ace said:
I'm not sure why I'm coming off like such an ogre, but I assume I was right all along and that whenever someone mentions Music Theory (which wasn't even me) everyone gets very defensive.
I just don't understand why some of these points are being argued. No one is suggesting that a person must or should learn anything about Music Theory before they begin the journey of musical self-discovery.
<snip>
It never even happens like that anyway; children will always have their first experiences sitting at their grandmother's piano or some equivelant. My suggestion was just that he should try the free music program, figure out what notes make what sounds, and work from there.
Yes, that
is very important, which is why I suggest he get a keyboard. I think an instrument to play in notes is far more interesting and you'll learn far better than clicking notes in a program no matter what sounds you are using. This is why I asked how much money he wants to spend and how serious he is. There are things he can get for free if he just wants to know what notes sound like. Soundfonts for example. I didnt reccomend that because he said he said he doesnt mind spending some money on this.
But if thats what you meant as well like you say here, thats certianly not how it sounded. You said ""learn how to write music, and then worry about the other stuff later". Thats compltely different to saying someone should noodle around on a piano for fun or something, to "figure out what notes make what sounds".
I guess the core of the matter is that it's easy to make music. It's an important element in everybody's lives and it's the easiest art form to participate in.
Ah yes, it is "easy" in theory. But it isnt "easy" to make good music, or probably more importantly, it isnt "easy to make music people want to listen to". Thats why not everyone does it, and why not everyone that does it is successfull at it. And I know from experience that some people just do not have a musical bone in their body!
I can understand that people will feel, at least, indifference towards and, at most, hostility towards a comprehensive collection of knowledge and guidelies that seem to have little relevance with the music that they love. Nobody likes being told what they can and can't do with their own personal art and when you start taking things that seriously it just plain takes the fun out of things. Who wants to study up on a hobby?
I dont know if you are directing this at me or Needaham, but if it is me then I should say I do agree with you here. I really do. I think people SHOULD learn theory and they should learn how to write music. I am just now learning how to read music. Its taking a long time because Im used to doing everything by ear and seeing the notes on the piano roll in Cubase.
People dont need to learn music theory in order to make music but, and if that sounds like I just contradicted myself, what I mean is you do have to learn music theory sooner or later if you want to emulate "the music that [you] love". So if you love big David Arnold scores like Stargate or Independence day or John Willams you gotta learn how their music is put together if you want to know how to create the same effect in your own music.
With today's technology everybody has this amazing ability to hear their heart's voice instantly, so even less knowledge is required. People would hardly have made a stink about having to know how to write music down on paper back when it was required to write music down on paper.
I dont see this connection you are drawing. Sure, if you can read and write music you can look at score manuscripts and see how the music is put together. You can read music theory books about 4 part harmony, orchestration or counterpoint and it will be much easier to learn. But that doesnt mean you cant learn the same concept another way. Sure it will be a lot harder, but most of the
basics you can easily pick up by ear.
Music now plays itself so trial, error and luck can easily guide and educate far easier than before. This is fine, great, dandy and perfectly acceptable. Maybe you could even call it art.
Well I probably am an ogre, but I just don't think it's art.
Believe me Ive heard enough crappy pieces of music to know not everything is art. I think you misunderstand what I mean by art. Its the
craft of music thats "art", not everything someone makes is art. Second, Ive heard wonderfull music by people that are not formally trained, that cannot read music and that worked basically by ear. And I have heard really boring music by people that have music degrees. And if you like your music, and other people like your music, who really cares if you cant read and write it?
in fact, it's indisputable that the number of great composers and great works of art has substantially declined and will continue to do so. Is technology to blame for this decline, or has is it a combination of the prevalant ambivalence and general malaise towards intellectualizing an art form that had been advancing and evolving as a direct result of such intellectualization for centuries?
Ive heard the same thing said about artists, actors and films and TV and its exactly the same argument.
Where are all the Marolin Monrows, the Gene kellys, or even Alfred Hitchcocks? Where are the Mozarts, the Beethovens? Where are the Da Vincies, or Michelangelos or Picassos?
Ive heard the same argument about the downfall of film making just because there are thousands of cable channels making crap TV shows. But this is exactly the same issue with giving anyone who wants to compose music the tools to do the job. You will ALWAYS have a load of BAD music when that happens, and with more TV choice there will ALWAYS be more BAD films and dramas and comedys made. You cant look at that, ayou have to look at the cream of the crop and there are very good composers around and there are really good film makers and actors around. Many brilliant artists now work in films and games, and most people never see their art in an art gallery to be admired for itself.
Ed