Is using chord plugins and tools cheating if you do not know music theory?

[perpetual3]

Wow, what a great find.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-exa ... sic-theory

The reason everyone cites the Beatles as great untrained musicians is that they were great. But Courtney is right: the Beatles weren't exceptionally great guitarists, or drummers, or keyboard players, or even singers. They were pretty good at those things, and had flashes of greatness. They wrote brilliant songs, but they wrote plenty of clunkers too. The main reason the Beatles are so revered is because of their ability to create studio recordings. Their albums from Revolver onwards are greater than the sum of the material, arrangements, and performances. Those late albums are masterpieces of recording, editing, mixing, and effects, of hyperrealist timbral and spatial manipulation, and of surrealist tape editing.

Traditional instrumentalists tend to discount "playing the studio" as a form of musicianship, but they're wrong to do so. We live in the recorded music era. To a good approximation, all of the music that a person hears in modern Western society is recorded. In this world, playing the studio is the most culturally significant kind of musical creativity. It's a form that's understood much better by pop listeners than "real" musicians, because we don't have the formal and analytical vocabulary to understand recordings the way we do for music theory. But that vocabulary is starting to emerge. The Beatles are standard reference points for scholars of the recording studio the same way that Bach is for scholars of counterpoint, or Coltrane is for scholars of jazz improvisation, and for the same reasons.

[Forgotten]

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-exa ... sic-theory

The reason everyone cites the Beatles as great untrained musicians is that they were great. But Courtney is right: the Beatles weren't exceptionally great guitarists, or drummers, or keyboard players, or even singers. They were pretty good at those things, and had flashes of greatness. They wrote brilliant songs, but they wrote plenty of clunkers too. The main reason the Beatles are so revered is because of their ability to create studio recordings. Their albums from Revolver onwards are greater than the sum of the material, arrangements, and performances. Those late albums are masterpieces of recording, editing, mixing, and effects, of hyperrealist timbral and spatial manipulation, and of surrealist tape editing.

Traditional instrumentalists tend to discount "playing the studio" as a form of musicianship, but they're wrong to do so. We live in the recorded music era. To a good approximation, all of the music that a person hears in modern Western society is recorded. In this world, playing the studio is the most culturally significant kind of musical creativity. It's a form that's understood much better by pop listeners than "real" musicians, because we don't have the formal and analytical vocabulary to understand recordings the way we do for music theory. But that vocabulary is starting to emerge. The Beatles are standard reference points for scholars of the recording studio the same way that Bach is for scholars of counterpoint, or Coltrane is for scholars of jazz improvisation, and for the same reasons.

But they still played instruments and composed their own chord sequences in the studio. I don't see that it matters whether they did it live or in the studio.

Not sure that George Martin had a chord VST available at Abbey Road to help them write songs, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

[datroof]

BB King had a very successful music career without knowing very much at all about theory.

I think that's a misconception. BB, the Beatles, Wes Montgomery and his brothers (I think they're an awesome example) all know/knew a lot of music theory, they just didn't learn it in a classroom, or from a book - they absorbed it, like we all do, through exposure (there's probably a touch of talent involved as well). If you've listened to much music, then you should already know a lot of music theory, just not the academic labels, notation, etc.

[vurt]

BB King had a very successful music career without knowing very much at all about theory.

I think that's a misconception. BB, the Beatles, Wes Montgomery and his brothers (I think they're an awesome example) all know/knew a lot of music theory, they just didn't learn it in a classroom, or from a book - they absorbed it, like we all do, through exposure (there's probably a touch of talent involved as well). If you've listened to much music, then you should already know a lot of music theory, just not the academic labels, notation, etc.

yup, picking up bits along the way, from other musicians.
im the first to argue that academic type theory learning is not necessary to have fun and make music. but to eschew any and all learning in favour of letting a machine do all the work? nope.
if youre interested in music, you should want to learn something at least? be it how to do that lick that guitarist you like does or how to actually build chords from scales, but there should be some desire imo to answer a question!

but if you are going to go this route, be aware the sheen will rub off soon, you will feel like youre cheating yourself more than anything, unless youre in some mad rush to "produce a song" then why not spend some time having fun learning and making mistakes

although, it could be youre more interested in sound design and just want a backing track to design over? then cool, but then be a sound designer and be happy with it, its not a lesser thing than a musician

[vurt]

Not sure that George Martin had a chord VST available at Abbey Road to help them write songs, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

if he did the scouse bastards would have nicked it

[Forgotten]

BB King had a very successful music career without knowing very much at all about theory.

I think that's a misconception. BB, the Beatles, Wes Montgomery and his brothers (I think they're an awesome example) all know/knew a lot of music theory, they just didn't learn it in a classroom, or from a book - they absorbed it, like we all do, through exposure (there's probably a touch of talent involved as well). If you've listened to much music, then you should already know a lot of music theory, just not the academic labels, notation, etc.

It's not even true about the Beatles - George Martin has gone on record many times to say how Paul McCartney was interested in learning how to arrange orchestral pieces, and would sit with him at the piano when he was writing scores.

[Forgotten]

Not sure that George Martin had a chord VST available at Abbey Road to help them write songs, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

if he did the scouse bastards would have nicked it

[jacqueslacouth]

I dunno, I use Captain Chords in much the same way I do to compose on the guitar. I start with a chord and noodle around trying other chords until I get something I like then take it from there. I know bugger all theory but when on the guitar I will play a chord and either go "yeh, that sounds good" or "fark me, that sounds shite" and move on. With Captain chords, it DOES help remove the shite moments because it helps with the theory of playing in key. I'm a bloody awful keyboard player but using the computer with chord software allows me to explore progressions using different sounds from my normal ear drum bursting, max distortion sound on my guitar and THAT is often quite a pleasing process in that it allows me to approach composition from a different angle. It is not at all that the computer is picking the chords for me, it is, in fact, a lot like my 40 year old guitar case chord book which has all the chords set out in appropriate keys.

[vurt]

BB King had a very successful music career without knowing very much at all about theory.

I think that's a misconception. BB, the Beatles, Wes Montgomery and his brothers (I think they're an awesome example) all know/knew a lot of music theory, they just didn't learn it in a classroom, or from a book - they absorbed it, like we all do, through exposure (there's probably a touch of talent involved as well). If you've listened to much music, then you should already know a lot of music theory, just not the academic labels, notation, etc.

It's not even true about the Beatles - George Martin has gone on record many times to say how Paul McCartney was interested in learning how to arrange orchestral pieces, and would sit with him at the piano when he was writing scores.

jane ashers mum was an accomplished music teacher too, who apparently taught george martin too
but at the start, its true, they knew basic skiffle, hamburg tightened them as players.
and they did have a great team behind them to help with the writing, but the ideas where theirs and they knew how to express it to get the team to be able to score it for orchestras to come in and play.

im not a huge fan, theres about 20 songs i actually like.
but their studio work from revolver on (although it is my theory they where nicking most of it from the band who where in at night) has paved the way for many of us. i know tape manipulation and such had been done before, but never in a mainstream way, which then inspired all those pedal manufacturers to emulate flanging and such...

ps: paul is dead.

[Gamma-UT]

they just didn't learn it in a classroom, or from a book - they absorbed it, like we all do, through exposure (there's probably a touch of talent involved as well).

When it comes down to it, pretty much all music theory is like this - it's just been absorbed by people who then went and tried to formalise it. What we call music theory is largely a giant pile of rules of thumb that is meant to form a cohesive whole but, in reality, doesn't. This is why common-practice tonal theory ties itself in knots and you have a ton of "post-tonal" theories vying for attention.

There's some work on psychology-led theory going on now but it's yet to form the basis of anything that's useful in the way traditional music theory. In the meantime, it's learn it by ear or deal with the often contradictory tenets of conventional "music theory". But learn it from paper or by ear, it largely comes down the same process of internalisation.

[jancivil]

"I know bugger all theory but..."

So does it totally elude you that if you did understand more you wouldn't need Captain Chord's assurance of less shite moments?

Exactly illustrating the point of knowing is better. WHOOOSH

[jancivil]

"BB King had a very successful music career without knowing very much at all about theory."

yet a new goalpost appears, success at a career
Kanye needs his vocals to be tuned by software and enjoys a successful career.
I'm not sure Nikki Minaj has anything at all going for her musically speaking, there's no evidence of it/

Even as it's revealed BB did OK as far as what you'd need to know in blues, let's strain to look like you're right, stick to your guns no matter what happens

As an objective matter, my argument is knowing is better. Ultimately you waste less time. Flail away.

[jacqueslacouth]

"I know bugger all theory but..."

So does it totally elude you that if you did understand more you wouldn't need Captain Chord's assurance of less shite moments?

Exactly illustrating the point of knowing is better. WHOOOSH

Whatever! It must be nice to be so bloody superior that only your way of making music has any credibility. Maybe, just maybe, some people get enjoyment out of doing it whatever way makes them happy. Still, you carry on with your invalidating us inferior plebs who might just do this for a bit of fun....however we get there.

[perpetual3]

"I know bugger all theory but..."

So does it totally elude you that if you did understand more you wouldn't need Captain Chord's assurance of less shite moments?

Exactly illustrating the point of knowing is better. WHOOOSH

Whatever! It must be nice to be so bloody superior that only your way of making music has any credibility. Maybe, just maybe, some people get enjoyment out of doing it whatever way makes them happy. Still, you carry on with your invalidating us inferior plebs who might just do this for a bit of fun....however we get there.

Great response.

[jancivil]

"I know bugger all theory but..."

So does it totally elude you that if you did understand more you wouldn't need Captain Chord's assurance of less shite moments?

Exactly illustrating the point of knowing is better. WHOOOSH

Whatever! It must be nice to be so bloody superior that only your way of making music has any credibility. Maybe, just maybe, some people get enjoyment out of doing it whatever way makes them happy. Still, you carry on with your invalidating us inferior plebs who might just do this for a bit of fun....however we get there.

Yeah, strike out defensively, that's the ticket.
I'm not in competition with you in the least, how does your "validity" threaten me?
It's an observation, the more a person - I have zero interest in you personally - obtains knowledge the less they lean on a crutch. It's analogous to someone who talks about how their crutch makes for less stumbling, but the crutch is a choice.
Fun; ok, it's not fun to learn? The fun is gone if you have better competency.

'to be so bloody superior' - I worked for what I have. It is objectively superior to your knowledge, this would be a factual matter.

You mount an attack at a person for speaking the truth. Thanks for the reveal.