I didn't think we were talking about the history of music in America, I thought we were talking about music theory.
 
Music theory, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is  (the study of) the theoretical aspects of music and its notation, esp. as opposed to actual performance.
 
The theory does not change based on the style of music you are studying.
 
Just because classical music didn't have a backbeat or use so-called blue notes doesn't mean that the theory is different.  Music theory is a theory that can be applied to all forms of music.  That's why it's called a theory.  It really has no practical use in performance.  I can't think of any instance where I analyzed somthing while I was actually playing it ... nor can I think of any instance where I analyzed it while I was writing it.  Theory has always come after--especially, if I'm having to explain something that I've written.
 
So, in your view, all modern music produced in the United States should "represent the slave culture, the freedom sought, and the oppression suffered by African Americans in the South during the birth of Jazz, or the combination of European Scales and African Rhythms."
 
Sounds pretty narrow and myopic to me.
 
I just don't understand your post really.  It comes across as a rant by a pedant.
 
Forgive me if I'm wrong.

These two short books by Dave Stewart are a good place to start:

http://www.amazon.com/Musicians-Guide-Reading-Writing-Music/dp/0879305703

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Music-Guide-Composition-Softcover/dp/0879305711/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y/179-4993332-6522965

vanblah


I didn't think we were talking about the history of music in America, I thought we were talking about music theory.
 
Music theory, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is  (the study of) the theoretical aspects of music and its notation, esp. as opposed to actual performance.
 
The theory does not change based on the style of music you are studying.
 
Just because classical music didn't have a backbeat or use so-called blue notes doesn't mean that the theory is different.  Music theory is a theory that can be applied to all forms of music.  That's why it's called a theory.  It really has no practical use in performance.  I can't think of any instance where I analyzed somthing while I was actually playing it ... nor can I think of any instance where I analyzed it while I was writing it.  Theory has always come after--especially, if I'm having to explain something that I've written.
 
So, in your view, all modern music produced in the United States should "represent the slave culture, the freedom sought, and the oppression suffered by African Americans in the South during the birth of Jazz, or the combination of European Scales and African Rhythms."
 
Sounds pretty narrow and myopic to me.
 
I just don't understand your post really.  It comes across as a rant by a pedant.
 
Forgive me if I'm wrong.

 
I spoke about the birth of blues and jazz, which are styles of music, whose theory is different than classical.  That's how we got into the history of music in America.  How can you understand any form of music, without knowing its history...

 Whatever.. 

Edit = Oh, and I didn't say, "all music in America had better subscribe to the history of slavery."  I said, "Nicki Minaj, and Katey Perry, have music, which does not represent jazz and the blues."  Jazz and the blues were born out of slavery, they have a theory that differs from classical, "a point I am illustrating again, and precisely what you fail to understand."  Even, "classical music," is an odd term, as it is a blanket phrase used to describe several different periods in the history of European Music.  Each period having a different theory.. 

Danny Danzi

I can hum a perfect G chord at any time.

Wow, that's one heck of a talent you got there, Danny.  <grin, duck and run>

vanblah


I didn't think we were talking about the history of music in America, I thought we were talking about music theory.
 
Music theory, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is  (the study of) the theoretical aspects of music and its notation, esp. as opposed to actual performance.
 
The theory does not change based on the style of music you are studying.
 
Just because classical music didn't have a backbeat or use so-called blue notes doesn't mean that the theory is different.  Music theory is a theory that can be applied to all forms of music.  That's why it's called a theory.  It really has no practical use in performance.  I can't think of any instance where I analyzed somthing while I was actually playing it ... nor can I think of any instance where I analyzed it while I was writing it.  Theory has always come after--especially, if I'm having to explain something that I've written.
 

Forgive me if I'm wrong.

Two sides to this:


When you say you don't analyze until after the fact:


For me, I think that I do while I write, but it's more a PBE analysis as opposed the composer analysis. Take improvisation. Improvisers have tons of things swirling in their heads despite the listener being unaware (if they aren't knowledgeable to some extent) I watched a video on YT and the pianist was explaining the five harmonic systems used when improvising. At the end, he tried to evoke all five techniques in one tune. Of course, it slowed him down since he was thinking about it, but for obvious reasons. I've seen the same done in regards to reharmonization. So many techniques in one tune.


It's the same with a structured piece. You learn all of this stuff and should be able to write a tune in no time because you're not thinking about it; however, not thinking about and knowing what you're doing so you needn't are two different things. The Improviser vs. The Noodler. The Composer vs. The Aural Spitball.


OTOH, analysis can come beforehand:

Let's say you're attempting a piece on piano. You want to study it extensively before you play it - especially if you're a beginner pianist and/or sight-reader. You could either provide a harmonic analysis, then play, but you wanna hear the piece with your inner ear if you haven't analyzed it. "I know what these chords are and know how they will sound." Now, sit down and play - getting it perfect the first time or after plenty of mistakes is not the point.

Apparently the composer/theorist vs. performer divide still exist as does the PBE/SE divide. It's assumed that "structured music" performers don't analyze while playing. I beg to differ. They may not be analyzing chord symbols - if any are present - or how the music is progressing, but they are analyzing appropriate markings, then thinking how to execute this on said instrument. As does the improviser when looking at a leadsheet. (What will I do here? as opposed to being told - other than "make sure to maintain the melody")

But yes, theory comes afterwards upon explanation, that doesn't mean it's not obtained before the explanations are given. You have to know what you're doing/talking about. People can tell when you don't. "That person was fantastic! You're just noodling!" However, noodling is the basis for improvisation! Just like doing such on an instrument is the basis for actually playing it! Theory (ie: Composition/Improvisation) takes as much if not more practice as performing such.

Funny that you mentioned the Beatles.  According to some of the biographies, they wrote songs around some chord one of them learned how to play.  That and trying to figure out what Roy Orbison was doing on his records.

Most of what I like about the Beatles is that they routinely broke the rules just because it sounded cool.

SuperStruct and all:

I think you (all) understand that music theory, approached from a variety of different angles ... angles that 'click' to you (all) ... all can become quite inspirational and productive.

1) Being essentially a musical idiot, I just picked up an idiots guide to music theory ... and the muse took over.

2) IMHO, much music theory overlaps most genres.

3) The variables of theory, performance, public gigs, private compositions, post-production, etc. ... all build upon one another.

4) More important than music theory might be personality, adventure, spirituality, and/or, love.  I don't know.

Philip

 
2) IMHO, much music theory overlaps most genres.

   

Running seems to overlap in sports...   When we change the way we look at things, the things we look at change...   







Edit =  The picture isn't part of the quote from Philip, this forum is a little wacky.  I take full responsibility for the picture.

It's all geometry... All you have to do is understand the shapes involved, and visualize them. It's all geometry/math in the end.

It all starts here, "A 440" and diverges in both directions. 

1. There are Triads.

2. There are Major and Minor Triads.

That's pretty much it? There are a few other tasty bits thrown in, but as long as you know the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8, Do Ray Me Fa So La Tee Do. And the fact that they are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8? Then it's a piece of cake.

It's all really geometry and math in the end.  And it repeats "usually" So once you figure out the pattern? You copy and paste it. It repeats, and it's math. 

There is no H? How hard can it be?

"That's my original quote BTW..."