side note, I have decided to put things into perspective...I'm approaching my 7 as a learning tool, where I plan to learn more structure, scales, chords, theory, etc. As far as my 6's go, they will be strictly for fun...in other words, on one night I can practise scales, learn and apply theory, and on other nights, just crank and whale (wail?)


----------



## Drew (Dec 17, 2004)

wail. 

-D


----------



## WayneCustom7 (Dec 17, 2004)

Drew said:


> wail.
> 
> -D


Thanks!


----------



## macalpine88 (Dec 17, 2004)

when i have to apply the concepts i have learned in algebra and geometry, thats when music gets a little overcomplicated and boring  i completely love learning theory but that is counterpoint material


----------



## Drew (Dec 20, 2004)

No worries. 

I actually gave that a rough scan- I think that kind of stuff is actually rather interesting, but I have issues, I guess...


----------



## macalpine88 (Dec 20, 2004)

no you dont, i actually found it very interesting also . thats why i posted it


----------



## Drew (Dec 20, 2004)

Ahh. 

See, I still remember when my senior year high school physics teacher had me give a lesson on vibrational physics- pitch/frequency/vibrational length/harmonics, etc- to my class. It was fascinating stuff, I thought. 

-D


----------



## viesczy (Jan 12, 2005)

The author, Norm Vincent, is missing the point about the creation of music. Music, as all art, is about expression. Something that is good to you might be quite offensive to someone else. 

With music were talking about the ear, with painting were talking about the eye and with writing wed be talking about the mind but there is always something/someone to pleased or offended.

With Norm Vincents comment in the block playing outside:

I believe, however, that not all "outside" notes are justified at the theoretical level. Some "outside" notes are just plain wrong - i.e. not at all justifiable within the structure of the Chord progression. Too often, "playing outside" is used as an excuse for playing wrong notes due to an inadequate analysis of the Chord Progression implied Harmonic Structure of a piece

Shows a near contempt for the creative process and coldly reduces everything to a series of patterns that should be adhered to because those patterns are justified. Im not sure was to whom we are justifying these things, but we must justify those things. A strong grasp of music theory will allow you to understand many things, but a sense of abandon will all you to create pieces that are recognizable as your own pieces. 

Derek


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 13, 2005)

viesczy said:


> Too often, "playing outside" is used as an excuse for playing wrong notes due to an inadequate analysis of the Chord Progression implied Harmonic Structure of a piece



I kinda agree with that too an extent. It sounds right sometimes, and a lot of times people use it as an excuse for not knowing what they're doing. Some of them are really good at not knowing though lol
I dont see how this comment shows contempt to the creative process. It is perfectly acceptable to use the creative process and using strict music theory.


----------



## Drew (Jan 13, 2005)

I'm with Hatebreeder here, too. While I think this guy could have maybe worded things a little better (he seems to be implying that a "closer analysis" would suggest only one right note, which obviously isn't the case), I've personally been impressed by just how creative theory can be, as you dig deeper and deeper. You can really get away with playing just about anything over anything, as long as you can find a way to make it work. What I think this author is saying is that a lot of the times when you hear someone say they're "playing outside," they're doing it for the wrong reasons- essentially, you go outside to build tension, so it follows that you only play outside when you WANT to build tension, and then you must find a way to resolve this tension. 

Playing a few bad notes isn't playing outside. Intentionally playing a few bad notes isn't playing outside. Intentionally playing a few bad notes outside in a musical section that is made stronger by the tension that affords, followed by returning to tonality in a musically pleasing manner, is. 

-D


----------



## viesczy (Jan 13, 2005)

Drew and Hate,
if the composer's ear likes a sound, thusly it is a good. Remember in the flick about Mozart when he was criticized for the amount of notes in a piece? The reply was that he put the right amount of notes in it. If the composer likes, who are we to judge? 

We have 12 tones notes in a scale to work with right? Let's use 'em all.

Music theory isn't something that we should strictly study and then claim ourselves to be master composers. We just know a lot about music. Sure we could generate music that is easy to listen to, but exactly how memorable is something that is easy to listen to? 

Look @ the evolution of Jazz. Charlie Parker was reviled for years because of his tonalities. Now his work is a great place to start studying if you're looking to be a good bebop player. Who is remembered? Charlie's music or the critics who hated his music? 

Worry about your timing and let your ear lead you the rest of the way. 

Derek


----------



## Drew (Jan 14, 2005)

Derek, 

Actually, Mozart's retort was, "Well, which notes should I take out?" And apparently Parker's critics are remembered just fine for disliking him- you certainly had no trouble.  

I think what this guy's saying is the idea of "playing outside" is too often taken as an excuse for just playing a few random "wrong" notes before going back to some right ones. As such, the Parker analogy doesn't hold up- Parker knew exactly what he was doing. Each note he played was one he meant to play, and meant it for a reason. He broke the tonal mode in jazz and opened up a lot of new possibilities. 

The problem, though, is the people who have imitated him since- it's too easy just to hit a few random bad pitches in a solo and say "I'm playing outside," wheas parker was actually choosing his pitches for a musical reason. 

I think Norm's saying that here, that just because Parker made "outside" pitches allowable doesn't mean he wasn't working within a theoretical context- he was just working in one outside of the one his critics were familiar with. There's a HUGE difference between going outside for a reason and just going outside. 

-D


----------



## viesczy (Jan 26, 2005)

Drew,
I haven't seen Amadeus in years, didn't F Murray not have an answer to him and Mozart then said that the piece was written correctly the first time? 

We're talking about music and expression. Breaking down music to its sum mathematical components will show you patterns, but patterns arent the music. Putting #s to creativity is like putting a schedule on your sex life.  

There are no wrongs with expression, just separate impressions. 

Dija ever think that Bird didn't really 'know' what he was playing in the way that Norm 'knows' music; just that Bird liked what he was playing at the time? Or maybe it was the heroin playing? 

If all we do is follow 'rules' when expressing ourselves, we're all just be a bunch of clones. Let loose and see what happens.

Derek


----------



## Drew (Jan 26, 2005)

It's been a while since I saw it, but I remember the other guy just looking at him dumbfounded and Mozart not really saying anything- he didn't need to.  

As for the sex analogy, well, the Kama Sultra still sells pretty well... 

Bird knew his theory cold- all the bebop guys did. The reason they broke into that stuff, from what interviews and accounts I've read, was that they got sick of guys without any real jazz chops wanting to sit in and jam with them, so a few players, Bird amongst them, said to themselves, "well, if these guys keep this up, I'll just have to start writing stuff so harmonically complex that they'll be afraid to try to play it." So, to be completely honest, it was a reaction AGAINST an uneducated approach to music that sparked bebop, not an embracal of theory-less improvisation. 

I can't stress this enough, when you really dig into music threory, it becomes less about "rules" and more about ways to break rules you already know. Just about every time I've had this conversation with someone who doesn;t like theory because they think it's limiting (for a while, I posted at the tabcrawler forums, so it happened a lot, lol), someone usually says, "Oh yeah? Well, how do you explain THIS progression, which is clearly "wrong" but I like the way it sounds?" and I have yet to run into one that I couldn't explain. 

If all you want to learn is diatonic harmony, then yes, you'll be limited. But once you get that down cold, you'll quickly see that there are nearly infinite ways to step outside it. Think of theory not as a rulebook, but a set of keys- you don't use it to enclose yourself, but to let yourself out. 

-D


----------



## Drew (Jan 26, 2005)

(I don';t think we're getting anywhere, but it's an interesting conversation, at least )

-D


----------



## AG Rocks (Jan 27, 2005)

I started out as a music major in college, and ive always been into theory, etc... I ended up switching my major cause school was sucking the fun out of music. I do read theory stuff on my own for entertainment. I found this work pretty interesting. 

I do have to say, people that get too caught up in this forget what the main goal is. Good music. That is also different for everyone. In the end though, a GOOD song is a good song. Just because it may not line up 100% on paper, doesn't change anything. I dont think you see the greatest song writers busting their calculators out in the middle of an inspirational moment to check on their correctness or to see what harmonics their guitarist should play over a chord. 

Your ears might decieve you but tape never lies! Record what your playing and listen back! If there are off notes, you will know! An outside chord can work in the right context. Nothing is ever definite. The theory has always been a way of understanding what is physically happening in this world of music. What are these vibrations. In the end though, what counts is what you hear, not what you can conclude mathematically.


----------



## viesczy (Jan 29, 2005)

AG,
Agreed, it really should be about making good music. Good of course is in the ear of the beholder. 

I remember after cutting my teeth on my dad's B3 and Bach pieces as a little boy, I moved onto guitar since it was a little more 'free' as compared to the Bach stuff I had played for years. I was so programmed to play that style of music it took me a good 3 years of playing as many of the 'romantic' composers as I could find sheet music for to 'break' Bach's German polyphonic hold on me. I thought that the 'romantic' composers, besides Beethoven, sounded so 'odd' to me at first because of all the Bach I had in me. 

I delved so deeply into what sounded good where, that it became less about expression and more about resolution. Music wasnt fun; it had become something to which I should obsess over. I then remember reading an interview with Yngwie and he was questioned about music theory, improvising and technique. The reply that Im going to paraphrase was that we are playing electric guitars and not an instrument like violin that has several hundred years of established techniques to it, that we should follow our own ears to find what we thought was best for how we hear music and improvising, at least his improvising, is like driving a car: you dont think about it, you just do it. 

I felt like Saul on the way to Damacasus, and no I wasnt stoned off of my ass either! Just let go and see where you are taken, let other folks worry about if the numbers add up or if it is right in their opinion. We arent disproving String Theory here! Were expressing ourselves, just like Bach, Beethoven and any other hack that has picked up an instrument.

Sure my composing still has more than a touch of the German polyphonic sensibility to it and my improvising lends itself more to the fire of the romantics, but worrying about every tone why that tone sounded good where isnt holding onto me any longer. Music and writing fiction are a lot a like, you could have a degree in lit that allows you to know what is good writing but still not be able to write a great masterpiece.

Derek


----------



## viesczy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quick note about bebop and its evolution from swing. The pioneers of bebop increased their usage of dissonant tones, harmonic substitutions, altered chords, and chromatic passages as compared the swing players/composers. This freeing allowed jazz to evolve into a more expressive art form if you ask me, the quoting of song quotes during solos, melodic encircling and voice leading figures helped to shake of the yoke of swing and its less energetic mindset! From there the post Parker players and Coltrane increased dissonance even more, look at Tranes use of distant chord relationships, extend relationships that werent even found in bebop. 

Sure they knew swing, but they also knew what they liked to hear and their ears allowed the evolution of music. Knowing and expressing are different things, one is inspiration and one is repetition. 

Let's all be inspired and not repeat!

Like Tyler Derden said, it is not until we've lost everything, we're free do to anything.

Derek


----------



## Drew (Jan 31, 2005)

viesczy said:


> Like Tyler Derden said, it is not until we've lost everything, we're free do to anything.



Of course, i think the one thing we can agree on here is first, you have to have something to lose.  

I'm not saying compose solely by-the-book, but to at least be aware of the harmonic framework you're working within, and how you're choosing to bend it's edges a bit here and there. 

And if nothing else, I've found that sometimes a theoretical analysis is the fastest way to get the sounds I'm hearing in my head onto the instrument- if I'm hearing a chord resolution but can't quite seem to find it on the guitar, asking msyelf, "well, logically, what SHOULD it be?" is a good way to get within the ballpark, byu asking what tensions I'm hearing, or how it seems to be resolving, etc. 


Basically, the only thing I'm worried about is a lot of guys say "I don't like theory because it limits you musically" simply because they're too lazy to spend the time learning it. That's asinine. 

-D


----------



## dpm (May 1, 2005)

I'm coming into this a bit late.
I only had a quick read of the article but it made a bit of sense to me as I've been getting into microtonal concepts for a while now.
Basically I see music theory and application of it as something best left to certain people whose minds are wired that particular way.
In other words, to make real _musical_ use of this kind of stuff you must first _understand_ it, to the point of it being unconcious knowledge.
You have to be able to abandon its hold  
I really dig chucking microtones (quarters etc) into things so I checked out some microtonal 'musicians' only to find they all seem to be getting off on the math part and not actually creating art.
I realise the article isn't actually about microtones but it gets into the same mathematical territory of harmonic correctness. Just intonation and all that...


----------



## Matt (May 2, 2005)

Drew said:


> Basically, the only thing I'm worried about is a lot of guys say "I don't like theory because it limits you musically" simply because they're too lazy to spend the time learning it. That's asinine.
> 
> -D



100% agreed. I myself have done alot of musical theory study for my own enjoyment. I've been playing guitar about 10 years and when I first started having lessons I was being taught theory and hated it and just thought it was boring. But later down the track when I wasn't having lessons anymore I explored theory for myself and really got into it.

It doesn't limit you at all. As Drew said about hearing chord resolutions in your head, I know exactly what he is talking about. Knowing my theory if I feel a perfect cadence (for example) coming up I will know how to play it straight away. Before I knew my theory I would have just been trying out a million chords until i found what I heard in my head.

I don't get how people think knowing music theory ruins music for you or limits your creativity. I still enjoy music just as much as ever, if not more, and never feel limited when I'm composing. I mean, does being able to spell and knowing definitions of words limit the creativity of an author?


----------



## Drew (May 2, 2005)

There's also the fact theory is fun - I mean, the first time someone explained tritone substitution to me in a way that made it click, I thought it was the coolest thing ever, lol. 

-D


----------



## macalpine88 (May 2, 2005)

tritone chord substituition is cool, but my only complaint is when used it almost acts as a cadence and seems to pull towards an ending. i havent messed with it too much though.


----------



## Allen Garrow (May 3, 2005)

Wow,,that stuff is great,,, over thought but great. Time better spent trying to lick your balls....however it's not natural for me like it is for a dog. I'll be content with having an understanding of theory and a deep love for shredding.

~A


----------

