Is there any board as uneducated in its subject matter than Sup Forums?
The majority of the posters here seem to have little to no understanding of theory, nor any worthwhile understanding of musical history. Most of them don't even play an instrument.
This is a board for high schoolers who wish to use music as a fashion accessory so they can appear interesting.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
musictheory.net
youtu.be
youtu.be
twitter.com
>Is there any board as uneducated in its subject matter than Sup Forums?
all of them.
/thread
Sup Forums might not have the most knowledge of film, but at least their shitposting is funny instead of obnoxious. /lit/ is actually well read, and /sci/ has a decent understanding of their subject matter. Although Sup Forums is shit most of them have an encyclopedic knowledge of video games. This board is the most oblivious and ignorant on the site hands down.
Yes I don't play any instrument (anymore. used to play piano in school) and have no idea about music theory or much about musical history.
So what?
Next up I have to be a screenwriter to be able to post in Sup Forums and a game developer for Sup Forums?
You cannot have any relevant understanding of music without understanding theory and the creative process.
>Although Sup Forums is shit most of them have an encyclopedic knowledge of video games.
no they dont lmao. im pretty sure that all of what you just said is bullshit
Yes, it sure is hard to have an in depth knowledge of a form of technology that's only been relevant since the 80s.
How do you not know theory when played piano?
Sup Forums is susceptible to newfags because a lot of people like music but few have taken the journey to true patricianship. its generally easy to tell who does and doesn't know what they're talking about on here.
No, there's just more elitists like you here.
Dear Diary
Today I had a really nice wank in the shower. Also OP was a faggot. Business as usual.
?????????
music theory's fer fuckin dweebs senpai, it's an ideological approach to music that serves only to hinder the songwriting process by putting it in a box
real musicians don't need that shit
Music is an extremely mathematical artform. All musicians use theory whether they've received formal training or discovered it themselves.
Pro Tip: One method is far faster than the other.
You know there's difference between having standards and elitism. All I can get from you is wanting a messy shitfest with no standards.
fuck off
we should bring back lurk moar, im sick of being surrounded by newfag plebs and their idiot opinions. i remember when newfags were shunned
>Sup Forums might not have the most knowledge of film, but at least their shitposting is funny instead of obnoxious
That still doesn't change the fact that most people who go on there have no experience in actual filmmaking, which is more or less the same as not playing an instrument. You're moving the goalposts here.
Sure!
uhm Sup Forums is one!
Ooh what's another, oh, /fa/!
Well that's two I can think of :^)
Film making is a mainly logistical process, it isn't the same as producing art. People who've never painted can never have the same level of appreciation for art as those who've done so for years.
But the entry barrier to competent filmmaking is much higher than competent music making, so Isn't it more understandable?
>music theory hinders the musician
Now I know you don't know shit. That's like saying Arabian numerals hinder the mathematicians.
>implying music is limited by the finite criteria that serves as the foundation of western (or any) music theory and isn't in fact made up of any and all conceivable variations in sound
>implying music theory has a comprehensive approach to timbre, or culture based auditory cues, or anything else found commonly in contemporary music
writing with music theory serves only to limit ones approach to the finite limits that that theory allows
So you think you can leave shits like circle of fifth and scales and make anything coherent? I bet you're a bleepfag.
addendum: it's outdated and the only people who put theory on a pedestal are those who can't write anything creative w/o it, any musician worth a shit in atleast the past century who knows theory uses theory as a tool and not a bible
>implying "coherent" isn't a subjective term
>implying coherence makes "good" music
I want post-modernist shitters to be shot
as a filmmaker I'm here to tell you that you're spouting bullshit right now
user dropping the redpills
kys
u wear a powdered wig under yr fedora?
Do you think this looks good?
>lauding middleschool level theory
>tonality in LITERALLY 2017
>/lit/ is actually well read
Can you do anything but shitposting?
>Is there any board as uneducated in its subject matter than Sup Forums?
Your answer can be found in this thread. This board is indeed severely uneducated, but pretty much all of the other media boards (Sup Forums, /lit/, etc.) give this one a run for its money.
how can you have internet access and still think this way
You cannot compare the subjects. With a subject like fitness, there is really no group of fitness fans who aren't also interested in the educational side of it. With music, most everyone involved is a fan and not interested in theory the same way the weebs on /jp/ are interested in watching anime and are hardly interested in its production.
Because all postmodernists ever did was to bring everything cherished down to the ground and reduced it to nothing but a mean to push their political agenda.
Pic related is the best piece of art ever produced when you apply postmodernist ideal to it and you can't tell me otherwise.
stop being an autistic baby
...
...
I'm not though. Art is subjective and I subjectively find that picture of shit to be the best piece of art in the world. There's no way you can prove me wrong.
>Pic related is the best piece of art ever produced when you apply postmodernist ideal to it and you can't tell me otherwise.
ok. :^)
calm down
oh wow i've never seen this highly insightful essay before 8)
You have no argument.
@72938862
>You
i was never arguing with you
nice get by the way
>@
what the fuck?
get out of here you mongoloid
Because it's fucking impossible to defend postmodernism. It's not that you weren't arguing, it's that you can't argue about it.
why are you so upset?
@72938947
>he doesn't know the @ meme
I wonder who could be behind this post?
>tfw actually study music
>tfw could probably write bach chorales to harmonize the shitty arguments in this thread
that would be pretty fucking autistic
All other types of media (lit, film, etc) require more understanding- a book is hundreds of pages, films are an hour and a half or longer, even tv episodes are give or take half an hour. Modern music is give or take five minutes a song. Music is the most accessible media, and can be discussed with base knowledge (melodies, structure, production).
bach was pretty autistic m8
I'm not upset. Just stating the truth.
See, all you can do is just trying to move the goalpost in hope of ad hominem instead of defending postmodernism in its own right. You very well know that postmodernism was toxic and cancerous to art as whole regardless of the medium.
lol you can think what you want, buddy! 8)
Can you explain what you believe about postmodernism and how it affected art? You've never answered any of my questions.
music, as with any and all "art", can be judged in a multitude of ways depending on the relevant criteria (context, emotional response {subjective}, cultural awareness, etc.); subsequently -music is subjective-. Classical music, judged from the criteria of music theory, is "good music," (most would argue) as it was written through the criteria by which it is being judged. contemporary and lots of "foreign" music through the same lens is generally labelled "bad music". Now I know ~you~ might argue all contemporary music is shit, but the correct way to analyze contemporary / some nonwestern music is with an intersectional criteria as opposed to just "muh theory."
Just because you can't analyze music outside of one narrow, outdated ideological school of thought doesn't make it bad, you just aren't smart enough to get it
im not even the same person you were talking to fyi
I am
It's common knowledge that nobody on Sup Forums actually plays videogames.
yipee, at least Sup Forums is better than Sup Forums
That's a fair point, but with that logic, me clapping for 3 minutes could be considered a music to rival everything past last 3 decades because it might be special to someone.
Music theory still applies to a lot contemporary music (jazz, rock, electronic) and it helps it being more organized and complex. To disregard it completely because it's "outdated" is just as ignorant as saying all contemporary music is shit.
>implying I said to disregard it completely
your "argument" is disintegrating.
in fact, yes, you clapping for 3 minutes -could- be considered amazing music if contextually it held some sort of ambitious value outside of "lol im gna clap for 3 minutes and put it on soundcloud."
yes, it helps music be more "organized", but not more complex persay, only more complex within theory's own confines. Theory also can only attribute a certain type(s) of "organization," whereas music can be eccentrically organized in plenty of ways that music theory wouldn't allow.
It's outdated to analyze music stringently based solely or predominantly on music theory, as you are trying to argue, to do so is to be a meritless pseudo intellectual elitist fuckboi
>Although Sup Forums is shit most of them have an encyclopedic knowledge of video games
Yeah, because they read the Wikipedia articles about the games they pretend they've played.
>Sup Forums shitposting
>funny
Yea those endless BLACKED, BRAAP, and cunny threads sure are hilarious. At least Sup Forums has original shitposting that can actually turn into discussion
You know, needing a context that's not present within the music itself to validate as to whether or not it's good shows that disregarding music theory for whatever the choice you've made while writing the music is just a proof that you lack fundamentals and basis.
I mean, I'm not sure what kind of music you're thinking of that sounds good while it's impossible to have music theory applied to it. Abandoning music theory and any classical means of producing music in favor of a Gerogerigegege clone is just destructive and unconstructive
>theory
>present within the music itself
>not an ideology that music is written to and within
>implying theory doesn't entirely disregard qualities intrinsic in nearly all music anyways
>theory
>a fundamental
>implying music sans theory can only result in noise derivatives
>"destructive and unconstructive"
jeez do you read this shit before you post it
learning to paint was one of the worst things I ever did because it made me hate artists.
Music theory, contrary to its name, isn't a theory. It's a musical language to help you understand how a piece is written and how to write it. Say, a Japanese harp song from hundred years ago can have music theory applied to it. African drum beats can have music theory applied to it thanks to key signatures. Me talking could have music theory applied to it because pitch and octaves. If it's impossible to arrange a music in a sheet, it's probably an incoherent mess.
I'm starting to think you have a flawed understanding of music theory.
addendum - music without "context thats not present within the music itself" is just sound(s)
music, and art for that matter, can -only- be digested with context, whether it be ideological, cultural, experiential, or etc.
art, fundamentally, is -applied- through "context." without context, art ceases to exist. it is an intersectionality between experience and preconceptions, or "context."
If I didn't know who wrote a song and what events they were going through in their life the moment a piece was being written, I can't enjoy it?
Are you saying it's impossible for you to enjoy a song you've never heard before?
I edit film, produce music, and paint. You're full of shit. It's all a huge process of vomiting as many ideas out as sketches, loops, underpaintings, etc. and weeding through the least compelling results until you find something particularly inspiring.
the word context being used here applies to anything to be juxtaposed to the music (ie music theory)
you're missing the point.
"If it's impossible to arrange a music in a sheet, it's probably an incoherent mess."
Fuck lol that's some normie ass notion of musicality, what point are you trying to make? Whether a theory or a language (it's not a language btw), it's an ideology nonetheless. a collection of ideas (fundamentally non-comprehensive in nature) around a given notion or phenomenon, that will always fall short in the endeavor of fully encapsulating or fathoming what it intends to, as a collection of ideas or notions about a specific point will never contain every possible idea or notion applicable.
I agree
However, I somewhat disagree with this. Learning theory has actually made producing music a lot faster. I don't really keep in mind the rules and I'm never like "oh I know a V7 would sound best here"...I just kinda look at the scales/chord leading rules and experiment with harmony/melody until I find something I like. I feels a lot like sculpting...I might start with a basic bassline of half notes and then later modify the rhythm once I have a better idea as to what the drums sound like. I'm also trying to make money in an actual band and being able to crank out convincing sounding Goth/Post Punk revival tracks in less than a day is proving to be valuable considering the hipster resurgence/appropriation of dark music genres.
probably would if it wasn't a blurry as fuck screenshot
The ethos of most of the music that the uneducated population of Sup Forums discusses is not educated on music theory or """proper""" music knowledge (however you wish to define having a proper background music knowledge) so it balances out
That's how most music is nowadays, even the good kind is based on the body rather than the mind
I honestly don't know how you understand music theory as but I can tell you it's wrong.
Say, a high E note is a high E note. That's not an idea it's a fact. If a song is unable to be transcribed in a sheet, I'm not sure if it can qualify as a music. An ancient Hebrew folk hymn written before music theory was even a thing can be applied by music theory. Can you give me an example of a song that cannot be transcribed via music theory you consider it to be good?
a high e note refers to a specific frequency that theory deems a high e note, yes. if a song, for example, operates on frequencies outside of western theory's notes (microtonal, some oriental music, etc.). Whether theory accounts for all frequencies, I'm unsure of, though it's irrelevant to my argument.
I never attempted to make the point that there is good music that exists that cannot be transcribed via theory (though there absolutely is, I'm just not about to waste my time proving it to you), simply that a large portion of music can only be analyzed inefficiently via theory, as it can only account for certain facets of meritability in music, which is why an intersectional, contemporary (postmodern?) approach is more comprehensive and efficient.
"If a song is unable to be transcribed in a sheet, I'm not sure if it can qualify as a music."
nah lol that's wrong
>Is there any board as uneducated in its subject matter than Sup Forums?
Sup Forums by a wide margin
Well, I mean if you only use one tuning...You realize there are tones in between tones, right? You could approach an F from an E infinitely without ever reaching an F.
>microtonal music can't have music theory applied
>oriental music can't have music theory applied
youtu.be
I feel like you're not confident as to why you won't give me an example of a music that can't have music theory applied to it. A single youtube link can't take too long.
And I'm not too keen on what you meant by a contemporary approach to analyze music. Are you talking about tabs or something?
/thread
a contemporary approach:
analyzing music for lyricism, irony (outside of lyricism), cultural cues, as well as a vast, endless myriad of other abstract qualities
fine, an easy example is noise music, particularly harsh noise
>inb4 noise isnt music
noise music has inherent distinguishing qualities that one familiar w/ the genre can use to analyze the multifaceted quality of a release relative to other releases.
Music has inherent quality outside of strictly those designated by theory
Those different approaches are what people have been doing for years for poems.
Noise is a small exception. I'm certain that there is more music that can be applied with music theory than the ones you can't, unless you treat every sounds as music on its own. And honestly, a classical symphony is much more pleasant to listen to and demanding to produce than a noise track, and perhaps shoegaze on a bigger scale.
I play the guitar and piano, I also compose music on a daily basis.
you're still conceding your entire argument for the second time. there IS an exception, you now acknowledge, except that still wasnt even the point i was making. A very, very large portion of contemporary, non classical music is best analyzed intersectionally and without a predominance placed on music theory (and most "good" music, I'd argue, though that's subjective, as is your statement on a classical symphony being more pleasant than a noise track, not that "pleasant" music even translates to "good" music)
So again, what's your point?
Are you only arguing so you don't have to feel like you were wrong or what?
Have you ever produced a classical symphony? Have you ever created a noise album? If not how would you know which is more difficult?
If you aren't analyzing how the music sounds, you might as well as be analyzing a second rate poem. I'm having a hard time understanding your view. Do you believe that classical music is only type of music where music theory can be applied appropriately?
It's easier to buy a lot of pedals and effectors and DAW than organizing an entire orchestra.
Fake news.
this is the last time I'm replying to you, because yet again you're missing the point. most music can be analyzed w/ theory, but not theory alone, otherwise you risk completely missing the point and subsequent merit of said music.
and not to say that making a noise release is easier than writing a symphony, but you can put as much work as you'd like into either. It takes time, tact, trial and error to be a harsh noise musician worth a shit, as it's nearly always improvised (the kind I'm referring to, atleast). It can be time consuming to write a symphony, but if you have the prerequisitive knowledge necessary you could write a lengthy yet insipid and lukewarm symphony with little effort. this logic obviously goes both ways but your medium holds little merit over any other medium, unless you're going to go the route of trying to establish some transparent objectivity to the quality of music again for the sake of your powdered wig circlejerk bullshit
>powdered wig circlejerk bullshit
Honestly I can now see where you're coming from.
You never conventionally and traditionally understood theory. You keep on saying contemporary music doesn't need theory, but every jazz musician worth a shit knows theory.
Noise doesn't take effort. I can sample a chainsaw engine or something, loop it hundred times over a filter, and that'll legit pass. Classical composing takes skill and experience. The audacity that you have to even compare asinine experimental bullshit to classical masterpieces is just impressive. Though I want to you to understand if you have no basis and roots and all you ever do is experiment, it loses its merits.
Learning and putting effort into understanding music intimidates you. That's why you take the easy route of "at least I tried" postmodernist bullshit.
Classically trained musician here to agree with you.
Other guy does seem butthurt about never taking the time to gain a grasp of theory. People like that are like the cutfags of music
The worst part is that they assume they know everything theory has to offer when they don't at all.
If I said 1984 is a heartwarming novel and family because I read the line "I love the big brother", can you take me seriously?
Holy shit you're a ignorant asshat masturbating to the idea that classical is the most complex and the most difficult music to compose. The fact that you think you can just buy pedals, a chainsaw and loop shit to make a great noise album shows how pathetic you are in your perception and knowledge of music. I'm sure you listened to Pulse Demon but try to understand the rhythmic complexity and the dynamics of the song structure and how the sounds interact with each other.
Yeah babby tell me after you've listened to actual music.
Also
>understand the rhythmic complexity and the dynamics of the song structure and how the sounds interact with each other
That's literally what music theory is for.
How dis nigga gone understand the rhythmic complexity and how the sounds interact with each other without music theory?
Music theory basically IS how sounds interact with each other. Unrelated, but what blew my mind was how the frequencies themselves have little impact on the sound (besides how muddy vs. easy to hear it is), but that it's the intervals between the tones that cause you to feel a certain way.
However, music theory, as far as I've ever studied it, does not take into account or place much importance on anything beyond frequency, volume, and time/rhythm. Of course, these make up the bulk of what is important to music, though I'll concede that other factors can impact your interpretation of a piece (a very basic example, a song being played by an orchestra may attract different people for different reasons than the same song being played, note for note, with rock band instrumentation).
I don't know what user you think I am but I love music theory and I use it all the time when listening to music to explain why I like it. And I've listened to "real music". Music I consider better than what you posted. The Rite of Spring, for example. But that's just me homie.