• Forum Index
• New Message
• Search FretBuzz
• List of Forums
|
|
|
FretBuzz: Miscellaneous Forum Message |
Initial Post
|
To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
Jon Hermansen
(3349)
Miscellaneous Forum
2/5/2010 9:30:51 PM · 42 Views
|
It seems to me that, yes, even on this great musical site(a four page discussion on accoutics""), there seems to be, like everywhere in the world of music, excessive, and even pointless analysis of things that, at the end of the day mean nothing.
The simple question that must be addressed is that why when reading the writtings of the great composers, there is clarity and sense, when on the other hand when reading the great players or musical academics, there is no sense, and in fact the writtings upom most subjects of musical conception-theory, harmony, meter, technique, and the like, written by the best in the field are crappy, nonsensical, and for the most part not very helpful. Check this out for yourself-go to your local library and check out even a basic book on music and you will find it to be mostly pointless. The most we know of Bach, and upon the brown of his own views comes down to the simple point of putting the fingers in the right place at the right time, yet when one reads a musical analysis by a great harvard man on Bach, there is hundreds of pages of nonsensical rubbish, every measure is unclearly analyzed to the point where you do not know what is going on after the first page of the commentary. Yet when Bach speaks it is simple and downright concise, practice and develop the feel, in other words gain confidence through rigourous practice, and henceforth the key and eternal element of music will arise and that is instinct. A biologist may think that they know the wolf, yet are they one.AH"""
Another simple example of this argument is this-video games-you may have played a very physical video game where only practice dicatates the move, and someone watches and says-man-how do you do that-well the person perfoming the move has no answer-for it is now part of the subconcious mind. The mechanism of perfoming this great move is now encoded in the instinctual apparatus of the brain, thus leaving the peformer at a loss for words, I dont know how I do it, I just can.
Thus we are dealing with hundreds of years of musicology written by generations of musicologists who have no real feel for the instinctual underpinnings of what a great composer thinks or really feels, they believe that the composer like themselves were musical robots, devoid of feeling and filled with analysis, scrutininizing every note as if music was written in only one way. Yet Bach and all the rest were inventive, mystic, extremely imaginitive, and of course spontaneous in there music. Thus the anylytic aproach employed by our payed genuises at the universities is largely masterbatory material, or at best it is meaningless.
Thus to conclude this newest rant, remember play, think playing, and question, yet never microscopically analyize your playing; all that this exercize will do is lead to doubt, and double tracking. You will find no certain answers for as we have found all along is that the greatest lesson of music is its mystical subjectivity, and not it scientific certainty. If we try to give music a one and done formula it will cease to exist. Thus feel music, for god sakes dont think it.
|
|
Responses (continued)
[ Pages:
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 ] |
Re: To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
2/6/2010 4:54:02 PM
WILLIAM HULSEY
(23970) wrote:
When someone asks me about theory, I simply ask them what is more fun for them, analysis or playing for a crowd.
I'll allow each his own answer...I know what I enjoy.
I do feel like some people tend to overdo the analysis so much that they miss the point of making music.
Bo |
|
| |
Re: To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
2/6/2010 4:59:43 PM
Jon Hermansen
(3349) wrote:
My dear Admiral you sank this philosophical battle ship with a great shot from the hull. You see it is not theory that is under attack, it is the foolish academics who perpeutate an over done analysis of it. Hundreds of books on the subject are over done, and confusing at best. You got my point beautifully. |
|
Re: To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
2/7/2010 4:18:00 PM
Dave Magaro
(17977) wrote:
Go to Hell!
Dave |
|
| |
Re: To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
2/8/2010 3:41:51 PM
Jon Hermansen
(3349) wrote:
In time |
|
| |
Re: To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
2/7/2010 6:17:11 PM
Marcus Hart
(13762) wrote:
Interesting post Jon. I see what you're getting at. When I'm playing I don't think about what I'm doing .... at least not to the point at which it becomes a distraction. I can get more out of my bass when I'm playing by feel and from the heart.
That being said ..... (you knew this was coming right?) .... it IS the analytical theory gibberish that has helped me develope my own "voice" (although it's still not much of one. LOL!). It's helped me to channel what I'm feeling so that it makes "musical sense". Simply knowing the what's and why's behind theory, harmony, meter and technique can be used as a catalyst for further idea developement. In my personal view theory only becomes a hinderance when it's application takes away from the act of "making music" (if that makes any sense).
In my music theory classes, we had to listen to various works from Bach, Rossini, Mozart (and several others) and literally pick them apart. I found the exercise to be quite boring ... at the time. Now I can appreciate having to go through it and I understand the reasoning behind it.
It is sooo true that the subject becomes redundant from book to book, author to author. There's only so many ways to explain why a diminished chord works nicely as a passing chord form the I chord to the II chord. But KNOWING it AND understanding it is simply another tool in one's muscal arsenal.
YES there are a tremendous number of musicians who wouldn't know a dotted eighth note if it walked up and kicked them in the teeth ... and can play their a$$es off and could care less about the inner workings behind what they're playing. Does it make them less of a musician because they don't embrace the "science" of what they play? No, no and hell no!
Bottom line is, a point can be gained from all of the theoretical rubbish - regardless of how much one sees it in print. What one takes away from it, and how one chooses to use and apply it is up to them. My final thought : I choose to use my ears and play from the gut & the heart - but I'm well aware that the "boring, overly discussed, redundant" theory has my back if I need to call upon it. |
|
| |
Re: To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
2/8/2010 3:40:48 PM
Jon Hermansen
(3349) wrote:
Great point Marcus, I always will agree that the key element of progression, in any form, is the simple premise of knowing where one is, and where one should go, and sadly with Music the fundamental theorteical underpinnings of music is the key element, and being that you mentioned the old dotted eight means you know how to read, and I agree equivically that reading to is also an essential tool to progression and, of greater importance variation, however read Beethoven on Beethoven, do not read some over educated quack dispensing non sensical theories on the music of Beehthoven. It will ruin the entire concept of study for now we are studying this particular individual, and trying to decipher an opinion. Now we are studying Beehtoven, and most likely the guy who is writting on the subject as well. Very inneficent course of study, if you ask me, rahter just read Beethoven. |
|
| |
Re: To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
2/8/2010 5:55:01 PM
Paul Warren
(13326) wrote:
why when reading the writtings of the great composers, there is clarity and sense, when on the other hand when reading the great players or musical academics, there is no sense, and in fact the writtings upom most subjects of musical conception-theory, harmony, meter, technique, and the like, written by the best in the field are crappy, nonsensical, and for the most part not very helpful.
You do realize, I hope, that without the 'writtings[sic] upom[sic] most subjects of musical conception-theory, harmony, meter, technique, and the like' the music of those great composers would no longer exist. It's that very theory that lead to written music in the first place.
Even today, with a myriad of recording media available, how else would we pass the ability to play music onto a new generation. Not everyone can pick up an instrument and play it without instruction. Most of us need a bit of theory to learn our craft.
While you are entitled to your opinions I think you'd do well to recognize they may not be shared by everyone. I also think you should think twice before criticizing someone for sharing their expertise. I've personally found that four page discussion on acoustics to be very helpful. |
|
| |
Re: To the theorist:(MUST READ SEND ME HATE MAIL LATER)
2/9/2010 10:25:28 AM
Jon Hermansen
(3349) wrote:
Now you know what ninety percent of the battle is, it is not dispensing with musical theory at all, rather it is finding the right sources upon the subject, and sadly it is getting harder and harder to find |
|
|
More Responses
[ Pages:
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 ] |
|
