People who know a lot about musical theory, what mucore bands are trash

...

all of them

By this theory, all of hip hop is trash because of their lack of chord progressions, or just simple ones.

Merzbow is trash. 90% of BoC catalogue is just 1 sheet music page long, just repeat it again and again.

Going off of this chart:
Weezer
HANL
Modest Mouse
Smashing Pumpkins
Deerhunter
AnCo

to start with
t. person who doesn't know music theory

>AnCo

You didn't listen to STGSTV, and don't pretend you did because there are great piano compositions in that album.

Trash is subjective. Rules are in place to be broken, classical composers did this all the time.

>there are great piano compositions in that album.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Listen if we're talking about MPP then sure, there's lots of interesting chromatic songwriting going on. Even on Sung Tongs.

But early AnCo is garbage. They have no musical knowledge, they're just fucking around. The piano music sounds like just random notes with no understanding of what voice leading works.

I repeat.

t. person who doesn't know music theory

>someone can be this much of a pompous ass without giving any sort of argument

I refuse to believe.

tful282

All the non-theory knowing jocks at my school listen to them all the time and it drives me nuts I hate that quirky fucking band it's just bullshit noise

What's your argument?

classical composers at least were aware of the rules though, and probably knew exactly when they were breaking them.

Classical composers only broke the rules in a way that was itself thoroughly structured and thought out, creating new rules.

>to start with
post more familia

that's not how music theory works

radiohead has some pretty interesting things going on theory wise in some of their songs, mostly after ok computer, their first two albums are mostly kind of typical progressions and typical form. jonny greenwood is mostly responsible for the really trippy stuff, but thom comes up with some cool stuff too even though he can't read music. pyramid song is really interesting rhythmically, i still don't know exactly how they count it, or if they even do count it. they use a lot of interesting harmonies in their songs too.

neutral milk hotel is really basic stuff, but that's part of the charm i guess. could say the white stripes are pretty boring theory wise too, but again that's part of the charm. saying something is bad theory wise because it's basic is kind of dumb though.

>Smashing Pumpkins
fuck you

k

DFA1979
Crystal Castles
Gorrilaz
Brand New
maybe Wilco probably Wilco it's been a while
Nirvana of course
QOTSA
Pavement
Blur
AJJ but that's kinda the point
The Smiths
The Who
The Pixies
Joy Division
The Clash basically
I'd argue Led Zeppelin but controversial
Rolling Stones
Fleetwood Mac and REM too
BOB FUCKING DYLAN
Wu Tang
Dre
Frank Ocean
only particularly Earth for Metal but I'd argue all Metal music is garbage because of the monotonous timbres

I probably missed some that I only heard once, didn't like, and moved on from. but that's rough thoughts

>saying something is bad theory wise because it's basic is kind of dumb though.
well I'm the person with the lists and I say it's bad theorywise either because it's incredibly uninspired and derivative or otherwise because it's poorly handled in voice leading or harmony or other factors

>I'd argue Led Zeppelin but controversial

ehh. john paul jones knew his shit, and jimmy page wrote some cool stuff. ten years gone is a very very well put together song

about 95% of hip-hop/pop and indie folk is mind numbingly boring if you've studied music, metal is a really broad term, but most thrash, stoner, drone and black is pretty boring theory-wise too (even though I still like some of it)

this chart is bullshit, kanye is top-tier Sup Forumscore and King Crimson isn't?! fuck that shit...

Music theory is trash.

nobody talks about KC
everyone talks about Kanye
has your mom gone to bed yet?

I believe you've stumbled into the wrong board, this is the music board...

music theory is just a theory........

doesn't matter what you know, what matters is how you use it

I see just as many people talk about KC as NMH generally, also kanye is objectively garbage...
like gravity?

woah that's so deep man I can tell you eat at the nice lunchtable with the inntellectuals ~:)))

>jocks
>tful282

he's not Sup Forums core, but eric clapton writes extremely boring music and he's just a bore to listen to play guitar. i don't know why anyone listens to him. the only good stuff he did was in cream, after that the only good song he ever wrote was tears in heaven.

Probably not.

The thing we delineate and call the human species is a tiny clustering of points in a grand mechanical waterfall. Music theory attempts to define and approximate how the mind and its machinery does and can function, but it's a fruitless endeavor prone to inducing delusion.

Ultimately, the majority of whatever people have made a box around and called "x" theory is nonsense box building for the sake of box building. Music theory is more about physics and what the universe is capable of. It is not a good cognitive tool, and therefore, it should be rejected.

I mean seriously, for fuck's sake. I actually heard someone talking about "sampling theory" the other day. Yes, the goddamn universe allow the building of measurement device to sample a given phenomena, whether continuous or quantized. Yes those underlying mechanics create limitations and a few relatively fixed principles. You don't need to call it a "theory", it's superfluous and will slowly make you myopic while it clutters up your mind with superfluous garbage and cripples you with semantic issues that are really non-issues.

Fuck music theory. Use boxes where necessary.

I like My Eric Clapton like I like my coffee... I don't (Cream can make it bearable though)

>31 replies
>the thread has already turned into pic related
Great job OP, never seen someone spark a fight faster.

yes jocks

they play the operation over and over again in the school cafeteria and they make everyone mouth the words. It pisses me to no end.

okay, time for night night jimmy, glad to see that english tutor is starting to pay off, might think about music lessons next...

so wait what criteria does Sup Forums use to rate bands?

subjective of course

>rate
You're watching how dumb people function. Remember, it's just a window into another world, and you should stay on the other side.

if i like it or not, the theory doesn't matter. that's really all that matters.

>Great job OP, never seen someone spark a fight faster.
The elitism of the fags who know music theory crossed with the elitism of the fags who don't (but secretly wish they did) is like nitrogen and glycerine.

Their shouldn't be a criteria. at least in the objective sense.

Attempting to quantify what is fundamentally unquantifiable (aesthetic value) is ridiculous. Numbered ratings are even more ridiculous.

That said, if you want to use yourself as the figurative "universe" in this sense (what I mean by is that you are the creator of an objective foundation from which to operate from. Like the universe has its laws of physic, you have your "laws of value" or whatever), by all means, but don't pretend your value is an objective value that has universal explanatory power, like an actual scientific theory.

>Their

*There

>fundamentally unquantifiable (aesthetic value)
It can be quantified given a certain degree of knowledge about a given system. If you had intimate and near complete knowledge of how the brain works, and its precise state at a certain point in time, you could devise a metric to judge its response to the complete spectrum of possible inputs it's capable of registering.

Infeasible, but not necessarily fundamentally impossible.

...

I don't see how your multi-frame gif relates to my post.

we can judge people's response to stimuli, even if they lie about liking something you can monitor brain waves, heart rate, pupil dilation... but do you run the study on what high school drop out respond to? professors? active music creators? babies? people who pretend to be interested in music because it improves their chances of finding a mate?

You all should try this it out. This was the first record he plays on that made me understand how he even got the reputation he has... It's also one of the best electric blues albums I've heard.

exactly

>Theory makes something good
You're fucking stupid, OP. You probably hate Beethoven's Grosse Fuge

I'm talking about a more idealistic, low level mechanistic approach to judging what features are generating a given individual's higher experience. This would be based around the full spectrum of possible outcomes for a person relative to a given starting state. eg, by some metric something could start out "worse", but this would give it the capacity to over time be the absolute best.

We'd be necessarily taking into account all sensory input as well. Visual, tactile, motion, etc. Obviously the metric here is arbitrary and inherently fuzzy around the edges as people's emotions and mental state is multifaceted and often contradictory, but we're going for quantifiable.

You'd probably a clustering of low level pathways, and traits, across certain populations.

Anything with syncopation.

like jazz? nice try.

I think this thread could've been good if the opposite question were asked:

Which Sup Forumscore albums appeal to theoryfags?

I'd say put Kind of Blue and Meme Supreme up there next to Trout Mask Replica.

Omar's guitarwork on De-Loused is definitely adventurous, melodically, compared to most of the conventional diatonic shit here, it seems.

There are only like 3 common chord progressions in popular music.

this would have made for a better thread, but here we are... also King Crimson - ITCOCK and Red, Miles - Bitches Brew and Kind of Blue, Yes - Close to the Edge, Zappa - Hot Rats, Converge - Jane Doe, Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon, Vangelis - Bladerunner, Flying Lotus - Cosmogramma, Mastodon - Leviathan, Cynic - Focus, Atheist - Unquestionable Presence, Death - Human, Opeth - Blackwater Park, Maudlin of the Well - Bath, and BTBAM - Colors would all be much higher on this: questionable list.

What's your argument ?

how much i enjoy it

That isn't how music theory works. It describes the music, it can't evaluate quality. Anyone who tries to tell you different is a pretentious dumbass.

this

This entire thread is retarded

>pretty boring theory-wise too (even though I still like some of it)
this is why appeals to music theory are retarded. music theory tries to deduce musical structure and elements but should never overpower the subjective musical experience.

also most people's conception of music theory are stupidly basic. there's more to it than naming chords and pointing out basic patterns, especially if you delve into the physical phenomena of sound itself

Welcome to Sup Forums

but something about this one really rubs me wrong

This is why I said above it's more about physics.

I see little reason to delineate it into its own category, or artificially constraining the scope it's actually more logically part of.