The Rockerfly said:
See this is probably where the musical differences occur. I was taught heavily on cadences and writing classically and this guide wasn't specified to writing pop pieces or metal pieces but just a general look at music theory, especially if the person is taking theory seriously most of this stuff will be fairly useful. Also you can use parallel 5th's in cadences, as long as you aren't writing in the style of Bach
However I see where you are coming from, I may add a section on genre style. I disagree though a air few pop songs do modulate, look at: Robbie Williams, Will Young, The Ramones, Radiohead and The Beatles all use key changes in a lot of their music
I didn't write about Modes though because they are really really old ways of writing, are not necessary in writing music and can add a massive level of complexity which would be unnecessary within a beginners guide
I would argue that cadences are completely irrelevant to modern songwriting. They are however useful for anyone who wishes to study theory, as music theory books still insist on dredging up the cadence dinosaur, despite the fact that less than 1% of the people studying music theory even at university level are ever going to need to write four-part vocal harmony in the classical tradition once they finish their theory studies. It's just pointless busywork to fill textbooks and give teachers something to put red X's next to if you ask me.
Certain types of guitarists (metal especially) find modes extremely useful for soloing. They are also good for composers, as they are basically a "mood library", it's better than just having major and minor (which are modes of each other anyway). However I guess they are a pretty complex idea in the grand scheme of things (although the concept behind it is simple) so I can see why you left it out.
Yes, some popular songs do modulate, but it's still the exception rather than the rule. And in almost every case it's just up a tone, up a tone, up a tone...
I like your changes by the way.
Furburt said:
I'm not trying to avoid the rules, the rules are inconsequential to me. I just play what sounds good to me, and thus, music theory is unnecessary for me to play what I want.
If you can be creative without music theory and don't feel constrained by the lack of knowledge then I think that's excellent. What you'll find is that you'll stumble across a lot of stuff that other people have in fact already figured out and written down. The "that sounds indian" comments you're getting are a likely indicator that you've found a mode of some sort, for instance, and that you're composing using this mode a fair bit. The way I look at music theory is that it's a way to accelerate creativity by looking at the systems that have already been discovered, saving you the time of having to discover it yourself. Of course if you enjoy discovering things on your own, then that's good and there's no need to have some scholar come in and rock your boat, but in some cases a bit of accelerated learning can be good. I guess it depends on how you want to interact with music in general. A plumber can go to trade school or he can just start fucking around with pipes in his bathroom until he understands how plumbing works. Neither approach is incorrect and both will eventually get good results if the person has talent for plumbing, but one method is a little faster and has less margin for error.
I find that because of my music theory knowledge, someone can say to me "write a song that sounds like something out of Bioshock" or "write a doo-wop harmony for three backing singers to go behind this here melody" and I can do it immediately, I don't need to experiment to work out how that stuff was done, I can just draw on textbook knowledge. It also works the other way - I can hear a pop song and my brain starts deconstructing it while the song is playing. It's like Neo looking at the Matrix and seeing it for what it really is - a system. By the time the song is over I know what all the chords are, roughly how to play it on at least two instruments, what studio effects were used on each instrument and the voices, how the drum kit was miced up, and various other things probably only of consequence to me but that I find personally interesting, like whether they're using aural exciters or pitch-shifted harmony vocals, if they clipped the compressors, if the song's progressions obey diatonic harmony rules, if the reverb is natural or artificial, etc...
Treefingers said:
The greatest composers knew the theory. Even the most obscure composers know the theory. They know the rules and so they know how to break them.
You'd be surprised. Most music theory conventions came
after the well-known composers of yesteryear, and were applied as a way to get people to try and understand their stylistic approach in order to mimic what they did. Most of these very early composers just did what sounded good to their ears, then other people looked at it, said "I want to be able to do that too", identified patterns in their compositions and developed systems for replicating those particular stylistic choices.
Buffoon said:
Hey, awesome thread! I'm attempting to learn the piano, got my first lesson in a couple of days (BonsaiK might remember my thread asking about piano stuff a while back, I did indeed decide in the end that I could justify the cost of lessons).
Glad the lessons worked out financially, let me know how they go for you.
