mwc9725e - Posted - 12/16/2011:  08:49:02

We think the old timers didn't have or use much, if any, knowledge of music theory. Probably true to a great extent, but they must have had a lot of intuitive knowledge of the subject. Otherwise, how did all those myriads of "strange" banjo tunings come to pass? 

When I was a kid, I could tune my guitar between standard, open G ( aka Vestapol? ), and drop D. I could do that because those tunings were open tunings in the scale I grew up with ( Don't remember what that mode's called , Dorian? ). But the "weird" ones, like F#DGAD and double C, I didn't even know about, leave alone find the various chord fingerings.

So isn't there some kind of intuitive music theory knowledge at play in the development and use of those tunings?

Fathand - Posted - 12/16/2011:  09:17:56

Vestapol is usually the name for Guitar open D, DADF#AD, similar to Banjo D Tuning sometimes tuned up to open E.  I think a lot of those tunings were developed through trial and error, say I can't reach a note so I will retune the string. 

There used to be a lot more music taught in schools than there is today. We had singing and sight reading in the 60's in public school but my kids didn't get it in the 80's, not that it did me any good. A lot of people got some music education in church choirs and the like. There were also less distractions like TV, we got 2 channels, so entertainment was what you made it.

Quartermaster James - Posted - 12/16/2011:  10:12:00

Well shucks! You pose a lot of interesting things to ponder. Firstly, just who thinks that "old timers didn't have or use much, if any, knowledge of music theory" and just what does that question mean?

I think these old timers probably had a lot of knowledge of music theory. It was direct knowledge. Did they also have, in addition to that knowledge, knowledge of a specific vocabulary and terminology with which to discuss that knowledge? I don't know, but I suspect the latter is what is actually in question here.

How did they come by this knowledge? Well, how did you come by those alternate tunings? Either you worked them out by yourself (or stumbled over them), or they were passed along to you by someone else. So, we have a bunch of tunes, from a bunch of different sources. And they are passed on to us. And as we learn them we find we learn other things along the way. Eventually, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts: one doesn't just know a collection of tunes, but somewhere along the way has blossomed a knowledge of music.

Just my 2 cents plain.

Edited by - Quartermaster James on 12/16/2011 10:12:43

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/16/2011:  10:12:43

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fathand

Vestapol is usually the name for Guitar open D, DADF#AD, similar to Banjo D Tuning sometimes tuned up to open E.  I think a lot of those tunings were developed through trial and error, say I can't reach a note so I will retune the string. 

There used to be a lot more music taught in schools than there is today. We had singing and sight reading in the 60's in public school but my kids didn't get it in the 80's, not that it did me any good. A lot of people got some music education in church choirs and the like. There were also less distractions like TV, we got 2 channels, so entertainment was what you made it.

---

 It probably did have something to do with the education system. I went to a 2-room school ( honest, I did ), and we all had to learn how to read music. I also went to more "upscale" public schools, but I think the 2-room school gave me the best education, and I can't recall having to study music in one of them newfangled schools.

Maybe those old folks were better educated than we give them credit for being. I do think the humanities subjects had more importance a long time ago than they have now.

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/16/2011:  10:20:24

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quartermaster James



How did they come by this knowledge? Well, how did you come by those alternate tunings? Either you worked them out by yourself (or stumbled over them), or they were passed along to you by someone else. So, we have a bunch of tunes, from a bunch of different sources. And they are passed on to us. And as we learn them we find we learn other things along the way. Eventually, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts: one doesn't just know a collection of tunes, but somewhere along the way has blossomed a knowledge of music.

Just my 2 cents plain.

---

 Good point. One could argue that "passing it on" is probably the most common and useful form of what we call education -- we pass knowledge on via word of mouth ( lecture, etc ), books, audio, video, and various other ways. That's "education". So by that measure, who's to say the old folks had no knowledge of music theory? Maybe they had it, but didn't consciously think about it ( or babble on about it in internet forums :>) ).

Edited by - mwc9725e on 12/16/2011 10:23:47

R.D. Lunceford - Posted - 12/16/2011:  11:16:19

When I decide to set a song for the banjo, one of the first things I do is decide what key and tuning I am going to use. For example, if a tune goes fairly high up the fingerboard in gCGCD, I might just use gCGCE instead. If it is a modal tune I may opt for gDGCD over gDGBD depending on how the tune lays out.

In some ways, it's not a big jump from choosing a tuning to inventing one. If I'm working on a tune and I realize that by tuning a string differently I can make the whole effort a lot easier, I might just do that.

When we start talking about what the old-timers may or may not have done, who knows? I'm sure some had a bit of music theory, a lot didn't. In most cases, I think they were immersed in the music in a hands-on practical way. If twisting a couple of tuning pegs made things easier, I'll bet that's just what they did. Obviously a lot of the tunings were passed down, but they were invented by someone and "necessity was probably the mother of invention".

minstrelmike - Posted - 12/16/2011:  11:43:11

I was talking to a fiddler at the Irish session and told him my attitude that I don't like teaching theory to folks until they've played at least a hundred different songs. (not lead work to win a contest, just played the song all the way thru a couple times while they or someone else sang or played lead).

He said if you've played a hundred songs, music theory becomes a whole lot less theoretical.

The old-timers learned by playing songs, not by copying specific arrangements by ear, by tab or by sheet.

If someone sits down and shows you the song, then you have time to copy it. If you are only going to hear it once at a show, then you learn to listen well and copy later well enough. If you learn it at a jam, same deal, you learn to listen well _first_

This isn't ear vs tab because I know 'ear' (MM) folks who also ask, "Am I doing it right?"

The only thing they listen for is instructions.

They don't listen to their own instrument or listen just for melody and not for every single specific little flair of the arrangement.

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 12/16/2011:  13:01:17

I think a lot of the banjo tunings (and guitar tunings) come about by fooling around looking for a sound, and that music theory has no part of the process. Remember "Music Theory" was invented in the 19th Century to teach music to European classical music students - a growing field at the time. If one were to teach music theory to a bunch of southern mountain people in the US at that same time, the theory would more likely be based around that strange harmony used in shape note singing, not the playing of Beethoven or Mozart.

Teach it in a black congregation and you would use the harmony of those strange (and now gone) long form African based spirituals. You would have to read Alan Lomax to understand what happened to them, but in the late 1930s new song books went through southern churches like an outbreak of mumps, leaving black and white congregations singing mostly 19th century harmony. Only some shape note congregations held out against the great "modernization".

Much of southern mountain harmony as it existed in 1930 has been replaced by modern harmony, but the old style of playing was closer to Elizabethan harmony than anything out of Nashville today.

A lot of this is closely relate to the "Haunting Sound" thread.

For those who have it you can hear some shape note singing on the Folkways Anthology. I can't give you a direct source for the black long form spirituals - I think they went unrecorded because of the 3 minute 30 second limit to recordings at the time. Actually you can also check the Anthology for a white version of the long form spiritual called "Lining Out". It was a simpler form where the preacher (or choir director) would read a line and the congregation would sing it back to him. It got some of that same randomness the black congregations arrived at.

Edited by - oldwoodchuckb on 12/16/2011 13:05:22

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/16/2011:  13:07:23

I claim it's not possible to learn to play music without at least subconsciously knowing SOME music theory. Otherwise, you'd just as well string a set of random notes together in some random fashion. I'd bet there isn't a one of us on this forum that doesn't know do-re-me-fa-so-la-ti-do, and that's music theory. And I'd further bet that most of the people on this forum know do-re-me (flat)-fa-so-la-ti-do, and that's also music theory. 

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 12/16/2011:  13:19:30

But Shape note singing is not based on solfegio (the do re mi business) and black church singing was based on pentatonic scales, which is not solfeg either - and was never written out.

A lot of banjo and fiddle and dulcimer tunes are not based on modern (ie 19th Century) harmony. The melodies are modal hexatonic, pentatonic and, sometimes very ancient - predating modern harmony by 100 to 400 years.

The idea of harmonizing came to Irish music in the mid 20th century. they considered harmonized music to belong to "The Strangers" who occupied their land. Only the "Educated" classes knew about western harmony. The locals all played just the melodies, and there was no harmony, save for among a few professional musician like O'Carolan who enjoyed the baroque music popular with the Overlords and copied it in his own (rather odd) way.

Much of Irish and Scottish music was based on the pipes - which only had 9 notes, and for reasons I can't explain, a lot of Scots songs are also pentatonic - leading to the question - what sort of influences did the Scots have that the Irish didn't?

R.D. Lunceford - Posted - 12/16/2011:  13:42:56

youtube.com/watch?v=wTXNAHEMI9...e=related

Tinfoot - Posted - 12/16/2011:  13:43:37

" Much of Irish and Scottish music was based on the pipes - which only had 9 notes, and for reasons I can't explain, a lot of Scots songs are also pentatonic - leading to the question - what sort of influences did the Scots have that the Irish didn't? "

Rob MacKillop would be able to answer that question, I suspect. :)

wm.annis - Posted - 12/16/2011:  13:50:05

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldwoodchuckb

 

Much of Irish and Scottish music was based on the pipes - which only had 9 notes, and for reasons I can't explain, a lot of Scots songs are also pentatonic - leading to the question - what sort of influences did the Scots have that the Irish didn't?

---

Well, the bagpipes of course!  The funky just tuning used on the pipes give those mere 9 notes three usable pentatonic scales.

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/16/2011:  14:11:51

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldwoodchuckb

But Shape note singing is not based on solfegio (the do re mi business) and black church singing was based on pentatonic scales, which is not solfeg either - and was never written out.

A lot of banjo and fiddle and dulcimer tunes are not based on modern (ie 19th Century) harmony. The melodies are modal hexatonic, pentatonic and, sometimes very ancient - predating modern harmony by 100 to 400 years.

The idea of harmonizing came to Irish music in the mid 20th century. they considered harmonized music to belong to "The Strangers" who occupied their land. Only the "Educated" classes knew about western harmony. The locals all played just the melodies, and there was no harmony, save for among a few professional musician like O'Carolan who enjoyed the baroque music popular with the Overlords and copied it in his own (rather odd) way.

Much of Irish and Scottish music was based on the pipes - which only had 9 notes, and for reasons I can't explain, a lot of Scots songs are also pentatonic - leading to the question - what sort of influences did the Scots have that the Irish didn't?

---

 Nevertheless, there are restrictions and conventions placed on any music, including shape note music, and those restrictions and conventions constitute part of a theory of music. If not for the theory, I repeat, there would be nothing more than random placement of notes of random value, timing, and emphasis, to name a few. They'd probably call that "jazz" ( just kidding, The Devil made me write it ).

Edited by - mwc9725e on 12/16/2011 14:14:18

Bill Rogers - Posted - 12/16/2011:  14:31:20

"Vestapol" or "Vastapol" is a corruption for Sebastapol, the Crimean city now in the Ukraine.  I don't know the connection, but see "Sylvester Poole March" on Reed Martin's "Old Time Banjo" CD.

Quartermaster James - Posted - 12/16/2011:  15:42:46

quote:

---

Originally posted by mwc9725e

I claim it's not possible to learn to play music without at least subconsciously knowing SOME music theory. Otherwise, you'd just as well string a set of random notes together in some random fashion. I'd bet there isn't a one of us on this forum that doesn't know do-re-me-fa-so-la-ti-do, and that's music theory. And I'd further bet that most of the people on this forum know do-re-me (flat)-fa-so-la-ti-do, and that's also music theory. 

 

---

I respectfully disagree (although we may be diving headfirst into the semantics of epistemology here).

I think this example demonstrates a knowledge of music, a specific music, and knowledge most probably acquired through acculturation.

One could live a lifetime knowing just "do-re-me-fa-so-la-ti-do" without any knowledge of note, step, interval, octave, etc., and without any further knowledge of how all work within the greater spectrum of sound. Knowing "do-re-me-fa-so-la-ti-do" is no more knowing music theory than is having a catchy advertising jingle stuck in one's head.

For example, I don't need music theory to keep me from stringing random notes together, all I need is a teacher or some tablature to show me the way to play a tune. I don't need music theory to play a tune with a capo - I do that "because that's the way it's played."

Going further: I don't think that theory, by it's very definition, can be known subconsciously. Theory requires analysis, thought, and speculation. We may have an intuitive grasp, a direct apprehension, of certain facts that can later be explained by theory, but that direct apprehension is a different type of knowledge. Likewise, we may be acculturated to certain types of music, types of music that were most certainly shaped by theory, but which come to us only through exposure and without explanation. We may have expectations based on this acculturation and exposure, but these expectations are not theory.

Marc Nerenberg - Posted - 12/16/2011:  15:45:54

quote:

---

Originally posted by mwc9725e

 Nevertheless, there are restrictions and conventions placed on any music, including shape note music, and those restrictions and conventions constitute part of a theory of music. If not for the theory, I repeat, there would be nothing more than random placement of notes of random value, timing, and emphasis, to name a few. ...

---

I think this statement is largely incorrect. You don't need to know the theory behind what makes it sound good to recognize that it does, and then learn how to do that, by listening to yourself.

Some birds sing beautifully - and musically - do they know theory? Horses have perfect pitch - do they know theory? Babies recognize and react to music - do they know theory? 3 year olds can play the violin, by ear, without a lick of theory.

Music is based on the physics of harmonious relationships (whether between pitches, or between rhythmic units) - we recognize those things and repeat them - but there is no need to understand the physics of it to be able to do it.

I know quite a bit of music theory. I almost never use it. I use my ear and my heart. I rarely have any idea what notes or chords I am playing.

There's nothing random about music - because we gravitate to that which sounds good - and randomness does not do that - it does not create what we recognize to be music, it creates noise.

Edited by - Marc Nerenberg on 12/16/2011 15:49:48

Bart McNeil - Posted - 12/16/2011:  17:41:20

Hey Marc... Quit putting down noise!!! I agree with your thoughts on theory... but perhaps even what you play would at one time be thought of as random noise. Certainly that's true in my case... just ask my wife...) But seriously, I think that innovation by its nature has to be a little disturbing to the status quo. It has to push just a little bit beyong "beauty" and "good taste" into noise. In music, I suspect, as in visual art some works are just so "bad" that they are "good",,,, challenging, thought provoking, abrasive, downright ugly.... But if the goal of all art was just to please us with harmonious colors, or sounds life would be pretty dull in my opinion. like elevator music.

There is something to be said for the sound of fingernails on a blackboard.... It feels so very good when it stops. An overdose of beauty or harmony is not what I think art ought to be about. entertainment maybe,,, but not art.

R.D. Lunceford - Posted - 12/16/2011:  17:50:28

quote:

---

Originally posted by mwc9725e



So isn't there some kind of intuitive music theory knowledge at play in the development and use of those tunings?

 

---

 Quartermaster James responded:

I don't think that theory, by it's very definition, can be known subconsciously. Theory requires analysis, thought, and speculation. We may have an intuitive grasp, a direct apprehension, of certain facts that can later be explained by theory, but that direct apprehension is a different type of knowledge.

I think that cuts to the heart of the matter:  Music theory as most of us understand it is an academic pursuit, and therefore counter-intuitive.

As so often happens in these discussions, folks debate subjects based on different definitions of the same thing.  I suppose in a very broad sense one could argue that the "old-timers" had an intuitive understanding of music theory, but that is a novel description of how they achieved their result.  My Dad was an old-timer, and he didn't know a lick of what is understood of as music theory.

The quote on the back cover of Pete Seeger's banjo manual sums it up:

"...can I read notes?  Hell, there are no notes to a banjo.  You just play it."

Reply made by an old-time banjo picker, interviewed around 1850, and asked if he could read music.

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 12/16/2011:  18:08:04

I think others have made my point for me, but let me take a moment to set out MY music theory which I do think a musician needs to understand (either in a born-in or taught-in manner).

Music needs to consist of pleasing notes and rhythms.

The notes need not please you or me, only the player, or singer. The Wood Thrush is the most musical creature to ever grace my yard - and he knows nothing of music theory. I could listen to a wood thrush for hours. If one ever actually listens to wolves howl, the music is obvious to most humans. The same is true of whale songs, many insects, etc.

Rhythm can be as loose as a monk's chants or as tight as a jazz quintet, but there has to be some sort of "direction" to it. I know some would find my definition of rhythm too restrictive. But I have composed entire pieces around the rattle of air in a radiator and the subtle shifts of pitch from large AC units etc, so I'm not completely in thrall of the 4/4 beat.

If the listener is not pleased with the sound, he has the right to say it is not music, but not the right to say it is not music to others. It is a personal decision for each person to make, and in fact it is based on music crit that many creatures on this planet choose mates - In fact I'm almost certain I got mine because I made the right sounds with my guitar.

Edited by - oldwoodchuckb on 12/16/2011 18:15:47

Carlos Benavides - Posted - 12/17/2011:  07:15:23

I believe a lot of our efforts to understand music comes from a desire to hear structure. I think organization, structure and classification are very instinctual attributes for all people in all cultures. This is what I think happens when we learn about "Old-Timers" experimenting with new song forms, or birdsong, or the implied rhythms in a noisy road construction crew, or the passing of a freight train. We can't help ourselves. We seem to have this need to wrap structure around everything we hear.

Despite the 'heaviness' implied in these three words (organization, structure, and classification) they do not come from the body of knowledge we call music theory. Rather, I think music theory knowledge is just a unified collection of structures we originally felt at the instinctual level as sounding correct. I'm referring here to order at the intuition level. This is what the Old-Timers were doing back then, and this is what "New-Timers" are doing today!

One note leads to another. The two notes form a relationship, and then it all blossoms from there. I think it's clear that all cultures have developed these music structures intuitively and within their own societal groups. The theory comes afterwards in an attempt to clean up and tie up the loose ends. Theory isn't perfect, and neither is in meant to be. Without an understanding that things can alter over time, then the theory would be a dead end road.

Structure is a useful way to understand something. What would music be to us without meaning? Every now and again you'll hear some weird experiments in atonal music, but for the most part I think these are curiosities that disappear from common acceptance over time. We need our music to make sense to us, so we apply structure. In this sense a music scale is an inevitable invention. There was just no way our human society would have gotten around NOT inventing one. It only takes three random notes and there you have a music system.

cbcarlisle - Posted - 12/17/2011:  07:55:35

Let's all take a deep breath. It's not personal, or even personal experience. Humans have been making music for 50,000 years - and still do all around the world - without a hint of Theory. We have also been speaking for the same amount of time without knowledge of Grammar. And, getting by surviving (more or less) without knowing about germs or vitamins. Modern science, and theory, is all very useful but it isn't all there is.

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/17/2011:  08:03:04

---

Going further: I don't think that theory, by it's very definition, can be known subconsciously. Theory requires analysis, thought, and speculation. We may have an intuitive grasp, a direct apprehension, of certain facts that can later be explained by theory, but that direct apprehension is a different type of knowledge. Likewise, we may be acculturated to certain types of music, types of music that were most certainly shaped by theory, but which come to us only through exposure and without explanation. We may have expectations based on this acculturation and exposure, but these expectations are not theory.

 

 

---

 Maybe our disagreement is rooted in definition. To me, there is a distinction, but it is often unstated, between abstract theory and applied theory. As an engineer, I often use results of mathematics or physics without knowing the analysis or experimental process from which those results were derived. That's applied theory, but theory none the less. The fact that I don't fully know the roots from whence those results came doesn't make the results less theory based. 

 On the other hand, when I studied mathematics, and worked in that field for a while, it was the pure, or abstract,  theory that I was interested in -- deriving results that were mathematically interesting, whether they had any practical application or not.

In my mind, now, I tend to lump the two together under the term "theory". Maybe I should mentally separate applied theory and pure theory, but I don't, and I don't think it's usually necessary for most purposes, the context should do an adequate job of that.

Edited by - mwc9725e on 12/17/2011 08:07:04

minstrelmike - Posted - 12/17/2011:  08:23:40

I don't think music 'theory' is independent of reality or example the way math is.

Compare Chinese music to Western music. Yes, there are theories underlying each but it's not a general one.

Nor is it intuitive.

Raise a grandchild in North Carolina listening only to traditional Japanese music from conception (the fetus hears inside the uterus) up to age 3 or so and then see how familiar American bluegrass or country or rock sounds to him.

As far as I'm concerned, general music theory is about as useful as general syntax. (There are apparently 27 different verb tenses if you cover all languages but any particular language will only have 7-10 of them). Even now, I see 4 competitive theories just for American music: basic scale-oriented stuff, jazz scale orientation, basic chord-oriented stuff, jazz chording.

In theory, theory and practice are identical.

In practice, they aren't.

Carlos Benavides - Posted - 12/17/2011:  09:15:54

quote:

---

Originally posted by minstrelmike

I don't think music 'theory' is independent of reality or example the way math is.

Compare Chinese music to Western music. Yes, there are theories underlying each but it's not a general one.

Nor is it intuitive.

Raise a grandchild in North Carolina listening only to traditional Japanese music from conception (the fetus hears inside the uterus) up to age 3 or so and then see how familiar American bluegrass or country or rock sounds to him.

---

Your example about the NC baby growing up with Japanese music speaks to what Quartermaster James says above about "exposure without explanation", or what I'd call conditioning. Music changes over time; lets call that innovation. Part of the innovation process involves consciously unraveling that conditioning and stepping into new ground. It's in this new ground where we can start to apply intuition, in so far as we can escape the bonds of our conditioning.

It's hard to hear new music, really truly new music. I'm reminded of the accounts of riots at the concert hall when Arnold Schoenberg introduced his new chromatic scale music. There's the power of conditioning!

Edited by - Carlos Benavides on 12/17/2011 09:16:36

BobTheGambler - Posted - 12/17/2011:  10:19:30

The tuning term Vastapol, which you correctly identified as a corruption of Sebastapol, came from the popular 19th century parlor guitar piece "The Siege of Sebastapol" or simply "Sabastapol." Open G was often referred to as "Spanish" tuning, which was probably derived from the piece "The Spanish Fandango." Both of these pieces were published by a guitar teacher and player named Henry Worrall in the 1860s.  Jas Obrecht wrote a very interesting piece exploring the influence of popular open-tuned parlor guitar sheet music in spreading the use of these two  tunings, as well as giving rise to the nomenclature that older blues musicians often used to describe them:

jasobrecht.com/blues-origins-s...bastopol/

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Rogers

"Vestapol" or "Vastapol" is a corruption for Sebastapol, the Crimean city now in the Ukraine.  I don't know the connection, but see "Sylvester Poole March" on Reed Martin's "Old Time Banjo" CD.

---

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/17/2011:  10:58:06

quote:

---

Originally posted by minstrelmike

I don't think music 'theory' is independent of reality or example the way math is.

 

---

 "Pure mathematics" is a purely mental process, and usually practiced with little or no thought of worldly examples. But music can also be discussed outside the context of example, as well. In fact, I'd say there's a "pureness" to music theory that is much like pure mathematics. And I'd also say there's an applied music theory that's analogous to applied mathematics.

I don't think great music can be composed ( unless you're lucky ) outside the context of theory -- well, maybe rap or hiphop would be exceptions.

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 12/17/2011:  12:12:17

Hiphop and rap actually fall pretty much in the same class as most Pop music and you could say it follows the rules of modern music theory. However, music doesn't follow theory, theory follows music.

Music theory is an academic construct created to explain what exists. In reality it is not a theory at all, but simply a set of conventions codified in such a way as to make it easier to talk about music - which is, as has been said, akin to dancing abut architecture.

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/17/2011:  12:42:14

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldwoodchuckb

Hiphop and rap actually fall pretty much in the same class as most Pop music and you could say it follows the rules of modern music theory. However, music doesn't follow theory, theory follows music.

Music theory is an academic construct created to explain what exists. In reality it is not a theory at all, but simply a set of conventions codified in such a way as to make it easier to talk about music - which is, as has been said, akin to dancing abut architecture.

---

 Oh well......

banjopogo - Posted - 12/17/2011:  17:15:38

quote:

---

Originally posted by mwc9725e

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldwoodchuckb

Hiphop and rap actually fall pretty much in the same class as most Pop music and you could say it follows the rules of modern music theory. However, music doesn't follow theory, theory follows music.

Music theory is an academic construct created to explain what exists. In reality it is not a theory at all, but simply a set of conventions codified in such a way as to make it easier to talk about music - which is, as has been said, akin to dancing abut architecture.

---

 Oh well......

---

Oh well.... we may as well ask Eric to pull the plug on all his servers, since that's the main thing the Hangouts are FOR!

Talking about music that is... not dancing about architecture.

(Zappa de doo-dah, Zappa dee-ay, my, oh my-y what a wonderful day!)

IIRC, there's a certain oldwoodchuck that talks quite a bit about music on this Hangout, one way or another!

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 12/17/2011:  19:54:52

But talking about music still is, and never will be the same as Music, no matter who is doing the talking. You can learn a lot from a good architectural dance (I remember one particularly good dance group in San Francisco, but they were better known for dancing naked than for the wonderful human constructs they could create), but an architectural dance is not architecture. It can create an architectural piece, but it would be hard to live inside.

Paul R - Posted - 12/17/2011:  20:36:31

So, at what point did people who banged on hollow logs stop to codify their beats? I doubt that the codification preceded the banging.

That said, there's certainly a place for at least an elementary understanding of some theory. At our weekly jam there are some players who get confused when the capo has to go on. "This one's in Bb." "Where do I put the capo?" "Easy - G + 3 = Bb." Practical application of very basic theory, which, hopefully eventually becomes intuitive.

This conversation parallels the one on using electronic tuners vs. tuning by ears.

Carlos Benavides - Posted - 12/18/2011:  10:32:25

To talk about something with another person requires points of reference. How else can you have two-way communication unless there's mutual agreement on at least the foundations of what your ideas are based on?

I see this music theory discussion the same way. What is there to talk about beyond "I like this tune and I don't like this other one. This one makes me feel happy, this other one makes me feel sad."  If the discussion is to go any further into the HOW & WHY I like or dislike this, then you need some points of musical reference to why it it so. Such as, a chord cycle that goes to the V and then back to I has a clear sense of being a musical statement.

The theory makes the modern day music discussion possible. Even when you pass tunes onto the next generation by ear and example alone, you still need some way of contextualizing what that other person is telling you. That is, how is this new tune different from the one you taught me yesterday. I'm not saying that modern musical vocabulary has been widely used by people throughout the ages, clearly this is NOT the case. But I would argue that we utilize the essence of music theory even when we're not aware that we're doing so. I would certainly say that the Old-Timers sharing their new tunes were trying hard to find ways of describing to each other their music. Our descriptions of what we show each other become over time a body of knowledge we later call theory. I'm not sure we can truly avoid the theory at all.

Marc Nerenberg - Posted - 12/18/2011:  14:39:29

I don't think anyone is disputing the usefulness of music theory here. I think the only point being made is that music theory is not a precurser to the making of music - it follows and explains how music works and provides a vocabulary for discussion. But very sophisticated music can be made by people with no knowledge of the theory behind it. Thus, theory is not a necessity to the creation of sophisticated and complex music.

I really don't think anyone here is suggesting that it's better to play music with no knowledge of theory - just that it was far from impossible for the "old timers" to have developed what we call "old time" music, with its myriad tunings etc., without recourse to any theoretical knowledge. Not that it might not have been easier with some theoretical knowledge - but that was not the thesis of the OP - his thesis was that they "must have had a lot of intuitive knowledge of the subject" of music theory. I don't think they "must have had" anything but the ability to listen to what they were doing.

Tinfoot - Posted - 12/18/2011:  14:51:04

If you hear your father play something, and you learn it by ear and watching, but over time, stumble onto a happy combination that sounds even better in a particular spot, you teach that to your child, and that child over time hears someone else that happen to find another interesting sounding combination ... etc. So in a way, it would be actually a "non-technical" music theory. Doesn't have the formal descriptives, but still requires a music memory of what works, what doesn't, and all those "happy combinations" which improve the tonal texture to your liking... and mixing it together as you go along and teach it to others.

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/18/2011:  16:41:10

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjopogo

quote:

---

Originally posted by mwc9725e

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldwoodchuckb

Hiphop and rap actually fall pretty much in the same class as most Pop music and you could say it follows the rules of modern music theory. However, music doesn't follow theory, theory follows music.

Music theory is an academic construct created to explain what exists. In reality it is not a theory at all, but simply a set of conventions codified in such a way as to make it easier to talk about music - which is, as has been said, akin to dancing abut architecture.

---

 Oh well......

---

Oh well....

When I wrote that, I didn't intend it to be an insult to OWC or anyone else, I wrote it out of frustration with my apparent inability to express my thoughts on the matter. My apology for offending anyone.

Quartermaster James - Posted - 12/18/2011:  17:37:22

Did something offensive happen?

If so, I missed it.

I thought we were having a discussion, exchanging differing views and ideas, and presenting arguments to support our viewpoints.

Marc Nerenberg - Posted - 12/18/2011:  17:52:16

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quartermaster James

Did something offensive happen?

If so, I missed it.

I thought we were having a discussion, exchanging differing views and ideas, and presenting arguments to support our viewpoints.

---

I didn't notice anything offensive ... and I don't think anybody took offense at anything.

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 12/18/2011:  18:38:49

I'm in Complete agreement with Marc - not only on being un-offended in any way by bill's frustration, but also I completely agree with and have little to add to Marc's other recent post

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc Nerenberg

I don't think anyone is disputing the usefulness of music theory here. I think the only point being made is that music theory is not a precurser to the making of music - it follows and explains how music works and provides a vocabulary for discussion. But very sophisticated music can be made by people with no knowledge of the theory behind it. Thus, theory is not a necessity to the creation of sophisticated and complex music.

I really don't think anyone here is suggesting that it's better to play music with no knowledge of theory - just that it was far from impossible for the "old timers" to have developed what we call "old time" music, with its myriad tunings etc., without recourse to any theoretical knowledge. Not that it might not have been easier with some theoretical knowledge - but that was not the thesis of the OP - his thesis was that they "must have had a lot of intuitive knowledge of the subject" of music theory. I don't think they "must have had" anything but the ability to listen to what they were doing.

---

My problem is not being able to see why Bill is frustrated here. I frankly cannot understand his premise that anyone has to have a knowledge of Music Theory to play or compose music. My favourite Jazz pianist Errol Garner couldn't read music. John Lennon and Paul McCartny couldn't read music either, at least not in the 1960s. Blind Lemon Jefferson, Mississippi John Hurt, Son House, and most of the Delta blues men had know knowledge of music theory and I doubt it was an important subject in most one, two or even four room schoolhouses.

Tinfoot - Posted - 12/18/2011:  19:06:34

Well, he referred to the "bizzaro" tunings ... and I see those tunings as simple some guy waaaay back when with old gut strings just playing however those strings were "tuned to" with a couple twitches on the pegs once in awhile. He just kicked around on it, trying to get something out that sounded like the the old fella 2 mountains over (who happen to have his "tuning" to something else, whatever those strings happen to be at). Finally after awhile, he figures out the "fretting" and makes it sound real good - and the folk around him that want to play too just "mimics the sound" by adjusting their pegs till it sounds like him, and the "tuning" gets established in a region.   Along comes a city dweller who actually knows "music theory", likes what he hears, figures out the real tuning scheme, goes back and copies it and inevitably publishes it. Thus "bizzaro" tunings were formally born.



This is ALL just pure supposition, but it makes sense to me why such "tunings" exist. Nothing intuitive really, just some dude on a randomly tuned mountain banjo idling over the winter with it till music comes out.

Edited by - Tinfoot on 12/18/2011 19:09:42

Marc Nerenberg - Posted - 12/18/2011:  20:58:32

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldwoodchuckb

...

Blind Lemon Jefferson ... and most of the Delta blues men had know knowledge of music theory and I doubt it was an important subject in most one, two or even four room schoolhouses.

 

---

Next you're gonna tell me that Blind Lemon Jefferson, Blind Blake, Blind Willie Johnson, Blind Boy Fuller, Blind Willie McTell, Blind Sonny Terry, Blind Alfred Reed and all those other blind musicians whose names I forget, couldn't read music? Wow! Who'd'a guessed it?

Paul R - Posted - 12/18/2011:  21:27:13

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc Nerenberg

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldwoodchuckb

 

Blind Lemon Jefferson ... and most of the Delta blues men had no knowledge of music theory and I doubt it was an important subject in most one, two or even four room schoolhouses.  

---

Next you're gonna tell me that Blind Lemon Jefferson, Blind Blake, Blind Willie Johnson, Blind Boy Fuller, Blind Willie McTell, Blind Sonny Terry, Blind Alfred Reed and all those other blind musicians whose names I forget, couldn't read music? Wow! Who'd'a guessed it?

---

 What about Def Leppard? Would reading help them?

Tony, those Delta blues men were watching each other quite closely and picking up riffs and ideas (and watching other musicians, too). At some point you could conceivably classify this as theory.

Marc Nerenberg - Posted - 12/18/2011:  22:15:27

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul R

...

Tony, those Delta blues men were watching each other quite closely and picking up riffs and ideas (and watching other musicians, too). At some point you could conceivably classify this as theory.

---

How and why would you classify copying as theory? What is theoretical about it?

Deaf Lester Crawdad - Posted - 12/19/2011:  00:34:17

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tinfoot

If you hear your father play something, and you learn it by ear and watching, but over time, stumble onto a happy combination that sounds even better in a particular spot, you teach that to your child, and that child over time hears someone else that happen to find another interesting sounding combination ... etc. So in a way, it would be actually a "non-technical" music theory. Doesn't have the formal descriptives, but still requires a music memory of what works, what doesn't, and all those "happy combinations" which improve the tonal texture to your liking... and mixing it together as you go along and teach it to others.

---

 But there's a music theory name for that:  It's called the "Folk Process", and knowing what it means enables you to speak of it without devoting an entire paragraph to the description...

~Pete

Deaf Lester Crawdad - Posted - 12/19/2011:  00:36:48

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deaf Lester Crawdad

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc Nerenberg

I really don't think anyone here is suggesting that it's better to play music with no knowledge of theory - just that it was far from impossible for the "old timers" to have developed what we call "old time" music, with its myriad tunings etc., without recourse to any theoretical knowledge. Not that it might not have been easier with some theoretical knowledge - but that was not the thesis of the OP - his thesis was that they "must have had a lot of intuitive knowledge of the subject" of music theory. I don't think they "must have had" anything but the ability to listen to what they were doing.

---

 Well, that and the willingness to say "Hmmm...let's try this and see what happens!"

That phrase has been responsible for many of mankind's explorations/advances, although one must admit that it's also caused it's share of problems; as when Ogg first tried to sneak up behind that Saber-toothed Tiger with a hand-axe and visions of a stylish new striped sleeping bag.

Fortunately, in most of these cases the bad ideas prove to be impractical and get left by the wayside  -along with the late-lamented Ogg.

~Pete

---

Paul R - Posted - 12/19/2011:  06:48:17

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc Nerenberg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul R

...

Tony, those Delta blues men were watching each other quite closely and picking up riffs and ideas (and watching other musicians, too). At some point you could conceivably classify this as theory.

---

How and why would you classify copying as theory? What is theoretical about it?

---

Well, while I think that Pete has captured it well, I'll try the briefest possible attempt: playing it vs. "How did he do that?"

I guess it's a matter of the perception of where you cross the line.

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/19/2011:  07:38:06

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc Nerenberg

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldwoodchuckb

...

Blind Lemon Jefferson ... and most of the Delta blues men had know knowledge of music theory and I doubt it was an important subject in most one, two or even four room schoolhouses.

 

---

Next you're gonna tell me that Blind Lemon Jefferson, Blind Blake, Blind Willie Johnson, Blind Boy Fuller, Blind Willie McTell, Blind Sonny Terry, Blind Alfred Reed and all those other blind musicians whose names I forget, couldn't read music? Wow! Who'd'a guessed it?

---

 I heard, though, that the legendary Blind Grapefruit Succotash actually taught music theory at some college or other.

mwc9725e - Posted - 12/19/2011:  08:14:10

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deaf Lester Crawdad

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tinfoot

If you hear your father play something, and you learn it by ear and watching, but over time, stumble onto a happy combination that sounds even better in a particular spot, you teach that to your child, and that child over time hears someone else that happen to find another interesting sounding combination ... etc. So in a way, it would be actually a "non-technical" music theory. Doesn't have the formal descriptives, but still requires a music memory of what works, what doesn't, and all those "happy combinations" which improve the tonal texture to your liking... and mixing it together as you go along and teach it to others.

---

 But there's a music theory name for that:  It's called the "Folk Process", and knowing what it means enables you to speak of it without devoting an entire paragraph to the description...

~Pete

---

 I think you pretty much nailed it, the theory of ANYTHING provides a basis for effective discussion of that thing. For example, suspended or diminished chords are easy to discuss, with a very little knowledge of music theory, and  difficult to discuss without such knowledge. 

When I graduated from college back in the 50s, America had a whole lot of "home-made" engineers working in the space business. That was because we had a shortage of graduate engineers, so there were a lot of machinists, mechanics, and people from various other trades who suddenly found that they were engineers. They generally did a good job in their very narrow area of expertise, but were totally lost if they had to move outside that area -- because they didn't have the theoretical background that would give them the flexibility to do that. Imagine, for example, an EMT person who suddenly was asked to become a heart surgeon, and you get the picture.

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 12/19/2011:  09:05:25

But did the folks who did the "folk processing" call it "the folk process"? Or did they simply think of it as "swappin' tunes".

Also Folk Process usually implys the gradual changes made as the tune is passed down - that doesn't sound like Dr Hoctor's Music Theory Class to me. He was not a man who put up with variation. "Play it as it's written, Mr. Spadaro. There are no syncopated eighths shown in the score."