"Expression vs. Correction"

[Omnomnomnom]

To the previous post:
Pretty much, yeah. My original advice was to be fluent in many theories (regardless which ones), so that you can expand your expression specifically where expansion is necessary, sometimes extreme, sometimes minute. The main idea was that certain expressions could be achieved by bridging multiple musical languages, in which some rules would be changed, some styles may be changed, etc. Using this technique, by altering parts of the musical space you have at your will (and like you said, given the talent, doing it with skill), you can express pretty much anything you want to.

The greatest thing about multiple music theories is that the conglomeration of which can be immensely useful, and you're not so much breaking rules as you are changing, re-writing, or combining them, to the point that "correction" is very personal to the writer. And to do these thing with both expression AND skill... well, if you could, you'd be a frikkin music GOD.

[Stu Beef]

Standard conventions exist and they give larger groups a context in which to appreciate something. "Western theory" is as broad a category as "classical", you have to look at the context of what you are talking about. The definitions are vague because some people view it as a technical process, rather than history being taken out of its context (which theory basically is if you are only looking at technical aspects). Most people mistake tonality (or a very strange and small part of it) as encompassing all of western harmony, but it exists only in a relatively small time period (granted, people make use of it now, but the canon of harmony has technically moved on). Mashing "random" notes on a keyboard actually isn't all that radical or interesting in a historical sense; if you approached it in a scientific/methodical manner you would have been interesting 100 years ago, if you approached it in a freer manner 60 years ago, maybe you'd be John Cage.

Thing is, there is an artistry in both working with familiar structures/conventions and in experimenting. If you throw taste out, the only thing really left is intent. Whether there is skill or innovation apparent doesn't actually matter at this point in the grand scheme, and I don't really care too much about what people who regularly go to new-art galleries/exposes think either. Basically you can do whatever the hell you want and it doesn't actually matter, unless you actually ARE stressing communication, then you just have to be aware.


e. I basically agree with everything Patashu has said in this thread (and some others, I'll have to read over again)

double e. I don't think anyone actually said "random" but you get my meaning

[Omnomnomnom]

Above post: Well, the focus was really not to break all the rules, but to have the freedom to expand into other music theories as well as western (or whatever your first musical teachings were), and to use it to free up a lot of expressive room.

It's not that one would simply mash together notes without direction, but, rather, to mash together notes with a different direction, feel, and rule base than that of classicalisms. Once the expansion of theories is done well, then expression dominates the field. Not to say that there are no rules, it's just that they're far more malleable and can be used to the advantage of expression at that point, rather than the disadvantage.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

And if your writing expression wants to go outside the realm of western theory (if you start in it), then, as my point is, do not think of western theory as the only correct answer, do not let it restrict you, and always let your music roam beyond the normal borders when it seeks to do so.

Well, I certainly have respect for people who work with things like IDM, Avant Garde and other stuff that doesn't necessarily follow 'conventional' music theory. But I don't choose to work with it because it's not something I really want to do. It may be a disadvantage in the eyes of some, but it works for me and I'm happy with that.

[Stu Beef]

Above post: Well, the focus was really not to break all the rules, but to have the freedom to expand into other music theories as well as western ...

To that I'd have to say, that has been done by western composers, and is continuing to be done by western composers. The worldliness of how music is viewed today is certainly greater than it was in the past, but composer types have always been trying new things and taking cues from foreign/unfamiliar places. I'd say for the best example of something that is both all encompassing, innovative, AND accessible, take a look at jazz. It's a style of music that has both integrated the idioms of folk culture and defined popular culture world round.

In all styles there are those delving further and further into the fringe, reaching into the realms of the unknown, etc. It's just that those are harder to find because of the fact they exist at those extremes. I don't disagree with the sentiments, I just disagree with how some opinions were (at first) expressed in this thread. I think we've settled here now that the language is more clear.

[ghelded_kultz]

There comes a point where "breaking the barriers of music" just sounds like utter shit:



My point is, I think it shows even more creativity and expression if you can make a song within those barriers that still sounds original, good and interesting - making a work of art with "limitations," if you will (Quotes because they're important rules). A true musician can express themselves in the boundries of... well, music. That's why they're called musicians.

Are you trying to say there is something wrong with that song? First, I find it to sound fine. It's not great or anything, but I don't find it as terrible as everyone seems to think it is. Second, while it is experimental, something along the lines of avant-garde Electrocore, it clearly incorporates musical theory, and these musicians are using said musical theory along with their own ideas to express themselves. I guess there is a continuum of musical theory: On one side, there is just stuff that tells you how to technically make something sound like how you want it to sound. On the other side, there is the indoctrination about what is considered "good". Anyway, the most important aspect is definitely expression, but sometimes you need to know some theory in order to properly express yourself, it's not easy to just turn something in your head into music, you need to know how to actually make a sound in order to make it.

-Soft D. String DeHooves

[Symphon]

Alrighty... Here we go...

I feel like there needs to be a balance. Not exactly in the middle, I would personally lean towards more expression, but a balance, nonetheless.

The reason I say that is this:

As a whole, extensive theory and such works as that are great for music making, plain and simple. Whether that's Western theory, Eastern theory, Egyptian, Mars, I don't care. Having a set of rules and tools to guide your music in a certain direction, regardless of what direction that is, is good to have. Without these, your music is directionless and limitless. Now, limitless may sound like a good thing, but limit spawns creativity. It makes you think about what you can do to express yourself without going over the border.

On the same coin, theory can limit yourself too much, depending on how you're going about it. I've seen people make a song only based on the premise of sounding good when put down on paper and related to theory. I feel like that's not an art and more of just making noise that sounds good. It's no longer expression and just a bunch of notes that serve a purpose.


Now, on the expression side. A musician NEEDS expression. Some musicians survive without knowing an ounce of theory but every one needs expression. Without that, there is no music, in my eyes. It's, once again, just noise. Good noise, perhaps, but noise regardless. Again, you need balance.

Expression creates a musician. It defines their style, meaning, inspiration, and general input and output of their music. Whether the expression is a telling of a story, a moral, or just a mood, it still creates the method of expression. If you go overboard in expression, however, to the point where you break too many rules of theory, than you become noise again. Noise that has meaning, but just noise.

So... That's my two-cents.