>music theory ruins enjoymentThis is such an adorable brainlet cope. I always you see guys circlejerking it on here. First of all it's kind of weak to cling to enjoyment. There is plently in the world to enjoy, and the best sources of musical inspiration are always extramusical. Oftentimes learning music theory can disrupt enjoyment, but there's nothing to fear. You are simply being challenged to use that knowledge to feel music on a deeper level. You will get to a point where you consciously feel music on a level that normies can only subconsciously feel. This happens when the lines between rhythm/melody/harmony/dynamics start to blur. Oftentimes the midwit will fail to measure up to this challenge, and the soulless analyzing will only block their enjoyment. But theory is just mathematics, it can never truely destroy something irrational like feeling, only disrupt. So keep learning frens.
>>130700331> theory is just mathematicsT. doesn’t know music theory
>>130700345Orly. Why don't you educate me then?
Oog no have big threadOog find big thread one day, try to make thread big again... thread no big againOog sad
>>130700360The relationships between chords are defined by maths for example, but theory also includes the description of how one chord changing into another makes you feel (which is highly subjective and qualitative). Two people can hear the same chord progression and feel very differently about it. Theory is not some immutable science of the universe, it’s a way to better articulate how YOU respond to music. It doesn’t give you a deeper/subconscious appreciation for music, that’s a load of bollocks. It’s just a descriptive tool
>>130700397Holy shit you're a midwit. Theory categorically does not include feeling.
I've been doing microtonal and alternate scale stuff lately, music theory as it exists, pretends this doesn't exist. Completely. Therefore we can make a statement about music theory - it's underdeveloped.Work on it a bit more, get back to us.
>>130700416I never claimed it was fully developed so I don't know what you're babbling about. Clearly you think the mere mention of microtonal scales is some kind of token that automatically makes you sound smsrt.
being an engineer and having an understanding of how the car works doesn't make you a better or worse driver, they're unrelated
>>130701054You're accidentally strawmanning me. Having such knowledge would certainly make you appreciate the beauty of a quality vehicle better though. That's my point.
>>130700397>theory also includes the description of how one chord changing into another makes you feelShow some examples. I've never seen "theory" like this.
>>130700416>music theory as it exists, pretends this doesn't existRight. Just looking at the list of sources and further reading on this page proves that you're a retard.>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicrotonalityWhy lie about something like that? Have you genuinely also not noticed the onslaught of new generation musicians/composers/YouTubers creaming their pants over microtonality in the past decade or two?
I don't use music theory. I don't use scales. I play between the notes. I play with freedom. I play with soul.>proceed to pick up a 12edo guitar and piddle up and down the minor pentatonic scale, sounding exactly the same as every other spastic who talks like that
>>130701577i mean the major scale is widely considered a 'happy' scale while the minor is 'sad'
>>130702099Microtonality is the biggest scam. It's funny because the name itself is eurocentric as if anything outside of 12TET is "micro". By the way, any culture who uses non 12TET would not consider the scales to be "microtonal" because they don't even have the same concept of harmony to begin with, sometimes not even one at all + they used instruments where the notes were "out of tune with themselves" so to speak due to resource limitation / superstition. The Western tuning system was derived from the overtone series to address the issue of harmony. Retards say that it's "limiting" as if it the notes were just randomly chosen for no reason. Then they try to apply "alternate tuning systems" into the same logic that the 12TET was designed around. And it's really telling, the best use these fags have found for their "alternate tuning systems" is mentioning them to sound smart. Then they go and listen to their playlists of 99% standard 12TET music, because it's the best system.
>>130702116Yea, but that's not in the domain of theory. That's someone drawing their own conclusion from music theory. Theory was designed to record these patterns, but it doesn't tell you what they're supposed to feel like.
>>130702150https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indexicality#Oinoglossia_(wine_talk)
>>130702116That's not music theory. That's just a pedagogical cliché and learned cultural association to help beginners and dilettantes recognize the difference between the two dominant scales. It's a real tendency in modern Western music, but even in Mozart's time, minor didn't simply mean "sad", but a heightened affect like pathos, seriousness, turbulence, sometimes tragedy. And before that, there wasn't an established major/minor binary, but a much more complicated modal and affective system.
>>130702193it's a sliding scale of how much you're willing to compromise with this that starts with cheerful, move to heavy, then to progressive and eventually to technical
>>130702193You're literally agreeing with him, fucking retard
chromatic scale = granular consistency that makes the listener less anxious because there is a sense of completeness. the listener is rendered more alert because of the granularity. makes the listener experience a sense of resolution at the internal consistency larger interval scales like pentatonic = anxiety is diminished because of tonal harmony rather than wholeness and the listener is rendered more alert because they are filling the gaps in themselves. gives the listener a more primal experience because of less information overall.so yes, in a sense, major and minor is kind not the most effective way to describe musical affect
>>130700414wrong, the "feeling" between different types of chord transitions is a discussed element o theory its just considered the more subjective end of theory
>>130701577the study of chord relationships is very much a subject of theory
>>130702150>not in the domain of theoryyou coudn't be more wrong, the discussion of the feeling of chords, modes, scales, modified chords, all of that is part of theory , the modes part is especially popularly discussed
>>130702220>>130702434Music psychology and pedagogy aren't music theory. Music theory describes musical structures and relationships within a given system; why a minor triad differs from a major triad, how chords function in a progression, how voice-leading works, etc.But "this scale makes you feel sad" isn't theory in that same sense. That's an affective, psychological and culturally learned association. It's not a universal theoretical law and it has very little explanatory value beyond being a beginner-level teaching cliché.>>130702756Chord relationships are theory, whereas "how this chord progression makes me feel" isn't.
i remember this artist called shlohmo who made very cool chill tracks then he took a break from music to study music theoryhe came back and released boring shit
>>130702912Well that settles it I guess
>>130702912I just looked him up and his new stuff gets the same amount of plays as his old stuff. Looks like your personal opinions are quite irrelevant in the face of reality at large.
>>130702478ive never heard of chromatic making someone "less anxious" theres a mechanical quality to it that makes it feel absent of emotion personally
Music theory is gay as fuck. When an musician goes out of his way to show how he went against music theory and he's successful it makes me happy as fuck. Free will motherfucker. You're rules mean nothing to me.
>>130703104>gets the same amount of playsHis old track - PLACES - has 47 million plays, his newest most listened to track, - THE END - has 12 million plays.
>>130702860at a certain point its become obvious you have a narrow perspective of music theory and haven't participated in the numerous theoretical readings that concern things like tension and resolution which are translated further into fundamental feeling which are not always universal but are certainly culturally shared for many
>>130703623your favorite musician is a closet theoryfag
I thought music theory was just a tool to understand your instrument and music better? What the fuck is this lifestyle shit?>music theory it's a way of life!wtf is that shit?
This is the be-all end-all of "is music theory le good or le bad" threads. All the context anyone will ever need. Every single iteration of this thread has devolved into mindless shitflinging and midwit accusations except this onehttps://desuarchive.org/mu/thread/113885163/
>>130705004TL;DR?
>>130700331haha OP I love froggo XD
>>130703675No, I'm not denying that theory discusses tension and resolution. Of course it does. I'm saying there's a difference between describing the musical mechanism and describing the listener's emotional response to it."Dissonance resolves to consonance", "V resolves to I", or "this chord has dominant function" are theoretical descriptions. "This makes you feel sad" is a psychological/aesthetic claim. The two are connected, but they are not the same thing. You need to be pretty stupid or intellectually dishonest to not see the clear difference.
