Emotion vs theory?

Bravo! Kingpatzer. I wholeheartedly agree.

Yeah, me too. Also this business of "emotional" and "emotionless" players is totally subjective. Some people might say that Hendrix and Clapton were such emotional players... others might say that they had horrible technique and all they did was regurgetate licks out of the blues and pentatonic scales (and I have actually heard people say that). That being said, I used to hate players like Malmsteen and all those neo-classical and metal players because i thought they were "emotionless" but to be honest, I was just jealous! One day I heard Malmsteen's arpeggios from hell and although some might disagree with me I felt that it had tons of emotion in it, it actually reminded me of a Beethoven piece.

Now, am I saying that everyone is jealous of these players' technique? Of course not, many guitar players could care less and that's fine.

Listen to David Gilmore on The Dark Side of the Moon album. His playing is dark, mystical, and hypnotizing. You can feel the fear and the madness.

Now that is communicating.

Definatly.

IMO I just don't see the true emotion in metal (except anger of course :lol: ), but that just makes me short-sighted... I try to listen and enjoy all kinds of music, but I don't really connect with heavy metal, although a bazillion other people do. Although, I can connect with alot of earlier stuff, most notably early Black Sabbath and Ozzy with Rhodes. I do have respect for those players though, for becoming such great "technical" players. A couple of weeks ago I read that Zakk Wylde (I think that's how you spell it) filled in for somebody in the Allman Brothers band for a live performance. Now, being a huge Allman Brothers fan (Again, most notably their early stuff with Duane Allman), I thought that was crazy. That's me being short sighted again.. I don't know how he sounded, but it must of been good enough.... 8)

I think that music is abut expressing your emotions and thought's through, well, music! IMO theory is just another way to accomplish it. Many people say that Eric Clapton or B.B. King are "cheezy", just as I think Malmsteen and other metal player's are cheezy...

and Steve-0, isn't replicating classical music at extremly high speeds shredding?? Most shredders that I've read about have Beethoven or Bach as their primary influences... I dunno though...

There's no right or wrong way to make music, emotional vs theoretical players..it doesn't matter it still comes down to a matter of musical taste and what moves you, at least as a listener.

Yngvie is the poster boy for "emotionless/technical playing" and Jimi Hendrix may be the poster boy for emotional playing, so what, neither one of their music really does anything for me, so it has nothing to do with whether they are technically/theoritically competent or just play with emotion their music does not move me. I will say I do like some of Jimi's music.

Music is much to abstract to try and distill down to a couple of catagories. It's something you hear and feel.

You DO NOT NEED TO BE ABLE TO READ MUSIC OR KNOW MUSIC THEORY in order to make music that moves people.

It's a very simple equation you either like the music or you don't nothing else matters.

A lot of people seem to have the idea that learning theory will somehow inhibit one's creativity. Before I started playing, I bought into that too, just based on hearing things about Hendrix and whatnot. But it's complete hogwash. First of all, Hendrix DID know theory, just not in a formal way. Second, if anything, knowing theory can help one become more creative--at the very least by cutting down on the guess work and trial and error associated with not knowing any and trying to play what you're feeling. Think of the time saved. This coming from someone who still knows very little theory.

I believe Eric Clapton when he says he learned mostly by listening and copying, and did not know much on the theoretical end of it. But I have a feeling that he now knows a lot more formal theory than he likes to let on. In fact I've heard/read him talking in theoretical terms now and then, so he does know something. I don't think you can be a professional musician for over 40 years, constantly working with many other professional musicians and not pick up a fair share of theory along the way unless you consciously tried not to. Heck, I've picked up bits in pieces from amateurs here without even trying and he's been working with pros everyday for 40 years.

You DO NOT NEED TO BE ABLE TO READ MUSIC OR KNOW MUSIC THEORY in order to make music that moves people.

Sorry, I disagree.

I agree that reading music isn't necessary at all.

No one makes music that ANYONE else enjoys listening to without knowing theory. They may not know formal theory, but they have to have a pragmatic grasp of how the elements combine in order to sound like something worth listening too or they simply can't make music.

I don't care if you're talking about a 5 year old banging a stick on a log -- if he can make it sound good consciously and not by accident it's because he grasps something of music theory. Maybe he can't articulate it. Maybe he doesn't even know that that's the proper classification of what he understands. But it's still something that falls under the umbrella of "musical theory."

There's no right or wrong way to make music, emotional vs theoretical players..it doesn't matter it still comes down to a matter of musical taste and what moves you, at least as a listener.

Well, I agree with that, but I also agree with Patzer on this one...

You DO NOT NEED TO BE ABLE TO READ MUSIC OR KNOW MUSIC THEORY in order to make music that moves people.

Sorry, I disagree.

I agree that reading music isn't necessary at all.

No one makes music that ANYONE else enjoys listening to without knowing theory. They may not know formal theory, but they have to have a pragmatic grasp of how the elements combine in order to sound like something worth listening too or they simply can't make music.

I don't care if you're talking about a 5 year old banging a stick on a log -- if he can make it sound good consciously and not by accident it's because he grasps something of music theory. Maybe he can't articulate it. Maybe he doesn't even know that that's the proper classification of what he understands. But it's still something that falls under the umbrella of "musical theory."

The difference here is in our respective definitions of theory.

You would say that music is constructed according to theory. Whether you know what a major chord is or not, playing one, or playing three to make a I-IV-V progression, is using theory. If you played those on purpose, then you must have a grasp of theory on some level. Knowledge of theory is simply knowledge of making enjoyable music. Correct me if I'm wrong about your perception.

I take the position that theory is nothing more than a description of the way Western music is traditionally made. It's not all encompassing, and it's not a framework on which all music fits. If you play music that people like but haven't learned theory, it doesn't mean you're using unconsciously learned theory; it just means you know what people like. Some music only fits within the framework with difficulty. Some music doesn't fit at all. Knowing what people like and knowing theory are two seperate things because music theory doesn't describe all music that people like, and people don't like all music described by music theory. Theory doesn't describe music as a whole; it only describes one of many (past, present, and future) musical traditions.

I take the position that theory is nothing more than a description of the way Western music is traditionally made. It's not all encompassing, and it's not a framework on which all music fits. If you play music that people like but haven't learned theory, it doesn't mean you're using unconsciously learned theory; it just means you know what people like. Some music only fits within the framework with difficulty. Some music doesn't fit at all. Knowing what people like and knowing theory are two seperate things because music theory doesn't describe all music that people like, and people don't like all music described by music theory. Theory doesn't describe music as a whole; it only describes one of many (past, present, and future) musical traditions.

A weak arguement at best. There are few genres or music that do not fit into modern western music theory. Even Asian and middle eastern patterns can be explained with modern theory. Only microtonal music really doesn't comply. I agree that theory is not all encompassing but for the most part and for the majority of the music we ar talking about, modern theory applies. What sounds "good" and what people like are the basis for theory in the first place. Theory is an attempt to explain why we like particular patterns of notes. Do you need to know theory consciously? Not necessarily but any time you put two note together to consciously imply a style or to convey an idea, you are using concepts based in theory. You may not be able to explain them but you understand that "when I play this note with this note, it sounds happy or sad or whatever". That is where theory began.

IMO I just don't see the true emotion in metal (except anger of course :lol: ), but that just makes me short-sighted...

that's the thing though, metal does express anger... which is an emotion! I mean, you might've been joking but it's the truth, take a listen to mostly any metallica album (their newest one is especially obvious) and tell me that they aren't playing with passion.

But of course everyone likes different types of music, which has different emotions in them... Ironically I don't like the Allman Brothers, i've tried on several occasion but to listen to them but i'm not a big fan of all. Even though i'm not a fan of them, they DEFINITELY play with a huge amount of emotion, when you listen to those guitars and vocals you can hear the pain and sorrow of the blues based music.

Go back and read my weather prediction analogy.

Music is theory, theory is music. They can't be had exclusive of one another. It's a Zen thing baby. Perfect harmony.

You can't play theory, but you do. Theory isn't emotional, but it is.

When you say, "wow, that music really moved me." That is theory in action.

It all fits, even when it doesn't fit.

oooommmmmmm

haha, ooooooommmmm

After reading Patzer's post, I changed my view on all of this, but as I'm writing it, I'm realizing I didn't change my view really.

I think when most of us say theory, or maybe just me, I mean something like: Knowing what notes comprise a Bm7th chord, or Dsus#9. Or knowing the ionian scale (if thats a scale) not knowing that G sounds great after Am, or if I'm playing in Am, the Am Pentatonic works well. That's basically common knowledge.

The same applies to technique. When someone says "Wow, he's got great technique" I'm not thinking 'He must mean that guy is fretting the notes very slowly', I'm thinking 'He must mean that guy is a very fast precise player'. Or, I'm not thinking 'He has very good bends', I might be thinking 'The vibrato on that bend was very nice'.

Yes, we all to some extent have some very very basic knowledge of theory, and we all have to some extent a posession of technique, this is very obvious. When someone says "theory doesn't matter, technique doesn't matter" one means that complex theory and amazing technique don't really matter.

Anyways, that's what I've always meant when I say it.

Actually, to be honest, IMO Metallica isn't that bad, espesially their older stuff. What I don't find true emotion in is more along the lines of Death Metal, like Korn (Although they've broken up, or something like that, I don't remember), and Slipknot. If there is emotion in those songs, I can't regognize it because the singer is screaming or something like that... :roll:

but yoyo not all emotion is in the singing. some may find an angry emotion in the tuned down guitar riffs etc etc

Theory is an attempt to explain why we like particular patterns of notes.

Theory doesn't try to expain that, pschyologists do. And so far scientists are completely at lost why a C E and G notes sound universally good whereas a B, C and C# don't. Theory describes what has happened, it doesn't explain why. Musicians have tried to find pseudo-explainations (dominant creates tension) but *why* our brains react like that is a total mystery.

Unless someone here has some more info, in which case I would be very interested to hear more.

You know I read something about that somewhere. Let me see if I can find it.