When i was 17 i had been playing guitar and bass for a few years, learned no theory other than a few chords. A friend told me 'you should learn scales, they'll help you get better' and i had the attitude that it would kill my creativity. He sent me the mixolydian mode and i'm said 'i know this, i just don't know the name, what's the point in learning names when i can just make music.' At 21 i heard people talking about chord construction and intervals and it bothered me that i didn't understand, so i opened the pandora's box that is music theory. 10 years later and my only regret is that i didn't listen to my friend and start the journey sooner. Far from killing my creativity, it allowed me to analyse my creativity, understand it and finally expand upon it from an intellectual standpoint. Instead of merely relying on intuition, i can now both intuit and reason. I felt hindered at the start of my journey, because i kept having to refer to a map that i couldn't read, but now that i have the major roads ingrained in my memory i can finally start taking in the scenery
You know the mix mode yes? Im going to list mixolydian ish modes DOMINANT pentatonic = R...x...2...x....3.............5.............b7....x....R X = Option/passing note. It's just easier to use the pentatonic as visual guitar ( not completely defined) to play other dominant ish modes (cool sounds) and still Harmonize. You can modulate/sub/borrowed. Play any of these modes over a dominant chord....as you did with the minor and major pentatonic. It's the Maj3 and b7 combition From C MAJOR/Amin....play LESS the C and E note. Just shift one note at a time to obtain other dominant modes that derive from other parallel scales. Your options are LIMITLESS. mix mix #2 mix #4 Mix #2, #4 mix b2 Mix b6 mix b2, b6 mix b2, #4 Phy b4 loc b4 Ion #5 , b7 ion #4, #5, b7 ion #6 Ion #4, #6 If you know other modes....Im simply going to raise the b7 into maj7 aeo Maj7 = Harmonic min dor Maj7 = Melodic min phry Maj7 = Harmonic min b2 ( N6) mix Maj7 = Ionian Loc maj7 = Ion #6 dor b2 maj7 = melodic min b2 (N6) dor b5 maj7 = Melodic min b5 dor #4 maj7 = Melodic min #4 or lydian b3 ( iv of Harmonic MAJOR) aeo b2 Maj7 = Harmonic min b2 aeo b5 Maj7 = Harmonic min b5 = iii of Hungarian MAJOR aeo #4 Maj7 = double harmonic min or Hungarian min. mix b6, maj7 = Harmonic MAJOR I can also list it using the MAJOR's scale INTERVAL as the REFERENCE Shift one note at the time...on the keyboard it's the 5 BLACK KEYS. The b3, b6, b7 are the SECOND arpeggio of the 1, 4, 5 chords. In a nut shell....just practice alter the 1,4, 5 from MAJOR to min.. visa versa...ANY COMBINATION. The different scales...will simply give whatever combination. You can't go wrong.... b6 = Harmonic MAJOR b3 = Melodic min b3, b6 = Harmonic min b3, b6, b7 = NATURAL min b2 b3 b3, #4 b3, b5 b2, b3, b6 b3, b5, b6 b3, #4, b6 #6 You can REVERSE the process..PUSH UP from Amin towards A MAJOR G#.........F#, G#.......D#, F#, G#..........Bb, G#......Bb, F#, G#.....ect the 2, 4, b6, 7 chord degree are all possible FULL diminished whether you count from C Harmonic MAJOR or A harmonic min D, F, Ab, B......or B, D, F, G# the AUGMENTED chord too.....C, E, Ab.....or C, E, G#......E, G#, C YOU CAN USE ANY FULL DIMINISED CHORDS or AUGMENTED notes or chord to PLAY INTO a chord... example.....D dim into Eb MAJOR/C min...or C augmented E into F min the basic... G7 into C MAJOR or C min E7 into A MAJOR or A min C maj F Maj G7 CMaj Fmin G7 C min F7 G7 C min Fmin G7 C Min D7 into G MAJOR or G min A min D min E min A min D min E7 A min D7 E7 Amin B7 into E MAJOR or E min You can use the (N6) From A min...it's the Bb note....( you can make that Maj7. Bb7, Bb dim or Bbaug You can use it to cycle down to the 4th Bb lydian.....Bb ion....Bb mix.......Bb aug into G Harmonic min..ect or Play A min Bb dim into B min/D major or A min Bb dim C# dim into D min/F MAJOR or Bb7 C7 into F melodic min or Bb dim C7 into F Harmonic min Notice the A lydian b3 or harmonic b5....ect it's still a possible min chord or dim.. It's basically going to turn it into the 2, 4, b6, 7 ( option)..from the TONIC or rathe FULL diminished from 1, b3, b5, 6 You could play A dim B7 into E MAJOR or E min G#7 ( phrygian b4) into C# min or A dim C dim into C# min/E MAJOR. Once in C# min....APPLY the N6.........D7 , E7 into A whatever D dim E7 D maj7 E7 F # min/A MAJOR... I put the A dorian ish (#4) to E min for reason... So you'll use to altering it to 2, 4, b6, 7 I wrote that for a REASON....the (1, b3, b5, 6) or ( 2, 4, b6, 7) Play A harmonic min b5 AND melodic min b5 ( b6 and Maj6) That the FULL DIMINSHED W/H it's 4th MODE D dorian b2, #4 or b2, #4, b7 ( mix b2, #4) ( b3 AND maj3) it's the FULL DIMINISHED H/W. It;s SYMETRICAL....alter the chord to WHATEVER : P you could play A7 into D min....too right? or A dim B dim into C Melodic min.. IT'S UNLIMITED OPTIONS KEYS are JUST PITCH.. will...using the circle of 5th to play the MAJOR scale in 12 different pitch Mix, maj7...that's all it is. is rather LIMITING.lol
@@CarlosVargas-oo6gn it depends what you prefer. There are load of valuable video lectures on UA-cam. Fun videos and many precious books if you like reading. Just get into it.
I studied music theory 40 years ago, and it is a tool I am so glad I took the time to understand. I would never be able to create fusion or progressive rock with out it. Music theory help me understand what other musicians are doing. I can transpose to any key, know what melodies and chords work together without having to reinvent the wheel.. Music Theory is an observation of what the great composers have used to get the sounds of their works.. I'm glad I learned it early..
I guess people ask questions about music theory limiting creativity because they have a misunderstanding of what music theory is. It's not "rules" that you need to follow - it's just an analytical tool. It makes analyzing music possible, and it makes learning from other musicians much easier. Nothing of course replaces good ears. But for some reason people think that using theoretical knowledge and ears are mutually exclusive. It's actually quite the opposite - you can't really understand theory if you don't have good ears. You only really understand theoretical stuff when you know the sound of it. Theoretical knowledge is there to support your ears and to make learning about music easier (basically, the combination of theoretical knowledge + ears is stronger than just using your ears). It helps with pattern recognition. Theory is just a tool - you can take advantage of your theoretical knowledge, or you can choose to ignore it (even if you know a lot of it) and just do everything by trial and error. But why reinvent the wheel when you can learn the same stuff a lot more effectively? I do think there's value to discovering things yourself, though. That's how you truly learn to understand things (discovering things yourself doesn't mean that you shouldn't also learn what they are called, though). And maybe sometimes in formal education people aren't necessarily encouraged to experiment with stuff. But how musical education should be improved is a whole another topic and it really has little to do with the benefits of learning theory.
Hello, the only case where music theory may kills creativity is if you stick too much to the rules. If you have ideas to develop but you check your theory and say "it's not how it should be done", may be you will prevent yourself from composing something interesting.
Music theory allows us to explain what we are after to each other. Problems arise when we instead create rules for ourselves to follow, rather than paths to explore.
With regards to the 3rd question (isolated composer), I'd also add that it's worth learning about recording technology, sequencing and sampling, because then, the worst case scenario is that you're still isolated, but you have the means to realise musical ideas in a useful way independently. It also forces you to explore what is readily available to you and how you can use it to good effect (which reminds me of some comments I think you made about "utopian writing" vs. "pragmatic writing", to paraphrase - I personally find that pragmatic writing is more interesting because it forces you to surmount immediate problems and make the best use of immediately available resources).
Love listening to you man ... the way you answer hard questions are really masterful. Thanx for putting so much effort into your presentations. So much to take from this channel. Respect.
I like your informative perspectives on theory. I feel that music theory is something that you can take your own musical thoughts and compare it with what has been done before in order to understand it better.
It's a very intriguing question, the question of theory and whether theory is necessary to Make music. For me it all depends on what you want to make and to what extent so called theory is necessary for making. But you need to know what you are doing deeply. As an improviser/instrumentalist, technique and a deep intimacy of one's instrument is Paramount!
It always bothers me when an established musician plays into the "music theory stifles creativity" thing. I saw a documentary about the making of Black Sabbath's "Paranoid" album, and when the topic came up that Ozzy Osbourne is self-taught and knows no theory, no formal vocal training, etc., Ozzy said something along the lines of "You have to learn music from inside yourself. If you are taught music, it'll take away what you already have." It's so harmful to music education for a rock idol like Osbourne to feed into the "ignorance makes for better art" narrative. Sure, it worked for Ozzy, but he was always surrounding himself with more knowledgeable musicians anyway, and when a kid with a guitar hears that sort of talk, it only discourages them to practice and study. The last thing any young musician needs is to have the little voice in their head that says "yeah, I'm basically a genius. Nobody understands how much of a genius I am. I just need to record a couple singles and I'm gonna be a worldwide sensation within a year" reinforced.
Ozzy Osbourne isn't really know for his song writing or singing skills. I have heard him say in docu's that he basically just sings the guitar riff. He's got a catchy voice and a very entertaining presence but he is not somebody to look up to when it comes to music ability.
Speaking as a professional guitar teacher and part-time music historian, formal training in any "art" is HIGHLY likely to reduce your creativity, and even limit your ability to perform that art. This is only partially because most art teachers - be it painting, music, or whatever - are bad. They have memorized simplistic, lowest-common-denominator systems of delivering basic techniques by rote, seriously attempting to limit one's exploration outside of those boundaries. But even with a good teacher, you are likely to be blocked from developing whatever techniques and understanding work best FOR YOU. Hendrix was a far better guitarist than, say, John McLaughlin. And it's quite certain that if, instead of just playing in his room on his own Hendrix had been formally trained, he would NOT be better than McLaughlin. His independence is why he blew McLaughlin, and everyone else, away. Hendrix did not obey the rules of how to play guitar. For example, he would use his thumb on the fretboard, wrapping it around from the top. What a horror, to imagine some guitar teacher telling him not to do that! It would have limited his ability, and creativity. Thumb over the top came naturally to him, and worked better for him than thumb pressed flat opposite the fingers works for ANY guitarist, ever.
It reminds me of something Glenn Gould wrote/delivered. He spoke about "convincing you of the futility of living too much by the advice of others." Of course, "advice" is not "music theory" but I think it might be related or, at least, give us some perspective about that. www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/glenngould/028010-4020.06-e.html
It is more a matter of when it happens. I have worked with many musicians, the ones that really stood out were the ones who learned theory in a later stage of their musical developement. I noticed that people who immediately started with theory are often limited in their perception of groove and improvisation and take longer to get accustomed to unfamiliar rythmic patterns, or maybe more like "getting the feel of it".
On the question of musical artists being a little different. Jordan Peterson explains creativity. They found the most creative people had some type of personal trauma before the age of 10, like losing one or both parents. I think I know why, because the trauma makes you look around at anything and everything to try to figure out either how to cure the trauma or how to prevent the trauma from happening again, then you become a person who is perhaps unconsciously always seeking and looking and trying to figure out strategies and meaning and codes whenever you see new things, how can you apply them? Lou Reed suffered childhood trauma, including electroshock therapy treatments, as an adult he said he always had words and phrases buzzing in his brain like a radio station in his brain. He said all he has to do is listen for something interesting and build from that into a new song, sometimes nothing would happen for any good song, Other times he had too many good ideas at once and could not get them all worked up or jotted down before he forgot them.
Thanks for answering my question, you’ve given me a better idea of what a composer’s working process involves and what you mean when you’re approaching a composition problem.
Hello Samuel, could you make a material on Mingus' The Black Saint and The Sinner Lady? I'm really into his music, but don't understand why... Thank you for all the great work!
Basically it's a matter of knowing more equalling having more in your head to inspire you. Learning that a particular mode exists, for example, makes me want to play around with that mode. I wouldn't have considered it if I didn't know it existed.
Well, I would argue otherwise, as it just so happens that I fit the criteria of having my creativity being hindered by my increasing knowledge and theorical skills. The thing is, the more I know has been done, and the more I know can be done the less I feel legit as I know see how bad I am in comparison to the people who know more, and also I get bored more quickly of my own composition as they sound less original than they used to. I can tell influences now, common stuff I tend to avoid except they are the cement of the musical language, and all in all I enjoy composing less, because I feel stuck, and it ends up killing my motivation to try and overcome the feeling. It's a downward spiral which has made me stop composing almost entirely...
John C One doesn’t compose because they want to...they compose because they HAVE to. If it isn’t a thing that perpetually turns you on, perpetually inspires you, maybe you aren’t a composer. And that’s fine. Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest people of all time and HE wasn’t a composer.
I like your videos and your point of view, enjoy watching them and honestly taught a lot how to be unbiased. History. This series is very valuable and keep doing it.
In a 1980s BBC Radio interview George Martin said The Beatles provided us with evidence that creativity held little connection to theory and that it had been overlooked then and continued to be overlooked. 'It's something that we haven't really looked at too closely at all.'
how are a few exceptions proof that lack of knowledge leads to creativity? you are also making the assumption that they wouldn't have been even better if they did know a lot of theory which you have no way of knowing.
thanks for getting to my question,and I'm from portgual,so not as small as the ones you mentioned,but,as far as I know,a country with a very small music scene,specially when it comes to contemporary/classical. Of course that might be due to my own ignorance.
The artists and musicians that I am fascinated by are those with a high level of knowledge of theory, whose works appeal to the common man and the aesthete, like Bach and Rembrandt.
Posting feedback: If you answer the question posed in the title within the thumbnail, people will be less likely to watch the video. Excellent responses to these questions, I look forward to getting more out of your content! Alex
Great video, thanks for sharing. I just have one criticism: at 11:33 you said that the equal temperament system "is the farthest thing from a natural scale that you can imagine". For people that believe that equal temperament is completely natural, this might be a good thing to tell them to make them rethink that, but it's a bit of a hyperbole and not really accurate. One thing that the equal temperament has going for it is that the first 3 partials are almost exact; the unison and octave are for all intents and purposes are exact, and the fifth is only off by ~5 cents. Only as we go to the higher partials we get more deviation, which results in "compromises" such as beating (which kind of sounds like a vibrato if that deviation from just intonation isn't too big) . This is pretty good for being somewhat close to a "natural scale", definitely not the farthest thing from one.
Thank you for this insightful comment. My intent was to point out the artificial nature of this scale. Once you get accustomed to hearing other sorts of scales, you start to hear equal temperament as something other than an inevitable fact of physics.
Obviously more knowledge is a benefit... Having a great ear, whether naturally or trained is just as great a benefit as theory....my only qualm about learning theory is that beginning in the middle of the 20th century theory became the driver of style....many composers starting with Schoenberg (arbitrarily creating his own theory of serial composition) came up with their own systems of composing. Messiaen, Babbitt, Boulez etc...all come up with their own methods...these are then taught in the academic world and thus there are acceptable styles and maybe unacceptable styles...When my sister went to the Chicago Art Institute her work was not favored because it was too representational and not abstract minimalism...The writer John Hawkes is an interesting case in which his discoverer, Albert Guerard (who also promoted his work vigorously) began to withhold praise from Hawkes when he moved away from his earlier style. Influential writers of fiction in prestigious writing programs transmit their theories about writing onto their students in the form of style: Perhaps because there is a strict-and arbitrary-formalism in modern techniques like serialism....the same is most certainly true in the music world....to transmit theory often pertains to style. The concern is when young composers are not just using theory to help them compose but writing to theory (a specific theory) creativity and individuality may be stifled. Theories can become outdated and when they do so does the music. It used to be that theory came about as a way of explaining and showing what composers had done...it was a mode of analysis...when it becomes a template for composition or a dogma it's not helpful...one belongs to a school of thought rather than becomes an individual composer.
Hi great video. What do you think about music that rejects the musical theory? I' think about Subotnick's silver apples of the moon, composed via buchla or music composed via synesthesia by someone who has the ability to associate, let's say, images and sounds. Let's say that someone uses the note x, y, z as red, black and orange, you can see his work throughout the musical theory lens but this is not the system used by the author. Thank u for the Drumbo's interview and the analysis of frownland ❤
A comment regarding training as opposed to knowledge; when i was 15 at school i learned a bit of cello. I played bass and a bit of guitar also , but my knowledge was light. I had a great music teacher , and she kept me after class a few times and sat me at the piano or harpsichord and made me mess about on them. I could not play keyboard , but i could pick out notes and make things up ( i was already writing songs). She was a trained classical pianist , but could not play without the dots , so it facsinated her that i could improvise a tune without any dots or direction. Just an interesting memory. P.s. i really like your videos , they are interesting and musical.
luck of music theory is in 99% of artist out there, that is why, whater the floppe after one hit wonder, or they just keep souding the same just because they want to play it safe and reuse same recipe of there hit.
Maybe it is some form of cultural cynicism towards music as a whole that is at the basis of this resistance to “music theory”. Music to them is meaningless and thus what does it matter how or why you write music, just do whatever is popular and you might make some money out of it. There is no higher aspiration, there is no artistic expression, they are just trying to “make it”, they are creating a product that is to be sold on a market, learning music theory doesn’t make you generate more money for big companies so why waste your time on that? McDonalds doesn’t care about the culinary arts, they aren’t going to waste precious marketing budget on art. And that is how much of popular music is, so if you aspire to “make it” learning music theory just stands in the way. Don’t waste 10 years mastering music theory, just get a bunch of tattoos, a big hat, a manager and sell yourself to a record company. And maybe you might even achieve the highest of the highest, scoring a “hit” so you can ride in that money for ever and never have to do that awful thing called making music ever again. And yeah this is a pretty cynical view in itself so maybe this is some meta projection but I do feel as if this modern popular music culture is very anti-artistic and very recent.
Hello, I recently got into your channel and have become dangerously addicted, enjoying every video since. I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on some pieces that I’ve written. I’m a 15 year old violinist who’s been inspired by the likes of Tom Waits (my idol), Captain Beefheart and Pink Floyd. This led to me branching from the classical world into the avant-garde and would love to hear how you think I could improve. I have a SoundCloud under the same name so I’d be extremely grateful if you spared the time to have a listen. Thanks for hopefully reading this lengthy comment and have a nice day.
concerning advice for an isolated composer : a first piece should be humble enough that you can perform it yourself on your youtube channel . Imagine if all those succesfull UA-cam artists would have tried to start their career with getting their first opera performed ;-)
@@samuel_andreyev Even Wagner himself was not megalomaniacal enough to publish an opera as his op.1 ;-) most great composers were very motivated to write music for solo instruments so there is no reason to start a career with larger and more complex scored pieces.
Speaking as a professional guitar teacher and part-time music historian, formal training in any "art" is HIGHLY likely to reduce your creativity, and even limit your ability to perform that art. This is only partially because most art teachers - be it painting, music, or whatever - are bad. They have memorized simplistic, lowest-common-denominator systems of delivering basic techniques by rote, seriously attempting to limit one's exploration outside of those boundaries. But even with a good teacher, you are likely to be blocked from developing whatever techniques and understanding work best FOR YOU. Hendrix was a far better guitarist than, say, John McLaughlin. And it's quite certain that if, instead of just playing in his room on his own Hendrix had been formally trained, he would NOT be better than McLaughlin. His independence is why he blew McLaughlin, and everyone else, away. Hendrix did not obey the rules of how to play guitar. For example, he would use his thumb on the fretboard, wrapping it around from the top. What a horror, to imagine some guitar teacher telling him not to do that! It would have limited his ability, and creativity. Thumb over the top came naturally to him, and worked better for him than thumb pressed flat opposite the fingers works for ANY guitarist, ever.
When i was 17 i had been playing guitar and bass for a few years, learned no theory other than a few chords. A friend told me 'you should learn scales, they'll help you get better' and i had the attitude that it would kill my creativity. He sent me the mixolydian mode and i'm said 'i know this, i just don't know the name, what's the point in learning names when i can just make music.' At 21 i heard people talking about chord construction and intervals and it bothered me that i didn't understand, so i opened the pandora's box that is music theory.
10 years later and my only regret is that i didn't listen to my friend and start the journey sooner. Far from killing my creativity, it allowed me to analyse my creativity, understand it and finally expand upon it from an intellectual standpoint. Instead of merely relying on intuition, i can now both intuit and reason. I felt hindered at the start of my journey, because i kept having to refer to a map that i couldn't read, but now that i have the major roads ingrained in my memory i can finally start taking in the scenery
You know the mix mode yes? Im going to list mixolydian ish modes
DOMINANT pentatonic = R...x...2...x....3.............5.............b7....x....R
X = Option/passing note.
It's just easier to use the pentatonic as visual guitar ( not completely defined)
to play other dominant ish modes (cool sounds) and still Harmonize.
You can modulate/sub/borrowed. Play any of these modes over a dominant
chord....as you did with the minor and major pentatonic.
It's the Maj3 and b7 combition
From C MAJOR/Amin....play LESS the C and E note.
Just shift one note at a time to obtain other dominant modes that derive
from other parallel scales. Your options are LIMITLESS.
mix
mix #2
mix #4
Mix #2, #4
mix b2
Mix b6
mix b2, b6
mix b2, #4
Phy b4
loc b4
Ion #5 , b7
ion #4, #5, b7
ion #6
Ion #4, #6
If you know other modes....Im simply going to raise the b7 into maj7
aeo Maj7 = Harmonic min
dor Maj7 = Melodic min
phry Maj7 = Harmonic min b2 ( N6)
mix Maj7 = Ionian
Loc maj7 = Ion #6
dor b2 maj7 = melodic min b2 (N6)
dor b5 maj7 = Melodic min b5
dor #4 maj7 = Melodic min #4 or lydian b3 ( iv of Harmonic MAJOR)
aeo b2 Maj7 = Harmonic min b2
aeo b5 Maj7 = Harmonic min b5 = iii of Hungarian MAJOR
aeo #4 Maj7 = double harmonic min or Hungarian min.
mix b6, maj7 = Harmonic MAJOR
I can also list it using the MAJOR's scale INTERVAL as the REFERENCE
Shift one note at the time...on the keyboard it's the 5 BLACK KEYS.
The b3, b6, b7 are the SECOND arpeggio of the 1, 4, 5 chords.
In a nut shell....just practice alter the 1,4, 5 from MAJOR to min..
visa versa...ANY COMBINATION.
The different scales...will simply give whatever combination.
You can't go wrong....
b6 = Harmonic MAJOR
b3 = Melodic min
b3, b6 = Harmonic min
b3, b6, b7 = NATURAL min
b2 b3
b3, #4
b3, b5
b2, b3, b6
b3, b5, b6
b3, #4, b6
#6
You can REVERSE the process..PUSH UP from Amin towards A MAJOR
G#.........F#, G#.......D#, F#, G#..........Bb, G#......Bb, F#, G#.....ect
the 2, 4, b6, 7 chord degree are all possible FULL diminished
whether you count from C Harmonic MAJOR or A harmonic min
D, F, Ab, B......or B, D, F, G#
the AUGMENTED chord too.....C, E, Ab.....or C, E, G#......E, G#, C
YOU CAN USE ANY FULL DIMINISED CHORDS or AUGMENTED notes or
chord to PLAY INTO a chord...
example.....D dim into Eb MAJOR/C min...or C augmented E into F min
the basic...
G7 into C MAJOR or C min
E7 into A MAJOR or A min
C maj F Maj G7
CMaj Fmin G7
C min F7 G7
C min Fmin G7
C Min D7 into G MAJOR or G min
A min D min E min
A min D min E7
A min D7 E7
Amin B7 into E MAJOR or E min
You can use the (N6)
From A min...it's the Bb note....( you can make that Maj7. Bb7, Bb dim or Bbaug
You can use it to cycle down to the 4th
Bb lydian.....Bb ion....Bb mix.......Bb aug into G Harmonic min..ect
or Play A min Bb dim into B min/D major
or A min Bb dim C# dim into D min/F MAJOR
or Bb7 C7 into F melodic min
or Bb dim C7 into F Harmonic min
Notice the A lydian b3 or harmonic b5....ect
it's still a possible min chord or dim..
It's basically going to turn it into the 2, 4, b6, 7 ( option)..from the TONIC
or rathe FULL diminished from 1, b3, b5, 6
You could play A dim B7 into E MAJOR or E min
G#7 ( phrygian b4) into C# min
or A dim C dim into C# min/E MAJOR.
Once in C# min....APPLY the N6.........D7 , E7 into A whatever
D dim E7
D maj7 E7 F # min/A MAJOR...
I put the A dorian ish (#4) to E min for reason...
So you'll use to altering it to 2, 4, b6, 7
I wrote that for a REASON....the (1, b3, b5, 6) or ( 2, 4, b6, 7)
Play A harmonic min b5 AND melodic min b5 ( b6 and Maj6)
That the FULL DIMINSHED W/H
it's 4th MODE
D dorian b2, #4 or b2, #4, b7 ( mix b2, #4) ( b3 AND maj3)
it's the FULL DIMINISHED H/W.
It;s SYMETRICAL....alter the chord to WHATEVER : P
you could play A7 into D min....too right?
or A dim B dim into C Melodic min..
IT'S UNLIMITED OPTIONS
KEYS are JUST PITCH..
will...using the circle of 5th to play the MAJOR scale in 12 different pitch
Mix, maj7...that's all it is.
is rather LIMITING.lol
@@oneeyemonster3262 how can someone write this big comment?
@@oneeyemonster3262 impressive
I am 17 yrs old now, relatively low knowledge of music theory, where do you think I can start off learning?
@@CarlosVargas-oo6gn it depends what you prefer.
There are load of valuable video lectures on UA-cam. Fun videos and many precious books if you like reading.
Just get into it.
I studied music theory 40 years ago, and it is a tool I am so glad I took the time to understand. I would never be able to create fusion or progressive rock with out it. Music theory help me understand what other musicians are doing. I can transpose to any key, know what melodies and chords work together without having to reinvent the wheel.. Music Theory is an observation of what the great composers have used to get the sounds of their works.. I'm glad I learned it early..
I guess people ask questions about music theory limiting creativity because they have a misunderstanding of what music theory is. It's not "rules" that you need to follow - it's just an analytical tool. It makes analyzing music possible, and it makes learning from other musicians much easier. Nothing of course replaces good ears. But for some reason people think that using theoretical knowledge and ears are mutually exclusive. It's actually quite the opposite - you can't really understand theory if you don't have good ears. You only really understand theoretical stuff when you know the sound of it. Theoretical knowledge is there to support your ears and to make learning about music easier (basically, the combination of theoretical knowledge + ears is stronger than just using your ears). It helps with pattern recognition. Theory is just a tool - you can take advantage of your theoretical knowledge, or you can choose to ignore it (even if you know a lot of it) and just do everything by trial and error. But why reinvent the wheel when you can learn the same stuff a lot more effectively?
I do think there's value to discovering things yourself, though. That's how you truly learn to understand things (discovering things yourself doesn't mean that you shouldn't also learn what they are called, though). And maybe sometimes in formal education people aren't necessarily encouraged to experiment with stuff. But how musical education should be improved is a whole another topic and it really has little to do with the benefits of learning theory.
this video dropped just as I was losing all hope in my youtube recommendations, thank you
Hello,
the only case where music theory may kills creativity is if you stick too much to the rules.
If you have ideas to develop but you check your theory and say "it's not how it should be done", may be you will prevent yourself from composing something interesting.
Music theory allows us to explain what we are after to each other. Problems arise when we instead create rules for ourselves to follow, rather than paths to explore.
Well put.
With regards to the 3rd question (isolated composer), I'd also add that it's worth learning about recording technology, sequencing and sampling, because then, the worst case scenario is that you're still isolated, but you have the means to realise musical ideas in a useful way independently. It also forces you to explore what is readily available to you and how you can use it to good effect (which reminds me of some comments I think you made about "utopian writing" vs. "pragmatic writing", to paraphrase - I personally find that pragmatic writing is more interesting because it forces you to surmount immediate problems and make the best use of immediately available resources).
Good point about learning recording technology.
Love listening to you man ... the way you answer hard questions are really masterful. Thanx for putting so much effort into your presentations. So much to take from this channel. Respect.
Glad to hear that. Thank you.
I like your informative perspectives on theory. I feel that music theory is something that you can take your own musical thoughts and compare it with what has been done before in order to understand it better.
It's a very intriguing question, the question of theory and whether theory is necessary to Make music. For me it all depends on what you want to make and to what extent so called theory is necessary for making. But you need to know what you are doing deeply. As an improviser/instrumentalist, technique and a deep intimacy of one's instrument is Paramount!
It always bothers me when an established musician plays into the "music theory stifles creativity" thing. I saw a documentary about the making of Black Sabbath's "Paranoid" album, and when the topic came up that Ozzy Osbourne is self-taught and knows no theory, no formal vocal training, etc., Ozzy said something along the lines of "You have to learn music from inside yourself. If you are taught music, it'll take away what you already have."
It's so harmful to music education for a rock idol like Osbourne to feed into the "ignorance makes for better art" narrative. Sure, it worked for Ozzy, but he was always surrounding himself with more knowledgeable musicians anyway, and when a kid with a guitar hears that sort of talk, it only discourages them to practice and study. The last thing any young musician needs is to have the little voice in their head that says "yeah, I'm basically a genius. Nobody understands how much of a genius I am. I just need to record a couple singles and I'm gonna be a worldwide sensation within a year" reinforced.
Ozzy Osbourne isn't really know for his song writing or singing skills. I have heard him say in docu's that he basically just sings the guitar riff. He's got a catchy voice and a very entertaining presence but he is not somebody to look up to when it comes to music ability.
Speaking as a professional guitar teacher and part-time music historian, formal training in any "art" is HIGHLY likely to reduce your creativity, and even limit your ability to perform that art.
This is only partially because most art teachers - be it painting, music, or whatever - are bad. They have memorized simplistic, lowest-common-denominator systems of delivering basic techniques by rote, seriously attempting to limit one's exploration outside of those boundaries.
But even with a good teacher, you are likely to be blocked from developing whatever techniques and understanding work best FOR YOU.
Hendrix was a far better guitarist than, say, John McLaughlin. And it's quite certain that if, instead of just playing in his room on his own Hendrix had been formally trained, he would NOT be better than McLaughlin. His independence is why he blew McLaughlin, and everyone else, away.
Hendrix did not obey the rules of how to play guitar. For example, he would use his thumb on the fretboard, wrapping it around from the top. What a horror, to imagine some guitar teacher telling him not to do that! It would have limited his ability, and creativity. Thumb over the top came naturally to him, and worked better for him than thumb pressed flat opposite the fingers works for ANY guitarist, ever.
It reminds me of something Glenn Gould wrote/delivered. He spoke about "convincing you of the futility of living too much by the advice of others." Of course, "advice" is not "music theory" but I think it might be related or, at least, give us some perspective about that.
www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/glenngould/028010-4020.06-e.html
It is more a matter of when it happens. I have worked with many musicians, the ones that really stood out were the ones who learned theory in a later stage of their musical developement. I noticed that people who immediately started with theory are often limited in their perception of groove and improvisation and take longer to get accustomed to unfamiliar rythmic patterns, or maybe more like "getting the feel of it".
On the question of musical artists being a little different. Jordan Peterson explains creativity. They found the most creative people had some type of personal trauma before the age of 10, like losing one or both parents. I think I know why, because the trauma makes you look around at anything and everything to try to figure out either how to cure the trauma or how to prevent the trauma from happening again, then you become a person who is perhaps unconsciously always seeking and looking and trying to figure out strategies and meaning and codes whenever you see new things, how can you apply them? Lou Reed suffered childhood trauma, including electroshock therapy treatments, as an adult he said he always had words and phrases buzzing in his brain like a radio station in his brain. He said all he has to do is listen for something interesting and build from that into a new song, sometimes nothing would happen for any good song, Other times he had too many good ideas at once and could not get them all worked up or jotted down before he forgot them.
LOVE the analogy to doctor coming out of operating room, very funny and puts it in perspective 😆👍🏻
Great content. The whole channel.
Thanks for answering my question, you’ve given me a better idea of what a composer’s working process involves and what you mean when you’re approaching a composition problem.
Hello Samuel, could you make a material on Mingus' The Black Saint and The Sinner Lady? I'm really into his music, but don't understand why... Thank you for all the great work!
It’s impossible for technical knowledge to kill creativity. Quite the opposite, really. One is often inspired by technique.
Basically it's a matter of knowing more equalling having more in your head to inspire you. Learning that a particular mode exists, for example, makes me want to play around with that mode. I wouldn't have considered it if I didn't know it existed.
joethetimelord Yes, that has been my experience, too! 🎵
Well, I would argue otherwise, as it just so happens that I fit the criteria of having my creativity being hindered by my increasing knowledge and theorical skills.
The thing is, the more I know has been done, and the more I know can be done the less I feel legit as I know see how bad I am in comparison to the people who know more, and also I get bored more quickly of my own composition as they sound less original than they used to. I can tell influences now, common stuff I tend to avoid except they are the cement of the musical language, and all in all I enjoy composing less, because I feel stuck, and it ends up killing my motivation to try and overcome the feeling.
It's a downward spiral which has made me stop composing almost entirely...
John C One doesn’t compose because they want to...they compose because they HAVE to. If it isn’t a thing that perpetually turns you on, perpetually inspires you, maybe you aren’t a composer. And that’s fine. Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest people of all time and HE wasn’t a composer.
@@scottgilesmusic He would have been greater still had he been a composer.
I like your videos and your point of view, enjoy watching them and honestly taught a lot how to be unbiased. History. This series is very valuable and keep doing it.
i like hearing you talk
In a 1980s BBC Radio interview George Martin said The Beatles provided us with evidence that creativity held little connection to theory and that it had been overlooked then and continued to be overlooked. 'It's something that we haven't really looked at too closely at all.'
how are a few exceptions proof that lack of knowledge leads to creativity? you are also making the assumption that they wouldn't have been even better if they did know a lot of theory which you have no way of knowing.
Knowledge does not inhibit creativity but in no way guarantees it. Many with knowledge were creatively pedestrian and vice versa.
thanks for getting to my question,and I'm from portgual,so not as small as the ones you mentioned,but,as far as I know,a country with a very small music scene,specially when it comes to contemporary/classical. Of course that might be due to my own ignorance.
What about composing a piece based on one pitch, as David Bruce lectured about?
The artists and musicians that I am fascinated by are those with a high level of knowledge of theory, whose works appeal to the common man and the aesthete, like Bach and Rembrandt.
Posting feedback: If you answer the question posed in the title within the thumbnail, people will be less likely to watch the video.
Excellent responses to these questions, I look forward to getting more out of your content!
Alex
I'll be getting started on that musical problem-solving project soon! Great idea, and thanks for sharing. God bless
Theory is necessary to analyze and compose functional music and distinguish it from non functional areas.
Great video, thanks for sharing. I just have one criticism: at 11:33 you said that the equal temperament system "is the farthest thing from a natural scale that you can imagine". For people that believe that equal temperament is completely natural, this might be a good thing to tell them to make them rethink that, but it's a bit of a hyperbole and not really accurate.
One thing that the equal temperament has going for it is that the first 3 partials are almost exact; the unison and octave are for all intents and purposes are exact, and the fifth is only off by ~5 cents. Only as we go to the higher partials we get more deviation, which results in "compromises" such as beating (which kind of sounds like a vibrato if that deviation from just intonation isn't too big) . This is pretty good for being somewhat close to a "natural scale", definitely not the farthest thing from one.
Thank you for this insightful comment. My intent was to point out the artificial nature of this scale. Once you get accustomed to hearing other sorts of scales, you start to hear equal temperament as something other than an inevitable fact of physics.
@@samuel_andreyev Thank you for your reply, keep up the good work.
You just have to learn to play the blues and sing in a high voice.
I never should've joined the Mothers...
very helpful answers. As always, great video
An informative video, thank you for the answers (& others for the questions).
Paul Gilbert --- remarked "Learning music theory keeps you from permanently sounding like yourself."
Nice video!
26:45, -isms kills the joy of music and creativity.
Obviously more knowledge is a benefit... Having a great ear, whether naturally or trained is just as great a benefit as theory....my only qualm about learning theory is that beginning in the middle of the 20th century theory became the driver of style....many composers starting with Schoenberg (arbitrarily creating his own theory of serial composition) came up with their own systems of composing. Messiaen, Babbitt, Boulez etc...all come up with their own methods...these are then taught in the academic world and thus there are acceptable styles and maybe unacceptable styles...When my sister went to the Chicago Art Institute her work was not favored because it was too representational and not abstract minimalism...The writer John Hawkes is an interesting case in which his discoverer, Albert Guerard (who also promoted his work vigorously) began to withhold praise from Hawkes when he moved away from his earlier style. Influential writers of fiction in prestigious writing programs transmit their theories about writing onto their students in the form of style: Perhaps because there is a strict-and arbitrary-formalism in modern techniques like serialism....the same is most certainly true in the music world....to transmit theory often pertains to style. The concern is when young composers are not just using theory to help them compose but writing to theory (a specific theory) creativity and individuality may be stifled. Theories can become outdated and when they do so does the music. It used to be that theory came about as a way of explaining and showing what composers had done...it was a mode of analysis...when it becomes a template for composition or a dogma it's not helpful...one belongs to a school of thought rather than becomes an individual composer.
Hi great video. What do you think about music that rejects the musical theory? I' think about Subotnick's silver apples of the moon, composed via buchla or music composed via synesthesia by someone who has the ability to associate, let's say, images and sounds. Let's say that someone uses the note x, y, z as red, black and orange, you can see his work throughout the musical theory lens but this is not the system used by the author. Thank u for the Drumbo's interview and the analysis of frownland ❤
That‘s like saying: don’t learn any grammar or else you’ll lose your ability to write.
Amazing ideologies!!
A comment regarding training as opposed to knowledge; when i was 15 at school i learned a bit of cello. I played bass and a bit of guitar also , but my knowledge was light.
I had a great music teacher , and she kept me after class a few times and sat me at the piano or harpsichord and made me mess about on them. I could not play keyboard , but i could pick out notes and make things up ( i was already writing songs).
She was a trained classical pianist , but could not play without the dots , so it facsinated her that i could improvise a tune without any dots or direction.
Just an interesting memory.
P.s. i really like your videos , they are interesting and musical.
No, it could just kill the little motivation that some lazy people have.
Well said
wow
damn good points made here!
luck of music theory is in 99% of artist out there, that is why, whater the floppe after one hit wonder, or they just keep souding the same just because they want to play it safe and reuse same recipe of there hit.
Maybe it is some form of cultural cynicism towards music as a whole that is at the basis of this resistance to “music theory”. Music to them is meaningless and thus what does it matter how or why you write music, just do whatever is popular and you might make some money out of it. There is no higher aspiration, there is no artistic expression, they are just trying to “make it”, they are creating a product that is to be sold on a market, learning music theory doesn’t make you generate more money for big companies so why waste your time on that? McDonalds doesn’t care about the culinary arts, they aren’t going to waste precious marketing budget on art. And that is how much of popular music is, so if you aspire to “make it” learning music theory just stands in the way. Don’t waste 10 years mastering music theory, just get a bunch of tattoos, a big hat, a manager and sell yourself to a record company. And maybe you might even achieve the highest of the highest, scoring a “hit” so you can ride in that money for ever and never have to do that awful thing called making music ever again.
And yeah this is a pretty cynical view in itself so maybe this is some meta projection but I do feel as if this modern popular music culture is very anti-artistic and very recent.
Hello, I recently got into your channel and have become dangerously addicted, enjoying every video since. I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on some pieces that I’ve written. I’m a 15 year old violinist who’s been inspired by the likes of Tom Waits (my idol), Captain Beefheart and Pink Floyd. This led to me branching from the classical world into the avant-garde and would love to hear how you think I could improve. I have a SoundCloud under the same name so I’d be extremely grateful if you spared the time to have a listen. Thanks for hopefully reading this lengthy comment and have a nice day.
'He doesn't understand music theory but he can write better songs than you.'
I see you're taking after Adam Neely by putting the answer to the title's question in the thumbnail
hahaha... very clever!
What makes you think that Adam Neely is the very first person on UA-cam who does that?
Do you ever write music by hand? A whole composition. Also do you compose at the piano or an instrument?
I only write by hand. At a desk. Sometimes I try things out at a piano afterwards. Thanks for your kind comments!
Just like learning grammer stifles your ability to write poems.
"How do I get performed" Wanna bet this self-taught composer writes for massive orchestra? In which case: fat chance.....
concerning advice for an isolated composer : a first piece should be humble enough that you can perform it yourself on your youtube channel . Imagine if all those succesfull UA-cam artists would have tried to start their career with getting their first opera performed ;-)
Strongly agree!
@@samuel_andreyev Even Wagner himself was not megalomaniacal enough to publish an opera as his op.1 ;-) most great composers were very motivated to write music for solo instruments so there is no reason to start a career with larger and more complex scored pieces.
Sorry, but your excessive blinking really distracts me hahaha. Great video though
That Hindemith quote made me cringe.
What was the quote? I don't remember
And, why did it make you cringe?
@@samuel_andreyev dont mind me I didnt watch the full video when I wrote that, classical youtube comment I guess :)
Speaking as a professional guitar teacher and part-time music historian, formal training in any "art" is HIGHLY likely to reduce your creativity, and even limit your ability to perform that art.
This is only partially because most art teachers - be it painting, music, or whatever - are bad. They have memorized simplistic, lowest-common-denominator systems of delivering basic techniques by rote, seriously attempting to limit one's exploration outside of those boundaries.
But even with a good teacher, you are likely to be blocked from developing whatever techniques and understanding work best FOR YOU.
Hendrix was a far better guitarist than, say, John McLaughlin. And it's quite certain that if, instead of just playing in his room on his own Hendrix had been formally trained, he would NOT be better than McLaughlin. His independence is why he blew McLaughlin, and everyone else, away.
Hendrix did not obey the rules of how to play guitar. For example, he would use his thumb on the fretboard, wrapping it around from the top. What a horror, to imagine some guitar teacher telling him not to do that! It would have limited his ability, and creativity. Thumb over the top came naturally to him, and worked better for him than thumb pressed flat opposite the fingers works for ANY guitarist, ever.
There are more dogmatic, categorically judgmental/prescriptive statements in this comment than I have ever encountered in any music theory
this is kind of like asking "does a sharp stick in the eye improve eyesight?" like why even bother to ask such a ridiculous question?