cash

What sort of aliens are we talking about?

some people think that music theory is not necessary, and will hinder your composition abilities... EDIT: i regret the use of the word formal in my initial post. I do believe that artists in general should try to learn as much about the music as possible, whether that be from a text book, or a web site (http://www.musictheory.net/), or just from playing. The greats, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie, don't need any more music theory because they know the ins and outs of the music they play. For a lot of artists elementary knowledge in music theory wood take their music to a new level

Imagination and creativity always seem to be more important than knowledge of theory and your technical skill on the instrument on the professional level, this is why: Anyone in the whole world can become a virtuoso guitar, piano, bass, or drum player. Music theory and your technical skill as a musician can be learned, whereas originality and creativity cannot be taught, and therefore are deemed more valuable. I also think that Imagination and creativity come easy to people, everyone can use their imagination, whereas one must put in effort to learn the theory, nobody likes to put effort

try piano, and that helps your theory more than playing any other instrument actually. Just because its so visual and you can do everything on your own. I played trombone for the longest time and it wasn't until i started to play piano that things really started making sense to me. I took A.P. Theory in high school and fell in love with it. Starting spetember I'll have an independent Theory class where it's just me and my teacher because I've taken every theory class my school has to offer

Neil young may have not considered himself a technical player, but for his style of music, he had the ability to express his musical thoughts. He was happy with it, I (am a huge neil young fan) am happy with it, everybody liked his simpleness. I have the entire young collection at my house (sheet music) and I can tell you that Neiler knew his shit (particularly his use of 7th chords, see cowgirl in the sand). Theory doesn't have to be scales, chord progressions, or cadences if you don't want it to. Neil played a lot and discovered a lot on his own. What frustrates me is when people think tha

Do you know a chord is three notes or more? Do you know to modulate is to change key? Do you know what key your even playing in? Have you ever listened to beethoven? Can you play a scale? Do you know the difference between a major and minor scale? Do you know what forte means? If you answered yes to five or more of those thenyou know the rudiments of music theory! If an artist is tempted to show off his ability in his music, and therefore loses some creativity from doing it, I don't think they'll make it anywhere. Here again you seem to think that technical ability and orignality cannot

*edit* The broader question that I meant to pose was whether the world needs more theory, as I feel it is unappreciated by modern artists. I feel that if Jeff picked up some theory (more than he already has) his songwriting would improve beyond his current level of ability. Do you beleive that a fundemental knowledge of theory paired with creativity will yeild better results than creativity all alone? The debate boils down to this: Skill and Originality. I aknowedge that one needs both to master the art of music. Some people feel that skill, diligence, and hard work will not only fail to i

Just because they didn't go to school to study music doesn't mean they all weren't incredibly well veresed in theory. John Coltrane wrote some of the craziest stuff on the planet, to say he did not understand the intracisies of jazz would be a gross misstatment. (And he played in high school, under instruction of his chorus teacher is where he was first exposed to technically difficult songs).

I agree. But you must understand that the same is applicable if I switch the words up: But without theory and technical skill, inspiration, creativity and passion are almost useless. A musician can be creative inspired and passionate, but if he cannot apply his brilliance, there is no music to hear. You can have the craziest most original ideas in the whole damn world, but if you cannot manifest your thoughts into sound, you will have no music.

Just as gravity existed before Newton named it. Theory will tell you how to apply what your ear wants to hear. Having a good ear is great, and is half of theory, the other half is application. Theory is not a strict set of rules and regulations laid down in a stone tablet. It is an evolving science just as physics is. New ideas and rules are being added to the book as we speak, not necessarily by some professor at juliard, by everyone who's ever picked up an instrument and done something that they thinks sounds nice.

I'm scared that when the song does call for chromatic modulation, the artist won't know what to do and he will have missed an opportunity to make his music more colorful. I'm not forcing theory into songs, nothing should be forced in music.

How often does this happen? I agree. I would also like to add that knoweldge of theory combined with creativity and originality will produce the best music. A lack in either area will result in your music not living up to it's potential. Do you agree cryptique? I have a feeling that we're arguing apples and oranges. My point is essentially: theory is not given enough importance in modern music, and if it was, music would be better.

People often make the mistake that theory is linked to classical music. This is only so, because it is only readily applied to classical music, if more musicians took the time to learn the intricasies of their proffesion, we'd have a more diverse catolog to listen to. As for the "it's the end product that counts, not how you get there", i can't disagree more. the work that led up to the final product determines the final peice, so how can it not matter?!? Theory helps expands the artists aresenal of ideas, not limits them. The bigger the arsenal, the better your music will sound. I cannot

It would be foolish to disobey your ear to follow a rule. Often what your ear likes, what sounds good to you, is suggjested in theory. Music Theory is the science of what sounds or feels good. As for hakeneyed compositions, look at the majority rock bands today. We keep hearing those same chord progressions, the same key changes, the same bridgesl; had any of those bands had the least bit exposure to theory, they would have realized that they're using a formula to create music. I'm not saying wilco is one of those bands, by any means. A lot of my respect for tweedy comes from the fact that h

I know he's a Jazz musician. Before he was in Wilco I saw him do some cool stuff in Newark. All I know is that he's been exposed to a lot of musical technicians, and that's probably rubbed off on him. All jazz is is the rudiments of classical theory (ii V I) dressed up in as much fancy crazy no rules as possible, thats why a lot of people (the general populace of teenagers) find it difficult to listen to Jazz; its to complicated for their ear to comprehend. Those who can play jazz correctly (nels) know that it takes knowedge of the rules to break them properly.

I've had this sort of argument way too many times about other artists, and it's about time we discussed it here at VC. I'll start from the top: All of my non-theory oriented friends believe that knowledge in music theory really hinders musicians because they spend too much time abiding by the rules, they note that the great songwriters: bob dylan, neil young, never took a calssical theory course... I rebut by saying that those artists were naturally gifted, and had they learned more theory than they're songs could have been taken to a new level. It's about knowing the rules, and then consi

You can download the demo to see if you like it. You can use everything except for the save funtion. If you really like it (like it did) i got it on bit torrent (it's like 400 dollars otherwise). If you do, just don't sell your music! For educational purposes i think its fair to steal their program... And as this thread seems to be full of music theory nerds, who understands my signature? It's pretty basic, i think...

1. Shake it Off 2. Hotel Arizona 3. Dash 7 4. Shot in the Arm 5. Shake it off As for the people who dislike on and on and on, pieholden suite, or hesitating beauty... I have nothing to say to you

That's a cool idea, I just don't think I wanna take the time to figure out what Jeff is actually singing. If you wanna post your version or even just the original melody I'll join you in a friendly 4-part-on-and-on-and-on-chorale off. I'm using Sibelius 4 btw.

Lucky you! My favorite part about it is how Nels does truly appreciate where he is, and is loving every minute of it.

they did indeed do that once, i can't remember when. Maybe it depends on the number of minors in the audience...

dude keep that shit on the dl, next thing you know everyone will find out that tweedy's been lip-synching his entire career

shake it off is the worst song on the record (take a lesson from Bach: parallel motion is a no no). The best (imho) is on and on and on. As for the Tweedy playing with hisfan base thing, i really don't think so. If he was ever playing with his fan base it would be AGIB with "I'm a Wheel." Compared to those days Tweedy is way to happy of a guy to be spending time writing songs just so he could throw a curveball to his fans. Plus either way is a great song. I do think YAMF was leaked so that all of the fans who heard what light wouldn't go into hibernation waiting for the record after SBS th

Us poor new york fans who couldn't get tickets to the three shown they played around here because they sold out to fast never get any shows I'm moving to chicago