# Hypothetical Question



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

I'm so sad that I missed the chat about understanding religious music if you're atheist...

so I pose this question...

How do non music theorists understand the concepts behind music theory?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)




----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2010)

Aramis said:


>


Aramis what on earth is that about, I could only stand the first few seconds, horrible


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2010)

Romantic Geek said:


> I'm so sad that I missed the chat about understanding religious music if you're atheist...
> 
> so I pose this question...
> 
> How do non music theorists understand the concepts behind music theory?


You are right on the ball I think the word understand is the wrong one to use


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Aramis said:


>


Most appalling waste of a synthesizer I've ever seen.  (Actually a small part of me thought it could have been a good song if performed by --I don't know, Emerson, Lake and Palmer maybe.)

As to the original question, we understand music theory by reading album liner notes.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Andante said:


> Aramis what on earth is that about, I could only stand the first few seconds, horrible


Post #35

Mock the Osmonds all you want but that song rules.

Quit living in the past.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Weston said:


> As to the original question, we understand music theory by reading album liner notes.


I have a CD ROM classical music encyclopaedia. I still don't understand what a fugue is, though.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Romantic Geek said:


> How do non music theorists understand the concepts behind music theory?


Specifically which "concepts behind music theory" are you referring to?

And what exactly do you mean by "non music theorists"? I have a "A" level in music and can play the piano, but I don't regard myself as a "music theorist".


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Fsharpmajor said:


> I have a CD ROM classical music encyclopaedia. I still don't understand what a fugue is, though.


Its a very complex and strict form based on counterpoint. The subject will be entered on a voice and then will enter successively on different voices (perhaps transposed)... the rest is hardly practical and unless the piece is entitled "fugue" it is rare to find the rest of it 

www.en.wikipedia.org/fugue


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

Romantic Geek said:


> How do non music theorists understand the concepts behind music theory?


I don't think they do. I don't think I understand them all, either.

But do you mean: How do people who don't know any music theory appreciate art music (for want of a better term)?

I think, quite simply, that the ear/brain processes what they are hearing when they hear a piece of music - hopefully, _listen _to a piece of music (ie it actively, consciously thinks about the sounds they are hearing) - and compares it with the zillion remembered instances of hearing other bits of music.

There is a great theory propounded by the musicologist Hans Keller about foreground and background. Background is what the listener expects to hear, and foreground is what is novel, imaginative, creative. Pop songs are all background - and hence dull to the people who have remarked on this in this thread. The music of Xenakis is all foreground for most people and therefore inexplicable. This is a great theory, particularly when applied to the middle ground. For example, why are Mozart's piano concertos better than those of his contemporaries? Not because he has more foreground, but because he creates a more judicious balance of foreground and background.

I think non-theorists get all this, even if they couldn't explain it to you.

I think non-theorists get the basic sonata form structure of exposition-development-recapituation, even if they don't notice first time that the exposition has been repeated, or quite where the recapitulation came in. I think they get the point of Ravel's _Bolero _- the modulation to the major - even if they don't have the words to say so. In other words, they have a primitive (by which I only mean an undeveloped) sense of harmony.

Theory in any field only explains what already exists.

And I want to stand up for songs. I call to the defence Schubert and Schumann (or Ned Rorem if you prefer a contemporary non-pop example). Just because a form is simple doesn't mean it can't communicate at a deep level. Of course the vast majority of contemporary pop music is utter crap - because talentless people are indulged by businessmen willing to take a punt that they might be successful and hence lucrative.

But listen, say, to Mary Chapin Carpenter. A good half of the songs on the album _Come on, come on_ are fine songs in anyone's book. Occasionally, the point is in the arrangement which was made by another hand than hers, but the songs satisfy Keller's criterion of judicious foreground and background.

I've wandered off topic. 
My main point is that people intuitively (ie _subconsciously_) understand musical structure without any knowledge of theory because
(a) it is basically not complex and can be grasped if
(b) they have had, over their lives, many exposures to it.


----------



## Johnny (Mar 7, 2010)

I don't see how an Atheist would have a problem understanding religious music. I'm sure there is music themed on many different religions. The idea that you need to actually believe any of the mythologies to "get" the music, to me at least, seems absurd. 

The same way I'm sure everyone here "gets" the Lord Of The Rings, without believing the events actually took place. Or the same way they'd "get" a song that was about particular events described in LOTR. Even if the song was about worshipping Frodo. Or, if people don't like that analogy, the same way a gay guy would surely be able to understand a love song written by a guy, about a girl. 

Sorry, that wasn't really the question for this thread though. 

As regards "How do non music theorists understand the concepts behind music theory?", I don't know what you mean. 

I don't think any musical theory knowledge is a requirement for appreciating music though. I doubt knowing the technical terms for something a musician is doing makes any difference. Like if two people read a poem, and only one of them knows that that "s" sound is called sibilance, I doubt the person who didn't know that is at any loss. Maybe that's not what you meant though.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> I don't think they do. I don't think I understand them all, either.
> 
> But do you mean: How do people who don't know any music theory appreciate art music (for want of a better term)?
> 
> ...


I agree with alot of what you say here, people can certainly develop a feeling for a style of a piece and what it aims to do.

However you are a bit too dismissive of pop songs in my opinion. To say it is all just 'background' is a blanket judgement. There can be 'foreground' in pop songs (using your terminology), this being music which is creative within the formula. Such songs can be well crafted with memorable melody, they don't have to be all bland, generic and completely predictable.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

starry said:


> However you are a bit too dismissive of pop songs in my opinion. To say it is all just 'background' is a blanket judgement. There can be 'foreground' in pop songs (using your terminology), this being music which is creative within the formula. Such songs can be well crafted with memorable melody, they don't have to be all bland, generic and completely predictable.


Well I do cite Mary Chapin Carpenter as an example of a good pop song writer, where there is a good sprinkling of originality, to precisely make your point. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Well I do cite Mary Chapin Carpenter as an example of a good pop song writer, where there is a good sprinkling of originality, to precisely make your point. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough.


Oh ok fair enough. I do like a song by her called Passionate Kisses.

I think with any music there is a formula, the formula is the style and structure of the piece. But the creativity can come by some adjustment to that. At the level of a pop song which is a miniature work these might be relatively small subtle changes within a melody and the structure. I think the more people acquaint themselves with the style/formula the better they notice those pieces which are more creative as opposed to those which are lazy creatively within the generic style.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

starry said:


> Oh ok fair enough. I do like a song by her called Passionate Kisses.


Ironically, that is one of the few songs she's recorded that she didn't write!
_Only a dream _and _I am a town _from the same album (_Come on, come on_) as _Passionate kisses_ are good examples of the points I was making.


----------

