|
I would disagree strongly with that. Music theory is objective. They aren't rules but principles that music follows.
Only excuse for not learning music theory is that you have a supertalent that you subconsciously already know and apply all the theory. Because that is what happens and that is what a Mozart type does. They follow the rules naturally.
And yes, learning how to compose and learning how to orchestrate a composition are two different things that are best learned separate.
If you aren't going to pull out a harmony textbook I have no idea how the hell you are going to learn the stuff that is in there. You probably won't learn it and this means you are basically illiterate when it comes to harmony.
When you don't know you are supposed to have chords then that's the same as trying to talk without knowing that there are words.
If you never learned about chords and you try to write music then how are you magically going to figure it out and start using them? It's like wanting to study math and discovering all the proofs completely independent from anyone else. It is folly.
|
music theory has always followed music... possibly excepting atonality, twelve tone, ..
things like.. the human ear has such and such hearing range.. the voice falls in such and such frequencies... these are the rules of nature
harmony, chord theory, this is just taste. people who know nothing about music will recognize the familiar harmonic structures of pop music, etc.. even if they haven't "learned" it.
if you want to emulate a certain style, know what makes bach bach and rachmaninov rachmaninov, then you would do well to learn theory but it's by no means "necessary" or fundamental "principles." if everyone cared so much about "theory" we'd all still be writing bach fugues. (heaven forbid, and heaven knows there is no shortage of people who would be delighted)
|
On August 14 2011 11:02 forelmashi wrote:Show nested quote +
imslp.org
lots of free scores to study
if you talk to people who study formally, they'll tell you that orchestration is just a technique; what they mean of course is to emphasize firstly composition, distinct and separate.
in my personal opinion so much of the old "rules" and "textbooks" has more to do with taste and practical matters concerning contemporary orchestras than principles. principles and textures you'll learn just as much from studying modern music production as you will from old orchestration textbooks. i.e, instrumentation in all frequencies sounds full, etc.
but things like.. how to voice your winds... that is merely taste and oldfashioned in the world of film music etc imho
IMSLP is an amazing resource, I wish more people knew about it.
On to your opinion on orchestration, sure some older texts like Rimsky-Korsakov's book was riddled with 'proper' orchestration techniques, however the since the 20th century (or you could colorfully say since Stravinsky chose to ignore his teachers 'best practices') that generalization no longer is true. There are practical issues involved, and the good texts choose to show the complete portrait of how an instrument can be presented, not on how it should be.
I should also say that Korsakov has a point in writing his text, his point was to define the best practices of orchestration from the late 19th centrury perspective, which is a very helpful tool for those wishing to learn that style of orchestration.
On August 16 2011 02:03 Hekisui wrote:Show nested quote +
I would disagree strongly with that. Music theory is objective. They aren't rules but principles that music follows.
Only excuse for not learning music theory is that you have a supertalent that you subconsciously already know and apply all the theory. Because that is what happens and that is what a Mozart type does. They follow the rules naturally.
And yes, learning how to compose and learning how to orchestrate a composition are two different things that are best learned separate.
If you aren't going to pull out a harmony textbook I have no idea how the hell you are going to learn the stuff that is in there. You probably won't learn it and this means you are basically illiterate when it comes to harmony.
When you don't know you are supposed to have chords then that's the same as trying to talk without knowing that there are words.
If you never learned about chords and you try to write music then how are you magically going to figure it out and start using them? It's like wanting to study math and discovering all the proofs completely independent from anyone else. It is folly.
I shudder to think what would have happened had Mozart not learned theory... Even as brilliant as one may be, they all (Mozart included) learned the formal practices of the time.
Also, learning to compose and learning to orchestrate are not separate entities, and should not under any circumstance be learned separately. Part of what learning orchestration teaches is writing for an instrument properly (however crazy your writing is), not just learning how to approach a large ensemble and how and what can be done with it. Orchestration includes learning what an instrument is capable of doing, and how to apply that information that you've learned to the situation.
On August 16 2011 10:56 forelmashi wrote:Show nested quote +
music theory has always followed music... possibly excepting atonality, twelve tone, ..
things like.. the human ear has such and such hearing range.. the voice falls in such and such frequencies... these are the rules of nature
harmony, chord theory, this is just taste. people who know nothing about music will recognize the familiar harmonic structures of pop music, etc.. even if they haven't "learned" it.
if you want to emulate a certain style, know what makes bach bach and rachmaninov rachmaninov, then you would do well to learn theory but it's by no means "necessary" or fundamental "principles." if everyone cared so much about "theory" we'd all still be writing bach fugues. (heaven forbid, and heaven knows there is no shortage of people who would be delighted)
I would take serious issue with that description of harmonic theory. Yes by the late romantic, harmonic theory was inextricably linked to an artists style, orchestration, etc.., Mahler and Strauss being two very good examples. But there are strong fundamental grounds in acoustics that's the reason that tonal harmony developed the way it did. Even set theory has a grounding basis in fundamental acoustics, though they are admittedly more difficult to grasp.
|
mfw the first youtube link is originally composed by a symphonic metal band ... :D
|
there are strong fundamental grounds in acoustics that's the reason that tonal harmony developed the way it did
one needs only to look at the diversity of world music outside of western classical/african triadic harmony to disprove this
the world doesn't even agree on scales let alone any talk of harmony and form. on form you have principles like "humans like repetition" but try to say sonata form comes from some natural law and you quickly sound ridiculous
|
On August 17 2011 03:03 djbhINDI wrote:
mfw the first youtube link is originally composed by a symphonic metal band ... :D
I know this, but I like "srs bzns" compositions as much as these cheesey, terribad modern movie-style scores.
^^
On August 17 2011 19:18 forelmashi wrote:Show nested quote + there are strong fundamental grounds in acoustics that's the reason that tonal harmony developed the way it did one needs only to look at the diversity of world music outside of western classical/african triadic harmony to disprove this the world doesn't even agree on scales let alone any talk of harmony and form. on form you have principles like "humans like repetition" but try to say sonata form comes from some natural law and you quickly sound ridiculous
I agree with this, but I don't think that means it's a bad idea to start by learning the theories behind Western harmony/structure/etc. (currently doing this. )
|
[comment removed personally]
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
