@@teun9380 Doing it practically is the best way. So get a book with the chord charts and go for it. I guess you could optimize how you practice that but it still just boils down to practicing.
I am unable to put into words how much I enjoy your videos so I’ll just say this, You have no idea how much you’ve impacted me as a musician. From the bottom of my heart, Thank you so, so, very much.
@@lifeontheledgerlines8394 Watching guitar player over and over is a pain in the arsh....when you want to learn the new bad ass riff the bandmate composed while taking a shit. But at least now that aI know some stuff I can figure out faster what's going on. I still have to figure out because no damn metalhead guitar player know the fuckall what they do. 😂 Just kidding....but the processes could really go faster whit a shared language.
I love what Adam says at 3:48 "It makes the auditory imagery louder." This is definitely something that I have noticed learning more about theory. It gives touchstone's to really understand what is happening in the music and to categorize the sounds into however the brain likes to file away these things be it through the manifestation of synesthesia or whatever else.
I am a recovering fearful anti-intellectual in some ways and I appreciate how y’all are articulating the value and the strength of theory here, especially how you describe it as tapping in to the sort of collective brain. One time I tried to build a table without knowing how to and for some reason I was unwilling to seek advice. I bought a door from a thrift store, sawed some fence posts in half with a hand saw, attached them to the door, braced it with 2x4’s and then watched the table completely collapse over the course of a week. I think I wanted to prove to myself that I was smart enough to intuit the design of something so simple as a table. But really it was ignorant, wasteful, egotistical and lazy to not just allow someone else’s hard work to pay off for me. Anyways, I think people sometimes/often think that genius or brilliance occurs in a vacuum and that our heroes like Beethoven, Brian Wilson, Joni Mitchell, etc were operating as free agents with vast intuitive intellects, but it’s probably much more true that they were just very good at learning.
Absolutely amazing conversation. As I’m taking lessons at Berklee, I’ve been noticing exactly what you guys are talking about - the “all head no body” affect. We think, design, and analyze through thought - when I’m focusing on the lessons and what the teacher wants - even in my private lesson, I find the feeling getting lost. I then play Gary Moore “I Got the Blues for You” and it sounds mechanical. The teacher was great, gave me some good feedback and graded me accordingly. It took me several weeks to figure out when I’m so deep in thought, I’m missing feeling and emotions - which is typically felt through the body - not the mind. I was completely disconnecting my emotions from my playing and it just sounded like a bunch of notes. This discussion really describes it well. There needs to be a balance of thought and emotions. Thanks guys!
Paul McCartney famously never wanted / dared to learn theory in case it messed with his intuition. But he knows what a G7 chord is by name and he also knows full well (before he even plays it) it wants to resolve to C, so as you say, he has theory anyway.
If you can pull through, though, then it can be an advantage further down the line to have gained an understanding of the basics by figuring them out by yourself. If someone does that all their life, of course they will eventually pick up lots of jargon.
Music theory is just putting names to it, so you can communicate about music more easily. But you can compose and create without it, using your ear, creativity and intuition.
Completely ignoring the title of the video, I thought that Ben was gonna go down the path of "when you present music making as this simple easy process, people will get discouraged when they try it and fail", which is also an important point, I think.
I had the same thought at first. It's pretty easy to get caught in this trap where you go "oh this isn't intuitively easy for me, I guess I don't have the talent for it!" and never push forward through the difficult bit, or never even try learning music to begin with. I honestly find Adam's videos super inspiring because none of the stuff he does is any kind of intuitive. If he can put this much effort into shitposting about 7:11 polyrhythms, surely I can put a couple of hours into learning Smoke on the Water.
You know, it's weird how a lot of people talk about music theory being a "head" thing. I mean, it definitely involves a huge amount of thinking and analyzing, but I've never come across any respectable and noteworthy textbook that didn't mention the necessity for PLAYING the concepts discussed and to USE YOUR EARS. All of my favorite books (which are generally based around the works of the Common Practice Period) always talk about LISTENING and PLAYING concepts being discussed. For instance, any good Counterpoint book will constantly remind the student to SING their lines and to gain the ability to hear the individual lines as you're composing... to avoid mechanically filling in the "correct notes" at the cost of musicality. In regards to what Ben said about jamming on concepts, I don't think that the theory classroom would be a great place to regularly play and jam on ideas (maybe every now and then). What WOULD be great though is if music programs designed their classes around one another, such as having ensembles choosing repertoire that implements concepts being studied in theory lessons (and vice versa... like analyzing music that ensembles are playing in theory lectures). It would be an additional challenge for professors, but if done well it could be exceptionally beneficial for students, IMO.
Also, if anyone's "musical identity" is wiped out by gaining knowledge... it must not have been a strong identity to begin with. Imagine if authors grew up with the silly notion that learning grammar would ruin their "literary identity." I will say, however, that the language we use in theory CAN influence the way we think about music. One of the biggest influences being the fact that we, by default, call Major-minor 7th chords "Dominant 7th chords."
Psychology-wise, people tell themselves they don’t need theory to externalize their failure at learning it. Even if they don’t try to learn it, it’s a difficult thing to conceive, so instead of thinking “This is hard bc I’m not smart,” they externalize it into something unnecessary. Then the more thought and time they invest in externalizing, the less and less likely they are to change their opinion.
The reason your channel is so awesome is that classrooms are intimidating and scary, and picking stuff up from my friends, and watching you feels like jamming out and learning from a friend, it’s fantastic, thank you
I think many people who become music anti-intellectuals and declare that using music theory detracts from musical intuition, are thinking back to before they learned anything about music, and it all seemed magical to them. They were inspired to become musicians, but they don't want to lose that 'magical' aspect. To me, what musical knowledge I have, gives me the tools to realise the intuitive ideas that I have. When I can't realise those ideas, it's usually because I don't have the theory to understand what I'm trying to do.
The chalk board comment is so true. I feel like theory would be much less intimidating if there was a stronger emphasis on playing, and using theory in that fashion.
The language metaphor is the best one I've heard yet. Plus in my own songwriting experience, I always seem to write just beyond what I know and am familiar with. Theory is less of a rule set and more of a platform for creation.
If you enjoyed the speakers at the music cognition conference you mentioned, you should read Arnie Cox's "Music and Embodied Cognition" if you haven't already.
i think there can be two sides of the same extreme; someone may write music with the aide of music theory, and because it's just a tool they could write amazing music, whereas someone else may write some music strictly adhering to music theory, and as a result it could be sterile or bland sounding because where the first example could be someone who writes with emotion and happens to know and be comfortable writing in and around for example D Lydian, and the second ends up writing robotically because of the self-enforced aspect of writing in D Lydian and not wanting to stray or not knowing what other keys to transition to from that base key
“Saves colleges on amps”... so important, holy god. I feel like I learned “Theory” and “how to play music” in two separate bubbles. Theory is fascinating and I love it, but when I try to consciously think about theory when writing or playing, I feel so stuck and confused. Really wish my “theory learning” would have been more harmonic analysis than “here are the rules on a chalk board”.
I'm glad in my first year of theory we all had pianos and as soon as a new concept was taught we were asked to write something with that in mind. I changed school and actually, I told my teacher "Ok we've been analyzing a lot of jazz standards, but you know, you can also ask us to use the concepts to write things" and he actually found the idea good and It was by the end of the year but I ended doing some neat things... I just have to carve them into full songs now... but that 's a big step lmao
At 3:45, Adam said "vivider" -- strange that that isn't a legal word. It follows the pattern of adjective + er == more adjective, and it doesn't collide with any other word. I think we should all start using it because it makes conversation vivider.
This was a cool conversation to eavesdrop upon. It got me thinking, though - how often do you have deep intellectual conversations like this with someone with whom you disagree?
Different strokes for different folks. For me if I love something I want to study at all levels. Intellectual, scientific, emotional, intuitive, and mystical. Let’s not leave that one out
Thanks for sharing this conversation. Without disagreeing with anything that either of you said here, there is an argument for some "discovery learning" as well. It has been my experience in my younger years (mostly) that I "discovered" certain theory concepts through playing, before I learned that the concepts/rules had names. e.g. relative major-minor relationships, or why certain chord-scale relationships existed. By the time I got to learning the rules or concepts formally, I already had understanding. Since I was just labelling and extending my knowledge about something that I could already hear and use, I had no problem retaining the information from formal instruction. However, I do realize that it could take an awfully long time to learn all concepts this way. Wow, think of all the additional tuition you could pay if music schools used that approach exclusively.
I totally agree with the "embodying" of the theory. That guitar experiment also sounds very exciting, I experience a very similar thing when it comes to saxophone playing (which you've actually gone over a little before) and I totally agree in that the visceral feeling of saxophone-playing supplements my theoretical and aural retention and response.
I am told (although I am not certain) that like me, most composers/musicians begin with piano lessons. Personally, "practicing" at a very young age, was seen as a "chore". Much later, reeds and string instruments became my passion. I am over 50 now, and I cannot tell you much more than this...the treble clef contains a face, and that Every Good Boy Does Fine. Parents... ask questions sincerely, don't force it, let your kids teach you something... It will help in the long run...
Music theory is a tool set. You can make a lot of cool stuff, even some good stuff with just a few tools. However you can make a wider range of things and are more likely to be able to realize your vision with a bigger set of tools.
Thanks for sharing this conversation. For me theory is useful because naming chords, progression, musical concept is a way to communicate musical ideas that speed up the creative process. It helped me in compositions because it gives me tools to add variations in the progression of a riff. I decided to take the Key of F (A Phrygian) as a starting point for a new composition. I created a nice progression with variations in harmony, melody, rythm. At some point I wanted to go elsewhere. I have composed a nice transition/bridge that was leading somewhere else but that was still in Diatonic key of F. To make a big impact I decided to try using the A Neapolitan scale for the next riff than follow by a RIff in diminished scale (for a clear change) with a transition back to the Neapolitan scale....the result is great (at least im proud of it) Using musical concept as a starting point and tweaking exploring to see where that can lead work well for me. I am a bass player but now I can compose not only the bass line but also the harmony and the sounds that I was hearing. I also found that sometimes if you have restrictions or limitations or request it can serve guidelines line helping the creative process. Like Ben said let's pick a concept and jam on it :)
In my humble opinion, a strong intuition coupled with a strong fundamental in music theory (whether a person has the capacity to develop it themselves or learn it in class) is more likely to produce a more unique, interesting and richer and more memorable musical composition. If I may use Stevie Wonder, a musical genius and his composition Sir Duke as an example, one can see (or listen) that behind that popular song, there is a tone of background knowledge of Jazz, traditional Motown Sound, and commonly used chords patterns cleverly recombined to produce this great hit song. Not knowing exactly Stevie formal musical education, I am sure he is a man with a lot of musical intuition, that did not need to go outside our vast musical patrimoine to create such a great hit and may others.
Is there any more of this conversation, and can we see any findings/videos from the conference? Allan Holdsworth certainly found success in his unique systems!
Well, what has evolved as "music theory" really starts from "if it sounds right it is right." A creative person will find the sus7 or 4 or whatever to finish their exploration in sound, regardless of whether he or she knows "it's a sus7 and this is theoretically why it works." Many folk have written incredible songs with no idea of the music theory of why it sounds right, and the best songs come from inspiration. Many have also written shit songs from inspiration. And many well trained musicians couldn't "get loose on stage" if you gave them acid. In the end, if it sounds right, it is right. Theory? Leave it on the chalkboard if you are writing a song. Inspiration and curiosity? Better be handy if you are writing a song. You will know when it sounds right. ~~peace ~jamie
I wrote the tube blues without using music theory, but I just listened carefully what goes and what doesn't, and dance with the E chord, making it Major minor and dominant.
90%perspiration 10% inspiration. Work practice study listen learn play work study practice be inspired. Seek examples bother pros ask questions be proactive. Inquiry inquire question investigate . THEORY IS SOUND. SOUND SOUND. if you're doing it right you'll be blown into humility respect and new ears.
You hinted at a problem being the practical connection, and sure, teaching theory together with praxis may require an instrument for every student and that's expensive. You can save time by learning theory instead of figuring it all out by yourself, but the latter incorporates this mix of theory and praxis, and that can be a big motivator. You may know that a person can be a total potato sometimes and other times they can absorb abstract information like a computer, for hours, all depending on what motivation they have. That is key. I think there is a societal crisis involved in this whole topic of learning. Our world is already so 'mental', and people seek music to nourish the heart, and then they are confronted with more of that mental stuff, right from the start of devoted study if they choose the school-taught way. (They might actually - temporarily - lose that connection to their intuition simply because they burn out.) - I would say if we solve the overarching societal problems, everything improves along the line. The world gets less mental and then either people can find some balance again and have more motivation for 'dry theory' or that element will not even be necessary to that degree anymore because everything becomes easier. Theory without instrument in your hand might fade into history when the money is there, and then everybody can discover what is possible. - But as a sociological observer I witness the futility of repeated attempts to fiddle with details at the end of the chain of events, with symptoms, and that prevents breakthroughs. And to make those, many people need to all pull on the same rope, together, instead of everybody just trying to stay afloat and find their way. - Humankind is so, SO deep in darkness compared to what is possible. There is no end to evolution. There is no risk of hitting a brick wall. That's a fear of a scarcity-conditioned mind. The wall is only in ourselves.
So 12Tone just described an aha moment that he had in Music Theory 6. That's the circle of fifths plus 5.9. The mind boggles. Don't say it's not daunting.
"Schools can save a lot of money on amps and keyboards if they teach theory on a chalkboard." PREACH xD Yeah, even stuff that's aimed at formalized process and coherence and structure like what I got at my uni is still sometimes treated as the end-all-be-all. The focus was on motivic coherence, and they felt that the fewer motives were used and the more ways they were transformed, the better. While the general idea of motivic coherence is good, treating it as the ultimate criterion for what makes good music irks me to no end, and I think that mindset being imposed hurt me as a writer more than it helped.
Learning theory can ruin your taste in music because you don’t enjoy more simple concepts and chord progressions. Also learning theory (or too much) can limit your natural creativity and your natural intuition regarding what you think the music should sound like. Through personal experience I do believe that making up your own theory based around your Intuition is the best path to take because you only learn what you need to as you go and you’re not sacrificing any of your natural ideas, you are just building on them. But I do believe there is a balance to achieve between learning just basic theory and making up the rest. If you don’t understand something you should just make up your own explanation for it. In my experience building your own theory is the best path to take because it leads to your own unique understanding of how music works. Also I believe that if you come across a certain concept of music that you want to understand, then you can search that up and figure it out but don’t let any of their musical theoretical ideas replace yours. You must remember that music theory, as people like Adam Neely know it, was created in the same way as you would on your own. It is just another imperfect way of putting the phenomenon of music into context with terms and science. There really is no way to truly explain music. The truth is that some things sound good together and some things don’t. If you figure out those things on your own by experimenting with musical ideas, that is much better than learning it out of a textbook, because it doesn’t ruin the gift that everyone is born with.
It’s entirely possible to learn theory and develop as a musician while maintaining the simple ideas from your “natural intuition.” If you don’t believe so, you’re doing yourself a disservice. Although you definitely have to strive and understand music in your own way, people have been trying to understand music for several thousand years so not using or trying other people’s understandings is senseless. Also, trial and error can only get you so far. A lot of the things I’ve integrated into my music I’ve observed from other music and theory I’ve found. If you push to strictly develop your own sound, you risk coming to a point where you don’t think you can develop any further, and that’s the last thing you want as a musician.
Here's what's REAL spooky... every 2-chord million-copy-selling record on every pop radio station "USES THEORY," even R. Kelly songs! ...so the idea that it's "optional" is misguided. Unfortunately there are things that you have to do if you want people to open up their wallets. Not everybody writes songs to sell them and make money, therefore, some prioritize learning and applying traditional music theory over others. Ben said it near the end, everybody develops their own personal theory over time! Peace, dudes! OA
People who don't learn theory are still "taught" by all the listen to. Lesser creative souls will be trapped by this; the more creative among us will sense the inherent rules and learn to break (out of) them. So I don't think this is really about "learning theory" or not. It's about having the imagination and tools for it to wield so you can chip away at the boundaries.
What does learning theory mean? When I’ve tried using formal sources to learn theory it’s been very disconnected from the music I like, so I’ve felt like it’s not getting me anywhere. I spend some time each day writing out scores for the music I like and it’s helped my composition/recording process immensely. Giving me a larger pool of structures, and a larger toolbox with rhythmic/melodic/harmonic/production, to pull from when intuition wears out. Am I learning music theory though? Would my scorewriting-thing give me a foot to stand on if I pursued a formal education?
Your scorewriting would certainly help you. Theory tries to abstract the patterns you find in music, so if you have looked at a lot of scores and transcribed a lot of scores you'll find it easier to connect the abstracted ideas to actual implementations. Conversely theory can help you with transcription, because most pieces of music will use the patters theory describes.
"schools can save a lot of money on amps and pianos if they teach theory on a chalkboard" - and the following comments about interacting with tools/the world etc - is representative of a fundamental issue with the education system globally (speaking from an Australian perspective)
'Does this song use theory?' is like 'Does this baseball player use physics for his throw?'.
Hey, does your sentence use the dictionary?
Very well put.
@@Matheus-ly6eu More like grammar and syntax. The dictionary is an indexing tool.
@@ErebosGR ok ErebosGR
Well no, but actually yes
Learning music theory only made my music making experience better and faster.
Learning music theory also made my music *listening* experience more enjoyable and engaging.
ErebosGR I 100% agree. 🤘🏽
@@shaunbooval9223 @ErebosGR What's the best way to learn about chords etcetera. I can fully play piano with sheet, but can't play with chords.
@@teun9380 Doing it practically is the best way. So get a book with the chord charts and go for it. I guess you could optimize how you practice that but it still just boils down to practicing.
Music Theory is descriptive not prescriptive. I Don't know if it translates well … but this is a statement that sums up this video pretty well.
True, Adam Neely even made a video about it title "Why you should learn music theory (Prescriptivism vs Descriptivism)"
It’s actually neither, it’s just an opinion
I am unable to put into words how much I enjoy your videos so I’ll just say this, You have no idea how much you’ve impacted me as a musician. From the bottom of my heart, Thank you so, so, very much.
I guess you also had to deal with musicians that don't give a damn about theory 😂😂😂
@@Morgoth073 Ugh, it makes it so hard to communicate without theory.
@@lifeontheledgerlines8394 Watching guitar player over and over is a pain in the arsh....when you want to learn the new bad ass riff the bandmate composed while taking a shit. But at least now that aI know some stuff I can figure out faster what's going on.
I still have to figure out because no damn metalhead guitar player know the fuckall what they do. 😂
Just kidding....but the processes could really go faster whit a shared language.
I love what Adam says at 3:48 "It makes the auditory imagery louder." This is definitely something that I have noticed learning more about theory. It gives touchstone's to really understand what is happening in the music and to categorize the sounds into however the brain likes to file away these things be it through the manifestation of synesthesia or whatever else.
Ben is cool, you should do more videos with him.
I am a recovering fearful anti-intellectual in some ways and I appreciate how y’all are articulating the value and the strength of theory here, especially how you describe it as tapping in to the sort of collective brain. One time I tried to build a table without knowing how to and for some reason I was unwilling to seek advice. I bought a door from a thrift store, sawed some fence posts in half with a hand saw, attached them to the door, braced it with 2x4’s and then watched the table completely collapse over the course of a week. I think I wanted to prove to myself that I was smart enough to intuit the design of something so simple as a table. But really it was ignorant, wasteful, egotistical and lazy to not just allow someone else’s hard work to pay off for me. Anyways, I think people sometimes/often think that genius or brilliance occurs in a vacuum and that our heroes like Beethoven, Brian Wilson, Joni Mitchell, etc were operating as free agents with vast intuitive intellects, but it’s probably much more true that they were just very good at learning.
+
Absolutely amazing conversation. As I’m taking lessons at Berklee, I’ve been noticing exactly what you guys are talking about - the “all head no body” affect. We think, design, and analyze through thought - when I’m focusing on the lessons and what the teacher wants - even in my private lesson, I find the feeling getting lost. I then play Gary Moore “I Got the Blues for You” and it sounds mechanical. The teacher was great, gave me some good feedback and graded me accordingly. It took me several weeks to figure out when I’m so deep in thought, I’m missing feeling and emotions - which is typically felt through the body - not the mind. I was completely disconnecting my emotions from my playing and it just sounded like a bunch of notes. This discussion really describes it well. There needs to be a balance of thought and emotions. Thanks guys!
Paul McCartney famously never wanted / dared to learn theory in case it messed with his intuition. But he knows what a G7 chord is by name and he also knows full well (before he even plays it) it wants to resolve to C, so as you say, he has theory anyway.
If you can pull through, though, then it can be an advantage further down the line to have gained an understanding of the basics by figuring them out by yourself.
If someone does that all their life, of course they will eventually pick up lots of jargon.
No channel has enough Ben Levin. Not even Ben's own channel.
I read the title as "lover facetime"
Still accurate.
Music theory is just putting names to it, so you can communicate about music more easily. But you can compose and create without it, using your ear, creativity and intuition.
Completely ignoring the title of the video, I thought that Ben was gonna go down the path of "when you present music making as this simple easy process, people will get discouraged when they try it and fail", which is also an important point, I think.
I had the same thought at first. It's pretty easy to get caught in this trap where you go "oh this isn't intuitively easy for me, I guess I don't have the talent for it!" and never push forward through the difficult bit, or never even try learning music to begin with.
I honestly find Adam's videos super inspiring because none of the stuff he does is any kind of intuitive. If he can put this much effort into shitposting about 7:11 polyrhythms, surely I can put a couple of hours into learning Smoke on the Water.
@@Attilargh I feel like you get what I was going for more than Hamilton Mays did. I dunno where his comment's gone, though.
Man, that 2min rant from ben at the beginning accurately described any creative endeavor I've taken part in musically.
I loved it.
You know, it's weird how a lot of people talk about music theory being a "head" thing. I mean, it definitely involves a huge amount of thinking and analyzing, but I've never come across any respectable and noteworthy textbook that didn't mention the necessity for PLAYING the concepts discussed and to USE YOUR EARS.
All of my favorite books (which are generally based around the works of the Common Practice Period) always talk about LISTENING and PLAYING concepts being discussed. For instance, any good Counterpoint book will constantly remind the student to SING their lines and to gain the ability to hear the individual lines as you're composing... to avoid mechanically filling in the "correct notes" at the cost of musicality.
In regards to what Ben said about jamming on concepts, I don't think that the theory classroom would be a great place to regularly play and jam on ideas (maybe every now and then). What WOULD be great though is if music programs designed their classes around one another, such as having ensembles choosing repertoire that implements concepts being studied in theory lessons (and vice versa... like analyzing music that ensembles are playing in theory lectures). It would be an additional challenge for professors, but if done well it could be exceptionally beneficial for students, IMO.
Also, if anyone's "musical identity" is wiped out by gaining knowledge... it must not have been a strong identity to begin with. Imagine if authors grew up with the silly notion that learning grammar would ruin their "literary identity."
I will say, however, that the language we use in theory CAN influence the way we think about music. One of the biggest influences being the fact that we, by default, call Major-minor 7th chords "Dominant 7th chords."
Psychology-wise, people tell themselves they don’t need theory to externalize their failure at learning it. Even if they don’t try to learn it, it’s a difficult thing to conceive, so instead of thinking “This is hard bc I’m not smart,” they externalize it into something unnecessary. Then the more thought and time they invest in externalizing, the less and less likely they are to change their opinion.
But that's a theory...
A MUSIC THEORY
The reason your channel is so awesome is that classrooms are intimidating and scary, and picking stuff up from my friends, and watching you feels like jamming out and learning from a friend, it’s fantastic, thank you
Most high tech interview I've seen in my entire life LMAO! Keep up the great work Adam.
I think many people who become music anti-intellectuals and declare that using music theory detracts from musical intuition, are thinking back to before they learned anything about music, and it all seemed magical to them. They were inspired to become musicians, but they don't want to lose that 'magical' aspect. To me, what musical knowledge I have, gives me the tools to realise the intuitive ideas that I have. When I can't realise those ideas, it's usually because I don't have the theory to understand what I'm trying to do.
The chalk board comment is so true.
I feel like theory would be much less intimidating if there was a stronger emphasis on playing, and using theory in that fashion.
You two have interesting conversations. Music is such a great language! Thank you!!
I crank up the quality to max and zoom in on ben levin with badman kneeling in the corner instead to get some structure in my life
The formalized approach is nothing more than a study of the common practice over the last several hundred years
Definitely showing this to some of my rather "headstrong" students.
I scared my girlfriend now by screaming suddenly "Jandek! It's Jandek! I know that one", and then the text showed up
You need to learn the rules in order to break them
Absolutely great hearing you talk about music theory! We need a new episode of musica analytica adam!
The language metaphor is the best one I've heard yet.
Plus in my own songwriting experience, I always seem to write just beyond what I know and am familiar with. Theory is less of a rule set and more of a platform for creation.
If you enjoyed the speakers at the music cognition conference you mentioned, you should read Arnie Cox's "Music and Embodied Cognition" if you haven't already.
i think there can be two sides of the same extreme; someone may write music with the aide of music theory, and because it's just a tool they could write amazing music, whereas someone else may write some music strictly adhering to music theory, and as a result it could be sterile or bland sounding because where the first example could be someone who writes with emotion and happens to know and be comfortable writing in and around for example D Lydian, and the second ends up writing robotically because of the self-enforced aspect of writing in D Lydian and not wanting to stray or not knowing what other keys to transition to from that base key
“Saves colleges on amps”... so important, holy god. I feel like I learned “Theory” and “how to play music” in two separate bubbles. Theory is fascinating and I love it, but when I try to consciously think about theory when writing or playing, I feel so stuck and confused. Really wish my “theory learning” would have been more harmonic analysis than “here are the rules on a chalk board”.
I'm glad in my first year of theory we all had pianos and as soon as a new concept was taught we were asked to write something with that in mind. I changed school and actually, I told my teacher "Ok we've been analyzing a lot of jazz standards, but you know, you can also ask us to use the concepts to write things" and he actually found the idea good and It was by the end of the year but I ended doing some neat things... I just have to carve them into full songs now... but that 's a big step lmao
At 3:45, Adam said "vivider" -- strange that that isn't a legal word. It follows the pattern of adjective + er == more adjective, and it doesn't collide with any other word. I think we should all start using it because it makes conversation vivider.
This was a cool conversation to eavesdrop upon. It got me thinking, though - how often do you have deep intellectual conversations like this with someone with whom you disagree?
Adam, I love you and Ben and your vids! Great Levinesque interview, and greets from an aspiring Jazz Musician (the guitar/small bass) from Belgium!!
Different strokes for different folks. For me if I love something I want to study at all levels. Intellectual, scientific, emotional, intuitive, and mystical. Let’s not leave that one out
Thanks for sharing this conversation. Without disagreeing with anything that either of you said here, there is an argument for some "discovery learning" as well. It has been my experience in my younger years (mostly) that I "discovered" certain theory concepts through playing, before I learned that the concepts/rules had names. e.g. relative major-minor relationships, or why certain chord-scale relationships existed. By the time I got to learning the rules or concepts formally, I already had understanding. Since I was just labelling and extending my knowledge about something that I could already hear and use, I had no problem retaining the information from formal instruction. However, I do realize that it could take an awfully long time to learn all concepts this way. Wow, think of all the additional tuition you could pay if music schools used that approach exclusively.
I totally agree with the "embodying" of the theory. That guitar experiment also sounds very exciting, I experience a very similar thing when it comes to saxophone playing (which you've actually gone over a little before) and I totally agree in that the visceral feeling of saxophone-playing supplements my theoretical and aural retention and response.
For just a moment I thought it was Terrance Mckenna.
Immanetize the eschaton.
I am told (although I am not certain) that like me, most composers/musicians begin with piano lessons. Personally, "practicing" at a very young age, was seen as a "chore". Much later, reeds and string instruments became my passion. I am over 50 now, and I cannot tell you much more than this...the treble clef contains a face, and that Every Good Boy Does Fine. Parents... ask questions sincerely, don't force it, let your kids teach you something... It will help in the long run...
Well put
Music theory is a tool set. You can make a lot of cool stuff, even some good stuff with just a few tools. However you can make a wider range of things and are more likely to be able to realize your vision with a bigger set of tools.
Thanks for sharing this conversation. For me theory is useful because naming chords, progression, musical concept is a way to communicate musical ideas that speed up the creative process.
It helped me in compositions because it gives me tools to add variations in the progression of a riff. I decided to take the Key of F (A Phrygian) as a starting point for a new composition. I created a nice progression with variations in harmony, melody, rythm. At some point I wanted to go elsewhere. I have composed a nice transition/bridge that was leading somewhere else but that was still in Diatonic key of F. To make a big impact I decided to try using the A Neapolitan scale for the next riff than follow by a RIff in diminished scale (for a clear change) with a transition back to the Neapolitan scale....the result is great (at least im proud of it)
Using musical concept as a starting point and tweaking exploring to see where that can lead work well for me.
I am a bass player but now I can compose not only the bass line but also the harmony and the sounds that I was hearing.
I also found that sometimes if you have restrictions or limitations or request it can serve guidelines line helping the creative process.
Like Ben said let's pick a concept and jam on it :)
More of these videos would be GREAT. Love this.
In my humble opinion, a strong intuition coupled with a strong fundamental in music theory (whether a person has the capacity to develop it themselves or learn it in class) is more likely to produce a more unique, interesting and richer and more memorable musical composition. If I may use Stevie Wonder, a musical genius and his composition Sir Duke as an example, one can see (or listen) that behind that popular song, there is a tone of background knowledge of Jazz, traditional Motown Sound, and commonly used chords patterns cleverly recombined to produce this great hit song. Not knowing exactly Stevie formal musical education, I am sure he is a man with a lot of musical intuition, that did not need to go outside our vast musical patrimoine to create such a great hit and may others.
Is there any more of this conversation, and can we see any findings/videos from the conference? Allan Holdsworth certainly found success in his unique systems!
VIVIDER is my new early 90s thrash metal band
I miss seeing Adam Neel'ys cat
This is what I need to overcome my disdain ( read fear) of music theory.
Well, what has evolved as "music theory" really starts from "if it sounds right it is right." A creative person will find the sus7 or 4 or whatever to finish their exploration in sound, regardless of whether he or she knows "it's a sus7 and this is theoretically why it works." Many folk have written incredible songs with no idea of the music theory of why it sounds right, and the best songs come from inspiration. Many have also written shit songs from inspiration. And many well trained musicians couldn't "get loose on stage" if you gave them acid. In the end, if it sounds right, it is right. Theory? Leave it on the chalkboard if you are writing a song. Inspiration and curiosity? Better be handy if you are writing a song. You will know when it sounds right. ~~peace ~jamie
I wrote the tube blues without using music theory, but I just listened carefully what goes and what doesn't, and dance with the E chord, making it Major minor and dominant.
90%perspiration 10% inspiration. Work practice study listen learn play work study practice be inspired. Seek examples bother pros ask questions be proactive. Inquiry inquire question investigate . THEORY IS SOUND. SOUND SOUND. if you're doing it right you'll be blown into humility respect and new ears.
You hinted at a problem being the practical connection, and sure, teaching theory together with praxis may require an instrument for every student and that's expensive.
You can save time by learning theory instead of figuring it all out by yourself, but the latter incorporates this mix of theory and praxis, and that can be a big motivator. You may know that a person can be a total potato sometimes and other times they can absorb abstract information like a computer, for hours, all depending on what motivation they have. That is key. I think there is a societal crisis involved in this whole topic of learning. Our world is already so 'mental', and people seek music to nourish the heart, and then they are confronted with more of that mental stuff, right from the start of devoted study if they choose the school-taught way. (They might actually - temporarily - lose that connection to their intuition simply because they burn out.) - I would say if we solve the overarching societal problems, everything improves along the line. The world gets less mental and then either people can find some balance again and have more motivation for 'dry theory' or that element will not even be necessary to that degree anymore because everything becomes easier. Theory without instrument in your hand might fade into history when the money is there, and then everybody can discover what is possible. - But as a sociological observer I witness the futility of repeated attempts to fiddle with details at the end of the chain of events, with symptoms, and that prevents breakthroughs. And to make those, many people need to all pull on the same rope, together, instead of everybody just trying to stay afloat and find their way. - Humankind is so, SO deep in darkness compared to what is possible. There is no end to evolution. There is no risk of hitting a brick wall. That's a fear of a scarcity-conditioned mind. The wall is only in ourselves.
Application is everything.
What a way to conclude..."as long as no rappers owns the trick" 😂😂😂
What a grand vid, aint got many things to say more, but I enjoyed it
What a great conversation? BTW, where's the cat?
I must ask, is that synthesizer on a separate stand, or is it connected to the one for the piano?
Yes
It looks like two separate stands to me.
A conversation with Terence Mckenna.
better love story than twilight.
that wide-angle distortion tho
If it's working, stay away from lessons. If it's not working, run don't walk to get some lessons.
I wouldn't use the word "formalize" but rather "define"
That Flames diss was awesome
When can we expect the Neely/Levin podcast?
pretty sure that Jandek is the guitar player they're referring too
Apply what you learn. I'm down with that.
too late. I already own the tricks
So 12Tone just described an aha moment that he had in Music Theory 6. That's the circle of fifths plus 5.9. The mind boggles. Don't say it's not daunting.
"Schools can save a lot of money on amps and keyboards if they teach theory on a chalkboard." PREACH xD
Yeah, even stuff that's aimed at formalized process and coherence and structure like what I got at my uni is still sometimes treated as the end-all-be-all. The focus was on motivic coherence, and they felt that the fewer motives were used and the more ways they were transformed, the better. While the general idea of motivic coherence is good, treating it as the ultimate criterion for what makes good music irks me to no end, and I think that mindset being imposed hurt me as a writer more than it helped.
Learning theory can ruin your taste in music because you don’t enjoy more simple concepts and chord progressions.
Also learning theory (or too much) can limit your natural creativity and your natural intuition regarding what you think the music should sound like.
Through personal experience I do believe that making up your own theory based around your Intuition is the best path to take because you only learn what you need to as you go and you’re not sacrificing any of your natural ideas, you are just building on them.
But I do believe there is a balance to achieve between learning just basic theory and making up the rest. If you don’t understand something you should just make up your own explanation for it.
In my experience building your own theory is the best path to take because it leads to your own unique understanding of how music works. Also I believe that if you come across a certain concept of music that you want to understand, then you can search that up and figure it out but don’t let any of their musical theoretical ideas replace yours.
You must remember that music theory, as people like Adam Neely know it, was created in the same way as you would on your own. It is just another imperfect way of putting the phenomenon of music into context with terms and science.
There really is no way to truly explain music. The truth is that some things sound good together and some things don’t. If you figure out those things on your own by experimenting with musical ideas, that is much better than learning it out of a textbook, because it doesn’t ruin the gift that everyone is born with.
I’m 14 btw
It’s entirely possible to learn theory and develop as a musician while maintaining the simple ideas from your “natural intuition.” If you don’t believe so, you’re doing yourself a disservice. Although you definitely have to strive and understand music in your own way, people have been trying to understand music for several thousand years so not using or trying other people’s understandings is senseless. Also, trial and error can only get you so far. A lot of the things I’ve integrated into my music I’ve observed from other music and theory I’ve found. If you push to strictly develop your own sound, you risk coming to a point where you don’t think you can develop any further, and that’s the last thing you want as a musician.
I’m 15 btw
What's the name of the very smart person at 5:34? I hear Tyreed Jackson but Google doesn't know what to do with that and suggest "tire"
Tyreek jackson
What's the name of the guy who did research on music cognition? Adam says it at 5:34
Here's what's REAL spooky... every 2-chord million-copy-selling record on every pop radio station "USES THEORY," even R. Kelly songs! ...so the idea that it's "optional" is misguided. Unfortunately there are things that you have to do if you want people to open up their wallets.
Not everybody writes songs to sell them and make money, therefore, some prioritize learning and applying traditional music theory over others. Ben said it near the end, everybody develops their own personal theory over time! Peace, dudes! OA
People who don't learn theory are still "taught" by all the listen to. Lesser creative souls will be trapped by this; the more creative among us will sense the inherent rules and learn to break (out of) them.
So I don't think this is really about "learning theory" or not. It's about having the imagination and tools for it to wield so you can chip away at the boundaries.
5:39 - 6:13 reminded me of TwoSetViolin roasting videos
What does learning theory mean? When I’ve tried using formal sources to learn theory it’s been very disconnected from the music I like, so I’ve felt like it’s not getting me anywhere. I spend some time each day writing out scores for the music I like and it’s helped my composition/recording process immensely. Giving me a larger pool of structures, and a larger toolbox with rhythmic/melodic/harmonic/production, to pull from when intuition wears out. Am I learning music theory though? Would my scorewriting-thing give me a foot to stand on if I pursued a formal education?
Your scorewriting would certainly help you. Theory tries to abstract the patterns you find in music, so if you have looked at a lot of scores and transcribed a lot of scores you'll find it easier to connect the abstracted ideas to actual implementations. Conversely theory can help you with transcription, because most pieces of music will use the patters theory describes.
10:44 Yay I found the laugh! :D
YEEEESSSS finally
"schools can save a lot of money on amps and pianos if they teach theory on a chalkboard" - and the following comments about interacting with tools/the world etc - is representative of a fundamental issue with the education system globally (speaking from an Australian perspective)
inb4 music theory gets copyrighted
Ben is a hep cat!
But does it Djent?
Have you ever had a dreams?🤣
1:28
Now I will unsubscribe to Ben Levin's channel too.
is that the main guy from fleece
pls no trix