Don't Forget About ...

As composers I think it's fair to assume that sometimes we (or at least I) find ourselves getting tied down to one particular style or whatever. Sometimes we forget about all the other things we once learned ... often little things that we could use to liven up our compositions or maybe fill in that piece of the puzzle we're missing. We need to remember that there is a whole range of ideas outside of traditional music theory and outside of the key on the paper.

I hope I am making sense. What I would like to do is a thread here where we can all help each other out and jog each others memory or maybe teach us something we didn't know before. If you have any ideas please feel free to share ... i'll start by giving you all an example of kind of what i'm talking about:

DON'T FORGET ABOUT ...

---

Whole Tone Scales.

a scale in which each note is separated from its neighbours by the interval of a whole step.

---

Tritones.

a musical interval that spans three whole tones. The tritone is the same as an augmented fourth.

---

Augmented Sixth Chords.

An augmented sixth chord contains the interval of an augmented sixth above the bass.

---

and the list goes on and on all day long ... if you have something you'd like to add - please share it!

and the list goes on and on all day long ... if you have something you'd like to add - please shar

What about extreme chromaticism, where almost anything is Tonic,almost anything is Dominant, and almost anything is Subdominant. Where VII is Dom, as is bII, II, vii, III, iii, III7 etc. etc.. Where bVI, vi, VI, bvi, iii, III, bIII, biii are tonic. etc. etc. bassically, the more complex it is, anything goes as long as you know what you are doing.

That's a nice, but almost endless topic...

The extended relationship principle - to not forget about secondary chords (not only secondary dominants, but also secondary ii's, secondary augmented sixths, etc). This covers part of what Yagan said. Don't forget the possibilities of chromaticism and apply modal interchange and extended alteration where needed.

The tritone could be used not only harmonically in chords' structure. Root progression by a tritone sounds weird and confusing, so to speak; it's like you don't know where you are going; could be used with care as effect to imply feeling of confusion, indecisiveness, unknown and so on.

Modality and modal harmony could be used where appropriate in order to create certain mood.

Don't forget to think about all musical elements and devices (texture, timbre, tempo, dynamics, articulation, repetition, intonation, syncopation and so on) and their effect on tension and release.

Some things are taught by books and teachers; other things are taught by Experience.

Yes I agree with what you've both said. Yet, i feel you're missing the point I'm making. I am a music major and a fond studier of music. I'm sure most of us are. I agree with you on many levels - just about everything you learn about music theory is important knowledge that should be at least retained (not necessarily used all the time). however, certain things just fit so well for an effect you are trying to achieve.

I think you misinterpreted the topic for the most part. I strongly believe that you should learn all the theory you possibly can and then throw it out the window (or at least throw it in a vault in the back of your mind) and write what you hear in your head and feel and what - to you - sounds good - using only the very basics of music theory to guide you. However, as i've mentioned, there comes a time when you need to call upon something you've learned and you can't.

take for example you are a young composer and you want to incorporate something in your piece that sounds fantasy like and dreamy ... you've heard it done a thousand times before and you used to know what technique was used but you simply don't remember. I'm sure it happens to us all at some point.

I don't know - i just thought this would be a way to help jog peoples memory but more importantly possibly introduce them to new things they haven't tried. I know there are a lot of threads that go into greater detail about certain techniques and stuff but I thought this would be a good way for a quick look at a bunch of different references.

Honestly, i can't quite put into words what I'm trying to do here. So let me try to summarize just one more time:

As i've said over and over - it all makes sense in my head if only there was a way you could open up and look in there. I truly honestly believe music theory is something that should be PRACTICED not executed. That may not make much sense at first but think about it. Music theory deserves to be taught and rehearsed no doubt. But there comes a time when you should throw all that stuff away and just do whatever the hell you want ... some might say - why did you do that ... that doesn't sound good to me ... thats not right ... YOU SHOULD NEVER!!! ... but I say (to a certain degree) that's all bull ... as long as it sounds good to you and you are happy with your creation thats what makes it good. however, there are things in your head i'm sure you would like to transcribe but just can't seem to be able to do it. Thats where reapplying your theory comes into play. But sometimes there are simple things we are looking for but can't find that answer to ... so we need some help.

That's what i'm trying to do here i guess ... sounded like a good idea to me ... maybe i was wrong. An endless discussion? No doubt. But whose to say you won't turn on someones light bulb in the process? And that makes it all worth while to me.

But there comes a time when you should throw all that stuff away and just do whatever the hell you want ...

some might say - why did you do that ... that doesn't sound good to me ... thats not right ... YOU SHOULD NEVER!!! ... but I say (to a certain degree) that's all bull ... as long as it sounds good to you and you are happy with your creation thats what makes it good.

First, we are all human beings and one of the most important properties of the healthy brain is to forget. If it doesn't forget, there is something fundamentally wrong with it. However, what has been understood cannot be un-understood; we seldom forget something which we've considered important and while it is still important for us. And if we do, it is a matter of little time to recall it.

The rules (better - guidelines) of music are reasonable, they could be explained to a large degree with acoustics and psychology, but this doesn't make them absolute; they change with style, thus defining it, and they should serve for expressive purposes, not vice versa - the expression to be bound by strict rules. If there were no composers who push boundaries, we would still use medieval polyphony. Rather, I think it is healthy to think of them as "you should do X or Y if you want to achieve Z".

There is someone like that at my uni, everyone hates his pieces, but he likes them. Good for him! And I really don't care what you do(neither should you), because you will never get better, and no one will ever listen to you.

Prokofiev has been one of those guys, by the way.

Prokofiev has been one of those guys, by the way.

And I really don't care what you do(neither should you), because you will never get better, and no one will ever listen to you.

Hey, relax, everyone has the right to believe what they want and be what they want, and you don't have to be so rude against them. All he was trying to do is give a few ideas to the majority of this forum, which don't know much about music theory and may have never encountered terms such as "whole-tone scales" or "octatonic scales". He just mentioned a few things which might be helpful to other people. If they are not helpful to you, then fine, you don't have to bash everyone else just because you had a bad day.

Hey, relax, everyone has the right to believe what they want and be what they want, and you don't have to be so rude against them. All he was trying to do is give a few ideas to the majority of this forum, which don't know much about music theory and may have never encountered terms such as "whole-tone scales" or "octatonic scales". He just mentioned a few things which might be helpful to other people. If they are not helpful to you, then fine, you don't have to bash everyone else just because you had a bad day.

That wasn't a comment directed towards me. You should reread the sentence:

There is someone like that at my uni, everyone hates his pieces, but he likes them. Good for him! And I really don't care what you do(neither should you), because you will never get better, and no one will ever listen to you.

He is refereing to the "someone like that at (his) uni".

But thanks for your comments ... you said what i was trying to say in much fewer words. LoL.

No, he's not referring to "someone like that at his uni" because he is referring to him throughout the sentence in the third person (but he likes them, good for him etc), while he suddenly switches to the second person. If he meant something else, he should express himself more clearly, I think.

oops. apologies. I mean the last sentence as 'if you were like him'.

I'm also fudging on certain details to maintain anonymity of the person in question.