Applied

i think most similar academic discussions do have some practical bearing. the application of theory (especially certain strands of cultural studies-related theory) to 'real life' can often be unwieldy, but i think issues of the canon relate quite directly to how we think about and construct meanings and places for music. you can take this to the most obvious thing with music journalism who are active in constructing canons and selling them to the public.

i'm actually doing a dissertation on something similar to this so if anyone has any thoughts...

This board functions well as a source of 'oblique strategies for listeners', to be used as the individual sees fit.

Re 'applying theory to your life being unwieldy' - not really, it just means you have values, or a spine.

Arguments are livelier when one takes a solid position, however absurd, and tries to defend it from all possible challenges using whatever means neccessary. This is a fun part of reading and writing criticism in any form, but especially ILM because of the quality and diversity of the ideas expressed here.

Limiting one's own listening habits to what you can theoretically support is boring - and even if you want to try to take a hard-line objectivist approach to criticism, you had better know something about the music that you're setting up as oppositional to the music you argue is good. And in learning a bit about the music you've been putting down, you sometimes realize how much you like it.

Oddly enough, when I think of music theory, I don't think of the canon threads. I think of rhythm analysis, voice-leading, harmonization, vocal technique (since I'm a singer), and so on. From my perspective, there's very little invocation of music theory on these boards (aside from things like the alternate tuning thread).

not enough in fact (tho i kno it's a bit of a ninstant thread killah; and drives away layfoax in droves...)

I swerved the technical discussion on the Canon threads because, while technical analysis can be a useful descriptive tool I don't think it is particularly useful in discussing value, which is what the Canon threads were about. That technical analysis doesn't help at all in looking at some types of music has already been mentioned. It also has a tendency to distort value by loading prestige into musical areas where analysis does a good job.

For example, analysis is good at locating harmonic sophistication and originality, or complexity of architectonic structure. Because these can be objectively defined, in an almost scientific way, they have assumed massive prestige. The history of classical music can be seen as a search for greater harmonic sophistication and complex forms, partly under the influence of analysis, until it started to buckle under the weight of nowhere to go. It has yet to recover or find forms that can connect to a non-specialist audience. Jazz made the same mistake on an accelerated timescale (because it existed side by side with a genre that was already further along the same road).

I agee tha many any of the great musicians of the past - Beethoven, Wagner, Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, Coltrane, Hendrix, The Beatles - can be revealed by analysis to be more "sophisticated" or "original" than their contemporary peers. This suggests some aspects of value can be identified by analysis but I think only in a very limited sens. The prestige enjoyed by harmonic sophistication has undoubtedly lead to a striving after it by musicians who might otherwise have done more interesting things.

And there is so much that is not explained - if harmonic sophistication is a good thing per se, why are all post-Parker saxophonists, having absorbed his use of altered 11s, 5s and 9s not better than all pre-Parker saxophonists? In musicological terms the modal jazz of the late 50s and early 60's often looks like a dumbing down but it produced acknowledged masterpieces like "Kind of Blue" and "A Love Supreme". Traditon analysis might have interesting things to say about The Beach Boys, say, but would find it harder to say anything interesting about Dylan or The Rolling Stones or Jay Z. And so on.

Pop music has not fallen into the same trap as the older forms, partly because of the commercial imperative. It has recognised that increasing harmonic sophistication is a dead end and that the non- specialist public will not follow. It has innovated instead in areas where traditional musical analysis has little to say: redefining the range of sounds deemed to be musical, texture, timbre, the blance of bass and treble sounds, foregrounding of rhythm and so on, continually checking its experimentation against the response of its target audience. In taking this approach it has trumped modern classical composer who have tried to find a way round the harmonic dead end by a disjunctive, conceptual approach rather than a gradualist "can this be made to sound good" approach. As a result it has taken some of the concepts of the avant guard, like repetition, incorporation of natural sounds, the use of electronics etc to create approachable music that works on its own terms and not as the embodiment of a concept.

A slight deviation from the original point of the thread, all this, but very interestng nonetheless. You could say exactly the same things about the - now almost entirely discredited - practise of textual analysis of the lyrics in pop.

'It has recognised that increasing harmonic sophistication is a dead end and that the non- specialist public will not follow'

I think we're missing the wood for the trees a bit, there. The harmonic/ rhythmic balance has shifted back and forth in the period we generally think of as 'pop' (for these purposes, mid-50s onwards). The Beatles were certainly more popular in absolute terms than James Brown, even though the former were working in the harmonic/textural area and the latter in the now-industry-standard-laboratory rhythmic/textural/linguistic area. Disco is seen as the triumph of the rhythm, but it was certainly more adventurous harmonically than punk (Steely Dan - "We've definitely noticed disco is getting more lounge harmonies in it, have you heard Dr Buzzard?"), and in absolute terms, less rhythmically adventurous. (The punk bands might have been inept at times but there was a slight Beefheart thing going on which never would've occurred in disco.) Who knows what'll get smoothed out when history is written?

Yes there's the see-saw you mention. And I agree about disco being relatively harmonically sussed. It was coming from the black commercial tradition (Motown was pretty sophisticated harmonically by pop standards). But pretty much all pop music is harmonically unsophisticated compared to modern classical/jazz. If pop has to defend itself as an innovative art form on the basic of harmonic innovation its pretty much a dead duck. Which is why its still viewed with scorn by classical and jazz buffs alike. It can make claims in the other areas I mention though.

Could you define "harmonic sophistication"?

can one of you geniuses explain what the difference is between "harmonics" and "melodics"? (NB: this is not meant as a cheeky question, so don't beat me up for asking.)

jinx

Disco writers & Lennon/ McCartney used piano(disco)/guitars/bass etc. and used lines for each that would be congruent. The more 'voices' (I'm counting every individual note in a chord as a 'voice') there are happening simultaneously, the more difficult it gets to maintain congruence in all the voices over any length of time, which is why I think of 9ths and 11ths as more 'harmonically sophisticated' because to maintain congruence with that many voices takes a little more forethought in the harmonic area, if not talent. Whereas, the harmonic content of punk was pretty minimal (by standard of number of lines occuring simultaneously - usually the guitar would play a chord consisting of an octave note tripling the bass along with a root fifth). However, rhythmically the music may have sounded flat, but the fact that a CONSCIOUS DECISION to use certain rhythmic signifiers was made is evidence that consideration was actively being made in that area, whereas in disco sessions they would probably get Bernard Purdie or somebody in there and say "Just do what you do". It depends who you would think of as having more a rhythmic consciousness, Joy Division or Steely Dan - who used drummers that could obviously roll up Steven Morris and snort coke through him, but was that where their heads were at? Maybe "This ain't no disco" was a rejection of the harmonic tradition, which was certainly made explicit with 'Remain in Light'!)

Sorry Arf, missed your last post. I was replying to Mark.

Fritz, harmony is defined by the relationship between notes occurring at the same time, and melody is the relationship between notes occurring in succession. Thus, one might say, that is a lovely seventh chord, what great harmony in the voicings. Or, that is a great melody, I love how it starts in major, then it ends in minor.

And I think that the idea of institutionalised elements of music being somehow overly objective, or that musicians versed in such issues are overly dependent on them, is the sort of nonsense that you hear mostly from people who aren't versed in it. In my experience, plenty of amazing classical/jazz/pop musicians who are very well versed in theory describe music in terms of the evocative or sublime. It's just in defining the construction of such, it helps to say, for example, "I think that bit in Mahler where he does this thing to that" instead of "I like how the notes sound here." Because it sometimes illustrates exactly what was so clever about Mahler. This sort of thing is even more important when discussing either Bach or Webern, composers working in periods when rules were very important.

That said, in a lay discussion, there's nothing wrong with saying just that you liked something. You don't need music theory to enjoy music, but sometimes it can expose more of the beauty in structure. In some ways, I think it might be like reading, for example, Pynchon as a narrative with some metaphors, as opposed to reading it for the sort of metafiction that requires an understanding of postmodern lit crit. Both are valid, but one may offer something on top of the other.

And as to the original thread question, I think that the application is subconscious--we examine our impulses, as we must in any situation, but ultimately, our impulses dictate our examinations. So I think when you hear Beck and you hear a certain sample, you know instinctively that he's referring to something, and thus the canon-aspect is inserted and you appreciate his ironic sensibilities, or don't. Writing is the same thing. But I think it is rather healthy to examine one's own inclinations and how one hierarchically manages the information in one's head.

Oh very nice that.

so isn't melody more easily opposed to rhythm than harmony in the above discussion?

Concept of 'beauty' = evanescent socially-defined abstract waffle. Mathematics is forevaaah. Relatively speaking.

personally i always loved pop music because it was anti-canonical, not elitist or exclusive and totally disposable.

it also permeates the public consciousness in a way that 'cool' music would never dare to. i'd rather be brainwashed by sugababes than velvet underground any day.

Mickey,

You say:

"Fritz, harmony is defined by the relationship between notes occurring at the same time, and melody is the relationship between notes occurring in succession. Thus, one might say, that is a lovely seventh chord, what great harmony in the voicings. Or, that is a great melody, I love how it starts in major, then it ends in minor.

And I think that the idea of institutionalised elements of music being somehow overly objective, or that musicians versed in such issues are overly dependent on them, is the sort of nonsense that you hear mostly from people who aren't versed in it. In my experience, plenty of amazing classical/jazz/pop musicians who are very well versed in theory describe music in terms of the evocative or sublime. It's just in defining the construction of such, it helps to say, for example, "I think that bit in Mahler where he does this thing to that" instead of "I like how the notes sound here." Because it sometimes illustrates exactly what was so clever about Mahler. This sort of thing is even more important when discussing either Bach or Webern, composers working in periods when rules were very important."

Now I don't easily recognise my views as the ones you take issue with in the second paragraph, but since I'm the only person in this thread to suggest there may be limitations to technical analysis as an approach to understanding music I assume that it's my "nonsense" (and by implication my ignorance (or lack of being "well versed")) that is being touched on here. Now don’t mind people disagreeing with me but I get sensitive when they imply I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about.

Being "well versed" is a relative thing. I've not had a formal musical training, for example. But I generally think I've picked up enough music theory over the years to consider myself passably "well versed", although I come from a jazz rather than a "legit" background. I correspond on this subject with some guys who earn a living playing and recording jazz in NYC (ie world class players) and although I don't pretend I know as much as they do, I can follow the discussion and occasionally contribute. I've also read my fair share of book length technical critiques of composers like Britten, Wagner etc.

You say:

“In my experience, plenty of amazing classical/jazz/pop musicians who are very well versed in theory describe music in terms of the evocative or sublime. It's just in defining the construction of such, it helps to say, for example, "I think that bit in Mahler where he does this thing to that" instead of "I like how the notes sound here”

Well the first part of that was pretty much what I was saying myself – technical analysis it a good descriptive tool but is limited in what it has to say about value.

As for the question of objectivity, I don’t suggest that “institutionalised elements” of music are “overly objective”. What I’m saying is that while the comment “that is sublime” is 100% subjective, the comment “he resolves a V7b5 chord to a IM6/9” is an objective description of what happens harmonically. But it is precisely the seductive objectivity of this kind of thing that gives it a prestige the subjective comment lacks: there is something incontrovertible to hang on to.

Most good jazz musicians I know, much as I like them, are jazz snobs. They can see little merit in pop music because of the biggger ears and technical ability they need to play the type of music they play compared to rock or pop. Many of them are good enough all rounders to play rock or pop sessions, but this just confirms their prejudice that it is an inferior genre. Their training militates against them having a high regard for music that is harmonically simple.

Two conclusions suggest themselves:

- They are right. Jazz is simply better than pop. Their training has given them better taste than other listeners.

- They are wrong. The best pop is as capable of being great music as jazz. Instead of improving their taste, their training has distorted their musical values and left them deaf to good music that doesn't match their concept of "sophistication".

I happen to believe that the second possibility nearer the truth.

The examples you give of the kind of thing that qualifies as technical analysis in fact illustrate the problems you try to deny.

“that is a lovely seventh chord, what great harmony in the voicings” – what does that mean? There are four notes in a seventh chord and a very finite amount of possible inversions, none of them exactly new. How can there be "great harmony in the voicings?"

“Or, that is a great melody, I love how it starts in major, then it ends in minor.” Well the major-minor change can be wonderful as in the famous example in “I Love Paris” where the lyrics go “how strange/ the change/from major to minor” and the change happens with the word “minor”. But it is a common device at least as likely to be used in a banal song as a great one.

"I think that bit in Mahler where he does this thing to that" instead of "I like how the notes sound here." –

Oh well, maybe I’m just not well versed enough to see why the first thingy is better than the second thingy.

The problems with the seduction of the technical approach are well summed up by the following excerpt from a review of the Uri Caine trio in “Wire” this month which had my bullsh*t detector alarm ringing furiously:

"The Hancock influence always shows through...........Caine was happiest on songs like "Nefertiti" and "One Finger Snap", where he unashamedly drew on the lucky numbers of Hancock's melodic and harmonic vocabulary, all sharp fives and nines and dominant sevens."

What does this say? He sounds like Herbie. Fine. But every modern jazz pianist uses sharp 5 and 9s and dominant 7s. So even if he sounds like Herbie, it’s not for the reason suggested. To oversimplify, these notes are (typically) played on an Alt chord that (typically) takes a scale which includes flat 5s and 9s as well as sharps. Is he saying that Caine doesn’t play flat 5s and 9s? I don’t believe it. Ironically, Herbie is one of the few musicians whose style DOES tend to be associated with a particular chord, but it is a sus chord, not an alt. Chord, and even then its probably got more to do with “Maiden Voyage” and a couple of other compositions being constructed round sus chords than his improvisational style.

Hi ArfArf, phew, that's a lot to respond to:

For starters, I wasn't referring to you per se, but to the general attitude of many many people in the business of discussing and writing about music, wherein one takes a stand for the proletariats. Set my music free, they cry, and suggest that any institution or hierarchy, particularly one which they don't belong to, is suspect. Of course, they pretty soon set up their own canon, but that's seldom discussed and is really neither here nor there.

Secondly, I'm not sure that your generalisation about jazzmen is any better than your suggestions about my post. I think setting a strawman like that is silly--of course there are jazzmen who belittle pop, and of course you can claim that great pop is transcendant--I'm not sure what value that statement has, since it's pretty much been asserted by everyone from Michael Tilson Thomas to Frank Zappa.

I think that institutionalised theory is rather objective, in that they don't talk about the aesthetic bent as much as it's a discussion of technique and how one manages to convey a passage of transformation of positions. In that sense, it's not let's listen to this, hear how pretty it is? But, see how in Wagner, he obliterates these rules, yada yada... I don't want to get into an esoteric argument about theory, which I think is only interesting to theory majors, but all the theory courses I've taken have been rather scientific, indeed mathematic, in its discourse. For better or for worse.

That goes for your voicing issue as well--in fact there are a myriad of ways to voice a seventh chord. Mind you, my examples were slightly facetious, because I didn't want to just throw down a b5aug7911^ out there to look ugly. Yes, there are four notes in a 7th chord, but how do you lay them? That's the whole point of figured bass. We're not just talking about function here. How many doubles or octaves do you have? Where on the keys or in the orchestra do you put the 7th? Do you add any other notes? So forth and so on. And that's just for a 7th chord, what about all the other more ambiguous chords? I mean, how do talk about Ravel and Debussy's compositions without some passing mention of their gorgeous use of voicings and chords. There are a million ways to analyse certain chords, but the evocative effect is different. However confusing it is to a layperson, I think it's enlightening to see the difference between chords. We are, after all, talking about music--and why shouldn't we use a tool which has been designed to analyse it? Much as we may take apart a poem to define its form, we should be able to do so with music as well.

In a way, I feel like architecture is rather similar--one can certainly appreciate a building on tactile first impressions, but there are also other nuances that are communicated to a trained architect that we don't get, like references to Corb or Mies or whatever. When my roomies talk about architecture, I certainly don't fault them for using their terms to describe what they like about a building.

I dunno what the right answer is to musical communication, but I certainly don't think that this comment on theory is necessary or relevant. You might as well be attacking grammar. What the hell is the point? If nothing else, I wish people knew more about theory, because then it would seem less like this ivory tower than a simple way of talking about musical construction. I think you are saying that there are those who rely on it as a crutch or a fascade to appear better than someone else--and I would argue that that occurs regardless of whether you talk about music or talk about esoterica in any other niche.

As for The Wire--I've long since realise that 99% of music journalism is written by people who don't care that they don't know what they are talking about, and of those, a large percentage do it because it's "cool." That's fine, music journalism is as much about lifestyle and fashion as it is about music. And so they use whatever little theory they've gotten, and mash it around a bit. That is not at all the fault of theory, but the nature of the beast.

Hi ArfArf, phew, that's a lot to respond to:

For starters, I wasn't referring to you per se, but to the general attitude of many many people in the business of discussing and writing about music, wherein one takes a stand for the proletariats. Set my music free, they cry, and suggest that any institution or hierarchy, particularly one which they don't belong to, is suspect. Of course, they pretty soon set up their own canon, but that's seldom discussed and is really neither here nor there.

Secondly, I'm not sure that your generalisation about jazzmen is any better than your suggestions about my post. I think setting a strawman like that is silly--of course there are jazzmen who belittle pop, and of course you can claim that great pop is transcendant--I'm not sure what value that statement has, since it's pretty much been asserted by everyone from Michael Tilson Thomas to Frank Zappa.

I think that institutionalised theory is rather objective, in that they don't talk about the aesthetic bent as much as it's a discussion of technique and how one manages to convey a passage of transformation of positions. In that sense, it's not let's listen to this, hear how pretty it is? But, see how in Wagner, he obliterates these rules, yada yada... I don't want to get into an esoteric argument about theory, which I think is only interesting to theory majors, but all the theory courses I've taken have been rather scientific, indeed mathematic, in its discourse. For better or for worse.

That goes for your voicing issue as well--in fact there are a myriad of ways to voice a seventh chord. Mind you, my examples were slightly facetious, because I didn't want to just throw down a b5aug7911^ out there to look ugly. Yes, there are four notes in a 7th chord, but how do you lay them? That's the whole point of figured bass. We're not just talking about function here. How many doubles or octaves do you have? Where on the keys or in the orchestra do you put the 7th? Do you add any other notes? So forth and so on. And that's just for a 7th chord, what about all the other more ambiguous chords? I mean, how do talk about Ravel and Debussy's compositions without some passing mention of their gorgeous use of voicings and chords. There are a million ways to analyse certain chords, but the evocative effect is different. However confusing it is to a layperson, I think it's enlightening to see the difference between chords. We are, after all, talking about music--and why shouldn't we use a tool which has been designed to analyse it? Much as we may take apart a poem to define its form, we should be able to do so with music as well.

In a way, I feel like architecture is rather similar--one can certainly appreciate a building on tactile first impressions, but there are also other nuances that are communicated to a trained architect that we don't get, like references to Corb or Mies or whatever. When my roomies talk about architecture, I certainly don't fault them for using their terms to describe what they like about a building.

I dunno what the right answer is to musical communication, but I certainly don't think that this comment on theory is necessary or relevant. You might as well be attacking grammar. What the hell is the point? If nothing else, I wish people knew more about theory, because then it would seem less like this ivory tower than a simple way of talking about musical construction. I think you are saying that there are those who rely on it as a crutch or a fascade to appear better than someone else--and I would argue that that occurs regardless of whether you talk about music or talk about esoterica in any other niche.

As for The Wire--I've long since realise that 99% of music journalism is written by people who don't care that they don't know what they are talking about, and of those, a large percentage do it because it's "cool." That's fine, music journalism is as much about lifestyle and fashion as it is about music. And so they use whatever little theory they've gotten, and mash it around a bit. That is not at all the fault of theory, but the nature of the beast.

Sorry about the doublepost, my computer hung.

Tangential to above posts - crits really should never write about tech matters unless they really know their shit, and that's pretty rare. I see howlers all the time - Xgau is the worst. Kerry King's guitar apparently sounds like "a theremin on reverb". (!?) He expresses amazement that Joe Satriani doesn't only play guitar solos, he "fuckin' edits them!" Just like everybody in the world who's ever had a four-track, let alone been in a studio. "U2 use unresolved fifths alot." Mistakes are human, but when you call people on this kind of thing they usually shrug, "So what? The only people who will notice are gearheads." Implying their contempt for people who know the difference, a common crit thing which I suspect comes from resentment at how the people they're reduced to writing about have such comparatively lucrative (ha!) and 'easy' jobs.

a. reason i said there shd be more discussion abt technics is similar to mickey's: it wd hugely demystify it

b. point mickey makes at pynchon and "post- mod crit" seems to me totally untrue as applied to pynchon (and actually any other modern novelist i can think of worth actually reading); there is nothing in the structure of ANY of pynchon's book that doesn't emerge from the reading (but i wouldn't extrapolate and say that becuz not true of pynchon therefore untrue in music)

what's difft abt the languages musicians use as shortcuts is that YES this stuff is actually in their heads as they work together, so does shape their choices — is thus interesting to now (however also of IMPORTANT note that eg Schoenberg argued that it was not of interest or value to to the listener to dwell on the means to construction of his 12-tone pieces; eg the tone rows in question) (more banal and-or hilarious version of same point: when I played string bass in a school orchestra, i spent most of my time counting bars, hundred and hundred of bars of rests: it was necessary i did this to produce the effect the composer wanted; and the fact i was doing it tells you something abt the SOCIAL REAL of the orchestra; but is the fact that i was doing it "part of the piece"?

c. idea that musicians therefore "understand music" better than listeners only makes sense if musicians are making music that is meant to be played but not listened to

d. i'm a professional sub-editor: when i read as a reader, as a writer (as i'm writing) and as a sub, i am doing three QUITE different things; and i note difft KINDS of structures and connections (and errors) during these difft activities; nor is it possible to combine them (except serially, and over time).

You mean Satriani doesn't just play those solos in one go? NOooooooooo! That totally just shatters my entire conception of space and time. Next you're going to tell me that Glenn Gould did the same thing. DARN IT!

oh phoooey, the worst are some of my more successful and famous (thus arrogant) musician friends who don't know voicing from their foot, but insist on using incorrect terminology to describe to these poor session players what parts they should play. I mean, if a journalist doesn't know, so be it, but come on! If you're a musician and you don't know, just don't friggin' use those terms!

Having said that, I'm always impressed by a few of the writers for Downbeat, and I'm definitely impressed by the reviewers at the BBC Classical mag.

also — blimey this was probably the biggest aesthetic-whatever shockah in my life as a studnet — i was THE ONLY MEMBER OF MY ROCKBAND who could read music, understood (school-orch level) music theory, knew what sonata form was, and well- tempering and whatever: and realised it made (for me) a huge gap in understanding how rock actualy worked, how NOT like the I (thought I) understood quite well it was etc etc.

Fellow band-member = Matt of Coldcut. I doubt he can read music yet. Make of that what you will. Do I understand NinjaTune music bettah than Matt?

(ps mickey: if wagner was actually posting he would of course be accorded full ILx- style respect — it's the secondhandness i dislike, the my dad cd punch yr dad aspect)

Writing here as somebody who has no technical knowledge of music, the thing Mickey is talking about - the problem of having no vocabulary to talk accurately about what musicians or record producter are actually doing - was a big factor in making me want to write very listener-centric pieces: focussing on the practise of music-making would be a complete fraud. So I'm very interested in how the acquisition of technical knowledge has influenced the ways you listen to music and what you value in it - if at all.

(heh i am a professional sub-editor ie no one is fucking paying me to proof my own posts as you can see)

this underscores the point i am making surely

Personally, I use the quadratic formula...

Negative beats plus or minus the root of all those beats minus 4 Adult Contemporary bands divided by two adolescents.

I have to clarify that in no way do I endorse the idea that you have to read music to be a great musician or to make great music. Most of my favourite songwriters can't write music at all. Further, as you've pointed out, Mark, a lot of classical theory is concerned with the description of sonata form or fugue structures--things that have little relevance to the description of chords or melodies.

In some ways, I think that actually learning music theory can detract from the holistic experience, much in the same way that knowing that the burning house in a movie is a facade or that Keanu doesn't really fly can be a let-down. But in some ways, I think it changes fundamentally what you appreciate about music.

For example, one of my friends, let's call him Sean, was big into music, and he used to describe with great passion how he loved a certain songwriter, let's call him Elliot Smith. And Sean really like Elliot, and described Elliot's work with a hodgepodge of musical journalism talk and some, occasionally erroneously, "theory."

Then Sean picked up a guitar and learned how to play, and after a spell, he grew disenchanted with Elliot's songwriting structures because of how shockingly, to him, simple they were. And then he realised that he really liked the Beatles because, even though they were "simple," the melodies and harmonies above the lines, as he put it, were really cool.

So now Sean is a different appreciator of music. Does that mean that his old evaluations were wrong? I don't think so, but I do think that he now sees music in a different way.

All theory is is a way to describe music--and I think that if one were to create one's own language, as long as it is descriptive and rigorously applied, it can be just as useful in delving deeper into the crux of the matter--variations on a theme, changes in our patterns, etc.

But people who claim to be au fait with theory are almost invariably familiar with only a small aspect of it. I had a music teacher at school who was a jazz buff and the arguments he had with Van Halen fans over who had the most chops were...stupid. About 10,000 levels below the calibre of the same discussion you'd find here. "Eddie Van Halen sucks. He can't play worth a shit." "Well, at least he doesn't sound like that pussy Wes Montgomery." I almost got in a drunken fight with somebody when I told them John McLaughlin was better than Yngwie Malmsteen. Music theory is closer to the 'soft sciences' than anyone cares to admit, simply because there's so many 'schools' of theory. As for the hypothetical ex-Elliot Smith fan - they grow out of that type of thing eventually. For the purposes of truth in discussion I'll cop to having FAR more knowledge of music theory than most people I know IRL, yet THEY'RE the ones who can't understand my love of LA punk, garage bands etc. "But you're a guitarist, shouldn't you listen to more sophisticated stuff?" Sometimes yes. Other times no. (There are more people who think Iron Maiden is 'intelligent' and 'sophisticated' than in your wildest nightmares.)

Right, I think that would be a misapplication of theory. It shouldn't be a prescriptive tool, I don't think. I mean, you can argue sophistication of form or whatever, but that only works if you think that sophistication of form is the sole marker of good music. I like X alot more than Racer X, but that doesn't mean I think that X is more sophisticated musically or technically.

Having said that, Yngwie would kick John's ass! MUHAHAHAHA! Just kidding, frankly, I could do without either of them. You have to admit though, when you first heard Yngwie, you must have been somewhat intrigued. I was, for a second, then I heard the rest of his record, and then I read an interview. And that pretty much started my transition into country music. Long live Danny Gatton's spirit and Roy Buchanon's B-bender. Woohoo!

Rule One: All Knowledge is a TRAP!!*
Rule Two: "You've heard of animals chewing off a leg to escape a trap? That's an animal kind of trick. A human would remain in the trap, endure the pain, feigning death that he might kill the trapper and remove a threat to his kind."
Rule Three: Try and ensure that Frank Herbert only scripts ONE of yr wickle rules.

*(ps so is all pleasure btw and all dream of surcease, at that)

Now here's a thought -- not being trained in music, I just hear the pretty sounds and they make me happy. A good thing. But interestingly enough, identical twin Dan P. likes much the same stuff as me and knows nearly everything technical about music or so it seems. WHAT DOES IT MEAN? Perhaps I am the idiot cousin in the attic while Dan sups on caviar.