I don't need to know music theory, theory kills creativity!

>I don't need to know music theory, theory kills creativity!

yea boiiiiiii
I'll just keep sampling cool noises until I get a masterpiece
where's your god now?

Go be a nigger somewhere else

nah, I like your thread

Art doesn't need rules. What's your problem OP?

>rules
Theory is the language, not the rule.

My problem is with people like you who thinks theory is "rules"

It worked for Lennon and McCartney.

post your music then mr.music theory fag

...

Theory is used to deconstruct and analyze works of music, not synthesize them

Music theory isn't about rules you fucking moron

"Theory" is not needed necessarily but you gotta be a full on tard to think it stifles creativity in any way.
>McCartney
>not knowing theory
guy is a full blown virtuoso m8 are you kidding

absolute nonsense
do you think mozart just picked some random notes that sounded good and that's how he made his requiem you stupid fag

It depends. The more theory you know the less random the music is. Of course Mozart didnt pick random notes, he had to pick from a key signature, and then a series of cadences. But everything else is pretty much picking randomly from the choices available .

I hope this is bait but I know there are people who actually believe this nonsense
hell, I believed it too when I was 14 and listening to pink floyd

Yeah he started with the framework but he probably had an intuitive understanding of it like most of the greats do. It's not something he would have had to think about unless something sounded wrong

Theory is something applied to music, nobody said you sit down with the scales and analyze the most scientifically pleasing harmonies possible on the paper. However, to say that it exists to "deconstruct and analyze rather than synthesize" is flat out retarded. It really is.

I make music with Max/MSP so I honestly couldn't care less. Generally mathematics is more applicable to me. Just trying to contribute to the discussion

You can learn theory through listening/playing a shitload, especially if you have a good ear. It's how The Beatles and Radiohead break diatonic harmony just about every song even if they technically do not know theory.

Omg this like wtf op you old ass conservaturd glumdpffff supporter leik omg wtf

Libertarian channel you mean

Aside from the fact that Jonny has studied theory?

Most of the songs are written by thom

>>McCartney
>>not knowing theory
He didn't. Look it up

Most songs are started off by Thom, who has no technical knowledge, then Jonny helps developing around it, and then Ed, Colin and Phil contribute to it and play their parts - and they too lack technical knowledge.

There's one track in Amnesiac where it's started off a bassline that Colin was playing alongside an Alice Coltrane record, I think, then Jonny took that bassline and built around it.

Given theory is just naming things that already exist in music, I reckon he's referencing McCartney's super sharp ear.

>everything gets done thousands of years ago
>"I came up with this cause I avoided theory" t. guy from 1990

show me one breakbeat tune from thousands of years ago
i'll wait

>brainlet still thinks all music operates within the confines of formalization
my field recordings would like a word with you

Requiem is fucking shite btw kiddo

Field recording os literally not music

FURTHER
PROOF

If anything the guys that push their music theory bullshit are the fedoralords

FURTHER
PROOF

t. brainlet

This. Theory is a spook just do what you want

who cares he is dead anyway

Define music.

delete this

t. retard

before I found Sup Forums i found myself drowning in an intellectual quagmire.

>I reckon he's referencing McCartney's super sharp ear.
So user misspoke.

>make shitpost thread on Sup Forums
>28 autists start arguing for no reason

>no reason

>do you think mozart just picked some random notes that sounded good
Actually, he literally did that with dices.

...

source

Google "Musikalisches Würfelspiel"

okay so the game was published by mozarts publisher and is not confirmed to be created by mozart himself and it was only a game and not a full composition

He looks like a giant thumb with a face.

Most people who dont know theory make derivative music because they just try to imitate what theyve heard.
Its like trying to do physics without studying it. Most people will end up repeating already made discoveries

>Most people will end up repeating already made discoveries
But scientists generally try to replicate experiments to make sure data is correct. It's part of the scientific method.

That's a completely different thing though and you know it. Replicating an experiment is equivalent to using music theory to replicate the effect or style of another work.

>That's a completely different thing though and you know it
So is science and music you dumb fuck

>cant follow an analogy
>calls others dumb

Brainlet

It was a poor analogy because science attempts to find universal truths using the scientific process.

Music is art, which is just self expression from an artist that requires no rhyme or reason

if music doesnt require rhyme or reason than why does music theory exist? are you a retarded person?

>why does music theory exist?
How does music theory describe musique conrete?

Also music theory is descriptive not prescriptive. Did you forget that?

>Music is art, which is just self expression from an artist that requires no rhyme or reason

You cant be this stupid? Music theory literallh explains everything that is physically happening when someone plays musics or makes any noise. Explaining why you like or dont like something is also relatively common place psychology and neuroscience. Literature is far harder to explain scientifically than music.

>Music theory literallh explains everything
See

what's your fav chord progression and why

t. retard who doesnt know a thing of music theory

Idiotic statement made by people with nk knowledge of theory. Theory is a framework. The best example of theory in prescription is Jazz theory. Whenever a trained Jazz musician is blasting a solo he is utlizing his knowledge of harmonic and rhythmic theory in the spot. Doesn't mean you cant do it without theory, but knowing theory makes you a better improviser. Just knowning what scales to use on top of the chord changes is use of theory as a prescriptive exercise.

is that why jazz all sounds the same?

>Theory is a framework.
Wrong. See >Whenever a trained Jazz musician is blasting a solo he is utlizing his knowledge of harmonic and rhythmic theory in the spot
Not exactly. Theory is used as a common language between Jazz musicians in order to perform and improvise.

I think it's you who don't understand what music theory is.

Thats a stupid question asked by a stupid person. I doubt anyone has a favorite chord progression to listen to in every context. But there's definitely chord progressions you prefer to use in certain contexts because of how they facilitate playing. There's a reason 2-5-1 was so popular in Jazz. It made it easy to play bop scales as they sound good all the time with them. Again, theory is a tool that makes playing music easier to make and play.

>Again, theory is a tool that makes playing music easier to make and play.
Not all artists use or even know music theory though

Brainlet.
Although, i understand most people have a hard understanding what's happening in a jazz track.

Yes, that's why I said "easier". You dont actually need to know high level physics to make a new discovery, but it's extremely useful. Knowing theory makes learning how to play an instrument and writing songs easier. Also, most of those musicians that say they dont know theory are still aware and most likely use low level theory like the circle of fifths.

>jazz musicians uses theory while playing a solo
>calls him wrong but then says they use theory as a language to communicate jazz

>Knowing theory makes learning how to play an instrument and writing songs easier.
Not really. it's even easier to just pound out three random chords and call it a song.
>most of those musicians that say they dont know theory are still aware and most likely use low level theory like the circle of fifths.
Nice goalpost shifting

>not following the conversation
Shouldn't you be practicing your instrument instead of making yourself look like a fool?

Not the same person, brainlet

>Not really. it's even easier to just pound out three random chords and call it a song.
Stupidest thing i've read. If you actually believe this, it's not honestly not worth talking to you. No autodidact will ever tell you its better to learn an instrument without theory. Literally no one who's had the choice has done that. Theory is literallly the refined and optimize way to learn to play whatever instrument. By going against your making it harder on yourself. The people who did it did so out of necessity or lack of resources and they dont really go around promoting it and if they became succesful enough they then learned theory to a degree.

Also, that isnt goalpoasting its a "by the way". I havent changed my thesis.

>I have no argument
>better just call people barinlets instead
kek
>No autodidact will ever tell you its better
"Better" Irrelevant
The only thing that matters is what the artist wants to create. As long as it's their vision seen through until the end, it's better
>By going against your making it harder on yourself.
How would you "go against theory"? What tenants of music theory advise right and wrong?

t does all sound the same though, sorry jazzlet

so you can't explain why you like or don't like anything
gj, theoryman

not the guy you are responding too, but I am just curios, what makes you so confident to talk about something that you obviously have no basic understanding of?

What makes you think I have no understanding of something I use every time I play in any of the four bands I'm in?

Theory as in the designed and agreed upon way to learn how to make and play music.
Also
>The only thing that matters is what the artist wants to create. As long as it's their vision seen through until the end, it's better
Yeah, your extremely narrow vision limited by your lack of understading of your instrument, the way music works and the history of music.
How about you go code or write a book in your own special snowflake language. I bet it will so good to you; doesn't matter what anybody else thinks right.
Goodbye you fucking brainlet.
Funniest thing i'd bet you're probably trying to learn guitar by watching youtube videos and think you've manage to bypass theory. Pathetic that anyone would actually try to argue against the benefits of theory; it's baffling how stupid people can be. Wouldn't suprise me if you're America neither.

Guys, look at this pleb

Literally gave an example. Why do brainlets have such bad reasing comprehension.

>dude its just noise lmao, play Future

>Theory as in the designed and agreed upon way to learn how to make and play music.
Not by everyone.
>I bet it will so good to you; doesn't matter what anybody else thinks right.
Yes, that is exactly the point. I'm glad you understand
>Funniest thing i'd bet you're probably trying to learn guitar by watching youtube videos and think you've manage to bypass theory
But I know and use music theory every day. Are you just out of arguments?

How did you manage to come to a conclusion that you don't need music theory to improve on yourself as a musician? It's no you since you know theory, so what's your reference?

>How did you manage to come to a conclusion that you don't need music theory to improve on yourself as a musician?
Goalpost shifting

I'm a different user, I'm just curious.

Fair enough.

Quote me where I said that then

what's one piece of music you like and why do you like it

>Not by everyone.

Yes, everyone actually agrees that theory is the best way to learn music. Those who disagree dont actually know theory and therefore cant speak about its uses and benefits. Also, you cant even play something that isnt properly described by music theory if you dont know what is described by theory.

>Yes, everyone actually agrees that theory is the best way to learn music
What about musique concrete?

>you cant even play something that isnt properly described by music theory if you dont know what is described by theory.
such bullshit
i am playing a snare drum i just made
is it described by theory? nope, not yet anyway

I like the Macarena cause I heard it when I was 5 and associate it with my childhood and family.
Guess what, i just used music theory to explain why i enjoy a piece of music. If you cant see how thats music theory that just goes to show that you dont even know what music theory encompasses and what it applies to.

that's not music theory user

>Also, you cant even play something that isnt properly described by music theory if you dont know what is described by theory

The people who first played musique concrete and called it such knew more about theory than any of us here

>i just used music theory to explain why i enjoy a piece of music
You didn't

Try charting it out and analyzing the chord sequence, as well as the polyrhythm

It literally is user.

Yeah that's probably true

But that user shifted his argument, from "music theory is an essential framework!!" to "music theory is a useful descriptive tool"

>i like it because hurr durr i heard it once
is not music theory

stop this tomfoolery

That wouldnt have explained why I like it which is what you asked for. Also, what would be the point of doing of any of that when that's readily available information online. What would it prove?