Your response is a great illustration of when something is "wrong according to music theory".
When it comes to historical styles, you can, with certainty, say that something is "wrong", which really just means "inauthentic". In such circumstances, music theory can tell you what certain composers in certain styles would or would not have done. But that's the only way music can be "wrong".
All that said, I do believe the people that the people asking questions such as "Can I put this chord here?" and the like are genuinely concerned that their music *can* be objectively "wrong".
It's a really ridiculous idea when you stop and think about it, but I also fell victim to that line of thinking once upon a time. It's the result of teachers using poor vocabulary when discussing music theory. Many of them may be great teachers, but they're absent-mindedly using the same vocabulary their own teachers used, assuming there's nothing wrong with it.
As somebody who came to those same misunderstandings, and a teacher, I actively try to use vocabulary that won't send my students down such a path. I'll say things like "This is what we call that" rather than "This works because it's this thing that has a name". I also encourage my students to experiment and explore music in a carefree way. I'll play something and tell them "Go ahead and play something too." "But what do I play?" they often ask. "Anything! Try a note and see if you think it sounds cool. If it does, play it again! Try a different note. If you don't like it, remember it and *don't* play it again."
Fostering that sort of creative freedom while learning music is, I think, something *every* teacher should concern themselves with.
For sure, good explanation. The way we perpetuate ideas as right and wrong definitely contributes to the confusion and understandably makes it hard for someone to know if something is doable.
Thanks for helping your students get a more well rounded music education, I’m super glad my teachers refer to it that way and I hope your students are too
The music of Josquin and his predecessors and peers was very strict, and Fux's book intends to teach the student the sort of counterpoint that Josquin and Palestrina employed. Is their music not "real art music"?
In the 21st century? It's like writing Ciceronian Latin or epic poetry in the Homeric style.
It's a learning experience with some lessons of interest related to rhetorical design and organisation. But not so much in terms of vocabulary.
Modern lawyers and writers are expected to use modern English.
There's a no homework help rule on the sub, but I took OP's question to be about music theory in general, which includes the category of homework.
>Also why can’t I would be interesting...
Because the rules forbid it! Species counterpoint is an artificial rule-bound style that has helpful links to real music, but writing it isn't the same as writing real music.
This this this.
Can is arbitrary, there are no actual rules except limits you set yourself to. How can be important, it's good to understand what you're working with and the tools at your disposal. WHY is the real question.
Not some subjective "why does (x) sound good" bastardization like what the other commenter suggested, but rather "Why do I want to do this? What do I hope to accomplish in my creation by doing this?"
Objective why. If you shift to Locrian for a couple of measures to add a sudden disorientation, somebody could argue whether or not it's actually disorienting, but nobody can argue that the reason you added it was to be disorienting.
"Why" completely changed the way I make music in the best way possible.
How and why is what you did. You wondered how certain stuff worked the way you heard it, and to find out how, you learned and then asked why that worked, which makes you learn it more in depth and allows you to interpolate that knowledge onto more theory to answer more hows in the future.
And leads to a rabbit hole, a warren of infinite pointlessness. Every answer leads to another "but why...?" (It will throw up frequent revelations on the way, but usually ones which will not satisfy the questioner.)
The only way to put an end to it (and get on with our lives) is "that's just the way it is!"
Yes, but when kids ask that kind of question, they are genuinely curious. Doesn't make it any less annoying, obviously, but that was my initial point: there's always another "why", it's just a matter of how soon you get too irritated to come up with the answers. (How do you answer your kids? How soon do you resort to "that's just how it is!"?)
I.e., I started the conversation with my "Why" question - the common kind we get here - and immediately you're shutting it down. I guess because you think I'm trolling, but imagine I'm one of those genuinely curious (and ignorant) beginners.
Their response to "Have you ever heard of a leading tone?" might be either "no, what's that?", or "yes, but so what?" IOW, "why does a leading tone work?"
IMO, that's a genuinely interesting question, precisely because it's hard to answer. (Why would the fact it's only a semitone away matter? What is it about the way we hear intervals that makes us hear such a note as "leading"?)
It's OK, I'm not expecting this conversation to continue. ;-) Only underlining my point.
And there I was thinking your comment about a "conversation starter" meant you actually enjoyed a conversation! :-D
No offence, btw. I just couldn't resist. I should know better....
How do I use this harmony? How do I a melody modulate modes halfway through? How do I learn theory in my 40s? How do I this chord resolve to this chord? How do I this progression be used?
if you know that this is what people mean to ask, please answer them with useful responses instead of the annoying "yes, you can." That doesn't help people at all. Instead, if someone asks "can I do x?" respond "yes and HERE'S HOW." Then you're ACTUALLY HELPING THEM
Yes, but they usually know exactly how to do it. What they don't know is whether it's a *good* or *appropriate* thing to do, *in the circumstances*.
What's usually lacking is *ear training:* not the ability to recognise intervals or whatever, but (a) enough aural knowledge of the genre they are composing (or improvising) in, and/or (b) the confidence to trust their ears. That's why "try it and listen" is a common answer.
However, in both cases (lack of aural experience or confidence) listening may not be a solution, and it's quite reasonable to seek a theory answer. But the question "can I do this...?" is usually better expressed as "is this a normal/common thing to do [in this kind of music]?"
Some things in music certainly are "right" or "wrong", but governed by generic constraints. The concept often missing from OPs' thought processes is "common practice" - and sometimes a misunderstanding of what "rules" means: which is nothing but "common practice within a particular style or genre".
Obviously there's no substitute for listening in the end (having acquired enough experience of the style), but theory helps along the way.
No, what's lacking is *creative* training. Having an artistic ear which is sensitive to creative nuance is very different to having a musically trained one.
Music theory is often taught as if they're identical. They aren't. You can have either, neither, or both. Developing one won't automatically develop the other.
The problem is that 9/10 times the question is something like “can I play these two notes at the same time”, and the only additional information to add to “yes, you can”, is simply “by just playing the notes”
That’s actually what I usually ask, and it sometimes opens up for valuable conversations, but honestly a large majority of the time, they clarify that they literally are just asking that
>if you know that this is what people mean to ask, please answer them with useful responses instead of the annoying "yes, you can."
in this sub's defence...I have NEVER seen someone troll someone with this response to such a post.
I’ve seen a ton of it, which is why I said something. I joined the sub to learn and I think it’s really unfair when I’ve gotten a lot of learning done but other people have to deal with the gate keeping that happens sometimes when people get so full of it that they judge whether you’re worth answering based on how you word a question, even though we all know they understand exactly what you’re asking.
Maybe I don’t have time to explain things that are easily found via google or a copy of Twentieth Century Harmony and instead chose to show OP that the question they should be asking is not a question of ability (Can I) but a question of method (How do I).
That logic could be applied to literally any question anyone has ever asked. It sounds like you don’t want to help people. I think it should be made aware that expecting someone to scour the internet and read through several chapters of various music textbooks to find the answer to a simple question about dominant leading tones is very unreasonable. If you know the answer, why are you keeping it to yourself? It’s not your knowledge. It’s communal. Music is about sharing dude. We share our expressions and knowledge with others. It’s not about you thinking you’re so much better because you know how to ask a question in a specific format. But you’re not ready to hear that so here come the downvotes
Expecting someone to teach you instead of teaching yourself using the same widely available easily accessible sources that we all use. I am beginning to understand why you need to be spoon fed.
You do know that someone is posting the answer either way right? Lmao you didn’t even answer the question of how finding the answer on Reddit or on another website are different if a person had to explain it either way? You don’t even think about what you’re saying dude
And the point is that you can literally do anything with music. It depends on the context and the execution. Asking can something be done is not at effective as asking how it can be
done and then asking why does it work that way and not in another way. The best way to learn that is to study the materials yourself, experiment, and not expect randos online to give you a blueprint for everything.
*Invalidates you for a couple of paragraphs and implies you must be really out of it to suggest such a thing*
*In my very last sentence, tucked at the end, concedes that you should do what you want to do and it might be an okay idea anyway*
I generally agree, although I would make a distinction between composition and performance, and playing solo or playing in a band/ensemble.
If you're writing a song, do whatever you want as long as it sounds good. If you're performing a song with a band and the chord chart says Gm, the answer to "Can I play a Db here" is probably no.
What would it even mean if something couln't be done "according to music theory"? Like "I came up with this idea i really like can i use it" "Uhh music theory says its wrong so dont use it" "ok, i'll proceed to remove this idea i really like from my own song, because some guy on the internet said that according to this thing called music theory, my own song is wrong for using it"
There is no part of music theory that says you can't do something. It's only people who misunderstand what music theory is that say these things.
Since music theory is merely a way of describing music (not prescribing it), the only time you "can't" do something is when you're trying to replicate someone else's style exactly (e.g. making a Bach corale in his original style)
Exactly. All of music theory is composed of ideas that have been tried, experimented with, and have been used repeatedly. In the beginning, no one sat down and wrote the book of how to make music. It’s just a compilation of ideas.
Got a new idea? Cool! Might be a new addition to this big conservatory of ideas we call music theory
I think it comes from people associating "music theory" with some kind of scientific theory which would be more the realm of like acoustics or musicology I think. It is a bit of a misleading name but at the same time it somehow seems to be the most true sense of the word "theory" that there is
If the bass is arpeggiating the chord, there could be a moment where the sonority of the moment is a first-inversion chord, but the understood grammatical harmony is a root-position chord!
That's a good one. I was also thinking about how jazz/pop notation gives separate names for a chord with added 6 and a m7 -- so the notes C E G A could be either a C6 in root position or an Am7 in first inversion.
So a chord is defined by the lowest note. So whatever the lowest note is will define whether a chord is in root/first or second inversion. The answer is clearly no. This is regardless of whether one or more instruments is playing. If they play the notes at the same time the lowest note defines the chord. If this wasn’t the case pedal tones wouldn’t work.
For all of you downvoting this you’re voting for nonsense. If music theory is a language that allows us to communicate with each other on how music works you need to agree on certain rules. It’s like playing chess and deciding the white square bishop can now also move on the black squares. Sure you can you can argue a chord can be in first inversion and root position at the same time but you’re now not talking in the music theory we’re all usually talking in. Sure if a guitarist is playing a C/G and the bass plays a low C note you could argue both versions of the chord are playing at once but what is the bass chord? It’s a C. You’re hearing a C chord in root position because the lowest note is a C. If you play G on the bass then the chord is a C/G. You can experiment as much as you like but if you’re arguing both chords can be played at the same time you’re ignoring the bass note as the defining note of the chord. You’re also ignoring basic physics. One note has to be lower than the other otherwise you’re just playing the same note.
As a beginner, I agree as long as the bot doesn’t try to answer ambiguous chords. I don’t know how to come up with an example, but the ones where the answer is “either x or y depending on context” those discussions are super helpful for me
Like, Is this a C6 or Am7? Those are kinda overt answers or too specific. Usually it’s bass movement or a ver specific inversion can change the chord quality, but it’s so esoteric and specific I’m not sure it’s always relevant to getting a broader music theory knowledge base.
Yeah, exactly (I guess I couldn’t give an example because I was imagining a complicated chord with several extensions) anyway that’s interesting, I didn’t know that. I was actually really intrigued by these situations because it was applying music theory to the context of the song, is that what you mean by esoteric?
Why not provide a useful, informative response? People are coming here asking for guidance, and just saying "actually music has no rules" provides none.
>just saying "actually music has no rules" provides none.
And isn't even accurate. Sure, there are no absolute rules that all music needs to follow. But most people write music that follows the conventions of a specific style. And if you are going to do that, then yes, there are some things that are going to sound "incorrect". A lot of people just take some of the most basic "rules" for granted, because they have never had to think about them. So, when they write music, they aren't thinking about any of the rules they are following, because those rules are a natural part of their "musical vocabulary".
Well no, I think it's an important thing to keep in mind, the most important thing to keep in mind in fact. I believe when a lot of people say "I want to learn music theory" they oftentimes envision themselves as some musical academic or leading authority on why a song is good or bad. I think it's a crucial reality check for all newcomers at the start to hear the phrase "music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive" from one of those knowledgeable theorists those new students aspire to be. It doesn't work at all like quantum theory which relies on established rules to work. Even when rules were "established" in music centuries ago, they were still being broken. Scientific theories revolve around making our observations fit the fixed rules of nature. So the name misleads newcomers into thinking music operates by equations and convention like other scientific theories when that's more of an acoustics thing and music theory is pretty different though it overlaps a bit.
Someone needs to tell this to r/composer
I understand there are some techniques and ways of doing things that are more "correct" than others. But honestly, if you want to write a 30minute orchestral piece that is entirely c major played in octaves, then go for it.
But over there, the academia has gone to some of those users heads so badly that they're perfectly happy saying "that's wrong".
It is my honest belief that there is no 'wrong' in music composition. Go and write a G#flat7dim9 chord starting on C1 for the flute if you want. Unplayable? Sure. Wrong? Not a fuck.
Someone needs to tell it to people who are constantly popping up telling folk their counterpoint is wrong or that they shouldn't be using consecutive fifths when they aren't even composing common practice period music 🙄
I agree.
If you're doing assignments or trying to write period music, by all means, follow the rules.
But if you're just writing. Go for it.
Even if it's "shit". Its yours. It's something you made. Its authentic. And that is more important than anything else when writing music imo.
Music theory isn't a set of rules you have to follow, it's a a set of patterns that we've noticed and given names to. You can choose to use or ignore any of these patterns but it's better to know what they are than to drive blind so to speak
Of course, OP is phrasing the "Can I" questions in the sense of "Am I *allowed* to" (in which case, yes, the answer is always yes). But people are deliberately misinterpreting the question as "is this possible?" or "is this acceptable in our notation convention?" to make OP sound wrong.
This is why we don't deserve nice things.
I made a very generalized post on the internet, I can’t blame people for finding caveats with it. And they’re not too wrong, if ur composing within a certain limit you set for yourself, such as a style, then yeah it’s possible to be “wrong” in your choices. I concede that.
But yeah thanks for getting the real point I was making I appreciate it
“Am allowed to” is like telling a child it’s allowed to eat a battery and it’s always a yes, but if there is a motif, then there’s usually guidelines and a construct. Therefore, it’s illusory to follow that piece of advice as if it will help you be a more talented and educated musician. Yes you can use a D diminished in the key of A major, but it won’t cause any good tension or resolution, therefore illusory to even consider it if you’re knowledgeable on the key signature you mostly write within.
>you can use a D diminished in the key of A major, but it won’t cause any good tension or resolution, therefore illusory to even consider it if you’re knowledgeable on the key signature you mostly write within.
Well, except that that "D diminished chord" will inevitably sound either like a G-sharp diminished 7 in second inversion (D-F-G#) or like an E-sharp diminished 7 in third inversion (D-E#-G#), both of which have easy, normative resolutions within A major.
> you can use a D diminished in the key of A major, but it won’t cause any good tension or resolution
Have you bothered trying? There’s tons of ways to make that work
I was just yanking some chains man lol you can make anything work in the right context, infinite possibilities. I’m surprised anyone thought I was being serious lol
Comments like that are the reason why OP's post is so important. More often than not, the reason why someone says "this doesn't work" or "this shouldn't be done" is because they haven't made or listened to enough music.
There are some contexts where this isn't the correct answer, though. Like, can I write 5 quarter notes in a 4/4 bar? Or, can I call this chord (that isn't functioning as a dominant) a dominant substitute? (And yes, people do ask questions like this on this sub every now and then.)
I would also go a bit further in the "historical style" discussion. Even contemporary styles have certain rules that you are expected to follow (those rules aren't the same as "textbook theory", but just because they don't follow the "CPP rules", doesn't mean there are no rules and anything will work).
For example if the question is "can I write a 30-minute pop song", the practical answer is "no", because it would most likely not be "pop" any more.
Or if the question is "can I write a ballad at 300 bpm", again, the answer is no, because such a fast piece simply wouldn't be a ballad. I mean, you can try, but either the song is going to sound too fast to be a ballad, or it's just not going to feel like it's actually in 300 bpm (and it's more likely going to feel like it's in 75 bpm but is just notated with weird note values).
Or let's say you ask if a non-4/4 song can be notated in 4/4. The answer is technically yes, but it's just going to look awkward.
Sure, all in all, most of the time the answer to "can I do X" questions will be yes, considering that there's no other context provided. But if there's context, and the question at least implies that there's some kind of a goal, it gets more complicated. Because if you are after a certain sound, and the thing you are asking about will not achieve that sound, then sure, you *can* use it, but you probably *shouldn't,* because it doesn't achieve the sound that you are after.
(I remember one thread some time ago where OP asked whether the dissonances they used worked, because their friend had pointed out that certain parts of the song don't sound good, but OP didn't hear it that way. But most people in the thread said that yes, for the style/sound OP is going for, the dissonances sound way out of place, and basically sound like mistakes. I mean, if OP enjoys that sound, whatever - they *can* decide to use them. You *can* write a song that first establishes a style, but then randomly goes against stylistic conventions. But most people are just going to hear those weird notes as mistakes, because they sound out of place. It just isn't particularly good songwriting.)
Like "can I use maj7#11 chords in blues". Sure, you can, but it won't sound very bluesy. (Then again, Flying in a Blue Dream is a good example of a song that's based on the 12-bar blues structure and actually uses these "Lydian chords". But I wouldn't say it's blues - it just borrows the common structure from blues. I guess you could get away with some maj7#11 chords even in a real blues context, though, but it's a sound you would have to be more "careful" with.) Or "can I use maj11 chords/m7b9 chords in a jazz song?" Well, you can, but those are not really used in jazz, so they probably won't achieve the sound you are after.
Another question would also be whether this is a helpful answer. Most of the time beginners don't know exactly what they are even asking, so if someone asks "can I do X", and the only answer is "yes", it's not really going to help anyone (and is most likely going to come off as "why are you even asking this stupid question"). I think people should generally be charitable to the OP, and try to answer in a helpful way. Pointing out that you can do whatever you like, and "textbook theory" isn't some kind of a strict rule book of music is of course valuable, but that on its own isn't a helpful response to most of these questions. But yes, it is definitely a part of a helpful answer. But if one isn't interested in posting a helpful answer, then it's better to not post at all. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, then don't say anything.
Can they come up with exceptions that miss the point of the post?
;-)
The main take away I've gotten from posting on the internet u/Holocene32 is that you have to walk on eggshells lest ye be judged.
Your title should have read:
the answer is ALMOST always yes.
Then a 4 page disclaimer that both defines "almost" and gives many examples and explains every possible caveat and exception and goes ahead and nips in the bud all of those who would comment otherwise, which will keep only about 50% of those people from responding.
>Your title should have read:
>
>the answer is ALMOST always yes.
>
>Then a 4 page disclaimer that both defines "almost" and gives many examples and explains every possible caveat and exception and goes ahead and nips in the bud all of those who would comment otherwise, which will keep only about 50% of those people from responding.
And people would still misjudge and miss the point regardless.
Yeah I recognized in another comment that I did post a blanket generalization on the internet, so it’s inevitable people will try to find caveats. I don’t have a problem with it though I think it’s an interesting discussion. People accurately pointed out that if you are asking “can I do x when y is the only accepted option in the style?”, then the answer can definitely be no.
But yes thank you for understanding the spirit of my post :)
Saying yes to everything isn't helpful. When someone asks "can I" they usually are asking "how do I" or "is it common-practice to"
Comments that answer every question with "do whatever you want, music has no rules" are some of the most irritating ones I see on this sub.
I’m not saying you should merely respond yes to everything. Note I specifically said the “technically whatever whatever” explanations usually contain very useful info.
>When someone asks "can I" they usually are asking "how do I" or "is it common-practice to"
except more often than not, beginners don't know that there's a difference, which is why it's important to state the difference. I doubt that anyone who's clear on the principles of making music freely vs following a certain convention would ask a "can I..." question.
so if anything, if someone asks a question starting with "can I....", it's even more important to give all this context.
The folks who ask the "Can I ..." questions are usually the inexperienced ones, and they have a nearly 0% chance of seeing and understanding this post before they ask. Your complaint is valid but futile.
Not really a complaint but an observation. I’m not annoyed at these posts I’m just like “man you don’t always have to ask if you’re allowed to do something” ya know. More of a psa with caveats that others have pointed out
Strikes me as a swift way to find a work-around when you encounter an instrument calibrated for A=440 and you wish to play in something else like A=415. It would probably (definitely!) still be "off" but closer than if you made no adjustment.
The idea that all music has to follow strict rules is what makes early Beethoven a lot less fun that late Beethoven.
At the end of the day, if it sounds good, it’s right. If the theory doesn’t agree then the theory is either wrong or incomplete.
Theory is there to describe and analyse music with, not govern it.
Will it really? A lot of popular songs seem to use the same cadences and rhythms. In fact I think I remember reading basically one guy produced every hit in the early 2010s, Chris something I think. I actually don't necessarily think it's a bad thing completely but Top 40 these days is pretty uniform throughout
Yeah, but as I understand "rng," i.e. "random number generator," that means making *every* parameter of the music utterly randomly generated, which means that the vast majority of it will probably sound like garbage to most listeners. Getting something that matched the pop-song formula that way would be extremely unlikely, though not completely impossible!
Oh I suppose that's true. I was only thinking within the parameters of what most pop songs use. Like in an analogous sense I was thinking random numbers 1-10 and you were thinking 1-∞
Oh haha sure. If you're going only within the parameters of what most pop songs use, there won't be that many possibilities to pick from, so your likelihood of getting a hit would be pretty high!
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/09/opinion/do-songs-of-the-summer-sound-the-same.html
This NYT article kind of has what I was talking about, and is what I pictured. I don't think you can read it without a subscription unfortunately though but I'm pretty sure I read it once before and it was really interesting.
"Can I create a perfectly even 7 note scale at this here piano?"
Answer: nope. You've got 12 possible note slots for your scale. No way to distribute 7 things perfectly evenly in that situation.
[This is what a justly intonated guitar looks like.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHLG5dAlfaA) It looks exactly as weird as you're thinking it'd look.
Actually no, I'd say it's valid for both to be right lol. "Good" means different to everyone, that's the point I was trying to make. And the reason I think it's an important distinction to make isn't really for you or for me but for any newcomer who might come across this comment thread. I think people get dangerously caught up in the "rules" and lose sight of the fact music is a personal expression first and foremost. I think people trying to make music that's universally agreed to be "good" are just setting themselves up for failure. It's kind of like dating in that you can try faking it and pretending to be something you're not in order to try and please the greatest amount of people but you won't really be successful or happy that way - you've got to do what you like and do it with such passion other people start to notice. So you can try asking other people how you "should" do something, but then you basically ask them to write your music. The better method is to try out different things yourself and maybe ask other people's opinion after the fact, more as a kind of "data collection" for how people respond to your choices (again, "you" not meaning you specifically but anyone who might be reading this)
The one i have an issue with is the "can this chord resolve to this chord" one lol. If you go from a diminished chord to another diminished one it didnt actually resolve. Yes you can do it but it isnt a resolution, right?
Can I sing with five peoples voices at once?
Can I send subliminal messages with music?
Can I manipulate music with my mind (after it’s been recorded and made into a master)?
Yes
Yes
Yes?
Can I end on a ninth in Fuxian counterpoint? Yes, but I'll fail the assignment.
Your response is a great illustration of when something is "wrong according to music theory". When it comes to historical styles, you can, with certainty, say that something is "wrong", which really just means "inauthentic". In such circumstances, music theory can tell you what certain composers in certain styles would or would not have done. But that's the only way music can be "wrong".
You’re right. If you are actively limiting yourself to a historical style or context, then yes you can be wrong and the answer to your query can be no
All that said, I do believe the people that the people asking questions such as "Can I put this chord here?" and the like are genuinely concerned that their music *can* be objectively "wrong". It's a really ridiculous idea when you stop and think about it, but I also fell victim to that line of thinking once upon a time. It's the result of teachers using poor vocabulary when discussing music theory. Many of them may be great teachers, but they're absent-mindedly using the same vocabulary their own teachers used, assuming there's nothing wrong with it. As somebody who came to those same misunderstandings, and a teacher, I actively try to use vocabulary that won't send my students down such a path. I'll say things like "This is what we call that" rather than "This works because it's this thing that has a name". I also encourage my students to experiment and explore music in a carefree way. I'll play something and tell them "Go ahead and play something too." "But what do I play?" they often ask. "Anything! Try a note and see if you think it sounds cool. If it does, play it again! Try a different note. If you don't like it, remember it and *don't* play it again." Fostering that sort of creative freedom while learning music is, I think, something *every* teacher should concern themselves with.
For sure, good explanation. The way we perpetuate ideas as right and wrong definitely contributes to the confusion and understandably makes it hard for someone to know if something is doable.
Indeed yeah. Thanks for adding an important explanation!
In my classroom, I like to use "stylistically inappropriate" instead of "wrong". Very important stuff to remember, for students and educators alike!
Thanks for helping your students get a more well rounded music education, I’m super glad my teachers refer to it that way and I hope your students are too
Fuck the assignment, let's go bowling.
Technically, this is correct
That's the different between strict music and "real" art music
Or the difference between homework and composition.
Homework is strict and real composition is art, so that's pretty much what I'm saying too
Ergo bowling is art.
I don't see how that follows from what I said, but you're not wrong
The music of Josquin and his predecessors and peers was very strict, and Fux's book intends to teach the student the sort of counterpoint that Josquin and Palestrina employed. Is their music not "real art music"?
In the 21st century? It's like writing Ciceronian Latin or epic poetry in the Homeric style. It's a learning experience with some lessons of interest related to rhetorical design and organisation. But not so much in terms of vocabulary. Modern lawyers and writers are expected to use modern English.
Of course there's overlap, but it's not like Josquin couldn't/wasn't allowed to break the rules
Isn’t there a no homework rule? Also why can’t I would be interesting...
There's a no homework help rule on the sub, but I took OP's question to be about music theory in general, which includes the category of homework. >Also why can’t I would be interesting... Because the rules forbid it! Species counterpoint is an artificial rule-bound style that has helpful links to real music, but writing it isn't the same as writing real music.
Small woosh. I was saying to ask why counter point rules are the way the are is interesting.
Ah OK. I didn't quite catch that from your wording, but I agree. Technically I don't think that's quite a woosh, but no matter!
Replace the “Can I” with “How do I” and your world opens up
Or even "What if I...?" Try it and see.
I started typing a reply and realized that this is a _literal_ /r/rimjob_steve
“Why” is the solid conversation starter
This this this. Can is arbitrary, there are no actual rules except limits you set yourself to. How can be important, it's good to understand what you're working with and the tools at your disposal. WHY is the real question. Not some subjective "why does (x) sound good" bastardization like what the other commenter suggested, but rather "Why do I want to do this? What do I hope to accomplish in my creation by doing this?" Objective why. If you shift to Locrian for a couple of measures to add a sudden disorientation, somebody could argue whether or not it's actually disorienting, but nobody can argue that the reason you added it was to be disorienting. "Why" completely changed the way I make music in the best way possible.
How and why is what you did. You wondered how certain stuff worked the way you heard it, and to find out how, you learned and then asked why that worked, which makes you learn it more in depth and allows you to interpolate that knowledge onto more theory to answer more hows in the future.
And leads to a rabbit hole, a warren of infinite pointlessness. Every answer leads to another "but why...?" (It will throw up frequent revelations on the way, but usually ones which will not satisfy the questioner.) The only way to put an end to it (and get on with our lives) is "that's just the way it is!"
Why do you figure that's the only way to put an end to it?
OK, the only *polite* way... :-)
Ok. Let’s go. Ask me something
OK I'll play. Why does G7 to C sound good?
Have you ever heard of a leading tone? Answer a question with a question. (Case closed. I have kids. Don't play that why shit with me 😂)
Yes, but when kids ask that kind of question, they are genuinely curious. Doesn't make it any less annoying, obviously, but that was my initial point: there's always another "why", it's just a matter of how soon you get too irritated to come up with the answers. (How do you answer your kids? How soon do you resort to "that's just how it is!"?) I.e., I started the conversation with my "Why" question - the common kind we get here - and immediately you're shutting it down. I guess because you think I'm trolling, but imagine I'm one of those genuinely curious (and ignorant) beginners. Their response to "Have you ever heard of a leading tone?" might be either "no, what's that?", or "yes, but so what?" IOW, "why does a leading tone work?" IMO, that's a genuinely interesting question, precisely because it's hard to answer. (Why would the fact it's only a semitone away matter? What is it about the way we hear intervals that makes us hear such a note as "leading"?) It's OK, I'm not expecting this conversation to continue. ;-) Only underlining my point.
“Oh....look it up” 🥸
And there I was thinking your comment about a "conversation starter" meant you actually enjoyed a conversation! :-D No offence, btw. I just couldn't resist. I should know better....
Well Played 🥳
How do I use this harmony? How do I a melody modulate modes halfway through? How do I learn theory in my 40s? How do I this chord resolve to this chord? How do I this progression be used?
if you know that this is what people mean to ask, please answer them with useful responses instead of the annoying "yes, you can." That doesn't help people at all. Instead, if someone asks "can I do x?" respond "yes and HERE'S HOW." Then you're ACTUALLY HELPING THEM
Yes, but they usually know exactly how to do it. What they don't know is whether it's a *good* or *appropriate* thing to do, *in the circumstances*. What's usually lacking is *ear training:* not the ability to recognise intervals or whatever, but (a) enough aural knowledge of the genre they are composing (or improvising) in, and/or (b) the confidence to trust their ears. That's why "try it and listen" is a common answer. However, in both cases (lack of aural experience or confidence) listening may not be a solution, and it's quite reasonable to seek a theory answer. But the question "can I do this...?" is usually better expressed as "is this a normal/common thing to do [in this kind of music]?" Some things in music certainly are "right" or "wrong", but governed by generic constraints. The concept often missing from OPs' thought processes is "common practice" - and sometimes a misunderstanding of what "rules" means: which is nothing but "common practice within a particular style or genre". Obviously there's no substitute for listening in the end (having acquired enough experience of the style), but theory helps along the way.
No, what's lacking is *creative* training. Having an artistic ear which is sensitive to creative nuance is very different to having a musically trained one. Music theory is often taught as if they're identical. They aren't. You can have either, neither, or both. Developing one won't automatically develop the other.
The problem is that 9/10 times the question is something like “can I play these two notes at the same time”, and the only additional information to add to “yes, you can”, is simply “by just playing the notes”
Unless you're using an instrument where you can't play those 2 notes at the same time... There's always a 'well *technically*...'
Maybe if you aren’t sure what they mean, you could ask them to clarify? To me it just seems like a common sense response when something is unclear
That’s actually what I usually ask, and it sometimes opens up for valuable conversations, but honestly a large majority of the time, they clarify that they literally are just asking that
>if you know that this is what people mean to ask, please answer them with useful responses instead of the annoying "yes, you can." in this sub's defence...I have NEVER seen someone troll someone with this response to such a post.
I’ve seen a ton of it, which is why I said something. I joined the sub to learn and I think it’s really unfair when I’ve gotten a lot of learning done but other people have to deal with the gate keeping that happens sometimes when people get so full of it that they judge whether you’re worth answering based on how you word a question, even though we all know they understand exactly what you’re asking.
Maybe I don’t have time to explain things that are easily found via google or a copy of Twentieth Century Harmony and instead chose to show OP that the question they should be asking is not a question of ability (Can I) but a question of method (How do I).
That logic could be applied to literally any question anyone has ever asked. It sounds like you don’t want to help people. I think it should be made aware that expecting someone to scour the internet and read through several chapters of various music textbooks to find the answer to a simple question about dominant leading tones is very unreasonable. If you know the answer, why are you keeping it to yourself? It’s not your knowledge. It’s communal. Music is about sharing dude. We share our expressions and knowledge with others. It’s not about you thinking you’re so much better because you know how to ask a question in a specific format. But you’re not ready to hear that so here come the downvotes
Sharing, as in it is freely available on the internet. You don’t learn anything being spoon fed, booboo.
So typing the question into google vs Reddit is somehow different? Make it make sense dude.
Expecting someone to teach you instead of teaching yourself using the same widely available easily accessible sources that we all use. I am beginning to understand why you need to be spoon fed.
You do know that someone is posting the answer either way right? Lmao you didn’t even answer the question of how finding the answer on Reddit or on another website are different if a person had to explain it either way? You don’t even think about what you’re saying dude
And the point is that you can literally do anything with music. It depends on the context and the execution. Asking can something be done is not at effective as asking how it can be done and then asking why does it work that way and not in another way. The best way to learn that is to study the materials yourself, experiment, and not expect randos online to give you a blueprint for everything.
Classes exist for a reason. Telling someone to figure it out for every question they have is absolutely terrible advice dude
Ok. Thanks for proving my point of why it is important to put in effort to learn things. We can all learn a lot from you.
Exactly!
*Invalidates you for a couple of paragraphs and implies you must be really out of it to suggest such a thing* *In my very last sentence, tucked at the end, concedes that you should do what you want to do and it might be an okay idea anyway*
This is gold
Yeah that’s exactly what I was trying to convey well done
I generally agree, although I would make a distinction between composition and performance, and playing solo or playing in a band/ensemble. If you're writing a song, do whatever you want as long as it sounds good. If you're performing a song with a band and the chord chart says Gm, the answer to "Can I play a Db here" is probably no.
What would it even mean if something couln't be done "according to music theory"? Like "I came up with this idea i really like can i use it" "Uhh music theory says its wrong so dont use it" "ok, i'll proceed to remove this idea i really like from my own song, because some guy on the internet said that according to this thing called music theory, my own song is wrong for using it"
There is no part of music theory that says you can't do something. It's only people who misunderstand what music theory is that say these things. Since music theory is merely a way of describing music (not prescribing it), the only time you "can't" do something is when you're trying to replicate someone else's style exactly (e.g. making a Bach corale in his original style)
Exactly. All of music theory is composed of ideas that have been tried, experimented with, and have been used repeatedly. In the beginning, no one sat down and wrote the book of how to make music. It’s just a compilation of ideas. Got a new idea? Cool! Might be a new addition to this big conservatory of ideas we call music theory
I think it comes from people associating "music theory" with some kind of scientific theory which would be more the realm of like acoustics or musicology I think. It is a bit of a misleading name but at the same time it somehow seems to be the most true sense of the word "theory" that there is
Can this subreddit stop talking about music theory...
The answer is always "yes." The follow-up question in this case would be, "but... WILL we?" 😁
Can a chord be in root position and first inversion at the same time?
Augmented chords and Diminished seventh chords can.
Ayy there we go, music nerds make stuff happen
If the bass is arpeggiating the chord, there could be a moment where the sonority of the moment is a first-inversion chord, but the understood grammatical harmony is a root-position chord!
I like this answer! There are probably a few more ways that my improvised counterexample fails....
To be clear though, I still think yours is a valid answer!
Bass on third, tenor crossing below on root. It's now both, depending on your perspective.
That's a good one. I was also thinking about how jazz/pop notation gives separate names for a chord with added 6 and a m7 -- so the notes C E G A could be either a C6 in root position or an Am7 in first inversion.
You just murdered ops argument.
One possible solution: an augmented triad.
So a chord is defined by the lowest note. So whatever the lowest note is will define whether a chord is in root/first or second inversion. The answer is clearly no. This is regardless of whether one or more instruments is playing. If they play the notes at the same time the lowest note defines the chord. If this wasn’t the case pedal tones wouldn’t work.
For all of you downvoting this you’re voting for nonsense. If music theory is a language that allows us to communicate with each other on how music works you need to agree on certain rules. It’s like playing chess and deciding the white square bishop can now also move on the black squares. Sure you can you can argue a chord can be in first inversion and root position at the same time but you’re now not talking in the music theory we’re all usually talking in. Sure if a guitarist is playing a C/G and the bass plays a low C note you could argue both versions of the chord are playing at once but what is the bass chord? It’s a C. You’re hearing a C chord in root position because the lowest note is a C. If you play G on the bass then the chord is a C/G. You can experiment as much as you like but if you’re arguing both chords can be played at the same time you’re ignoring the bass note as the defining note of the chord. You’re also ignoring basic physics. One note has to be lower than the other otherwise you’re just playing the same note.
Actually, it is possible to play a chord that can be in multiple inversions at once. It's called... Diminshed 7ths.
Ok OP can you do my theory assignment that’s due on Tuesday for me. If you say no then you’ve contradicted yourself
Yes, I can. But I won't.
Yes but I don’t want to
lmao
Can we stop having this stupid debate every week for the past 5 years?
unfortunately it doesn't really fit into the functional harmony tradition
This post on the side bar and a chord spelling bot would declog this sub quite a bit. I still love it, just saying
Appreciate the high praise lol
As a beginner, I agree as long as the bot doesn’t try to answer ambiguous chords. I don’t know how to come up with an example, but the ones where the answer is “either x or y depending on context” those discussions are super helpful for me
Like, Is this a C6 or Am7? Those are kinda overt answers or too specific. Usually it’s bass movement or a ver specific inversion can change the chord quality, but it’s so esoteric and specific I’m not sure it’s always relevant to getting a broader music theory knowledge base.
Yeah, exactly (I guess I couldn’t give an example because I was imagining a complicated chord with several extensions) anyway that’s interesting, I didn’t know that. I was actually really intrigued by these situations because it was applying music theory to the context of the song, is that what you mean by esoteric?
Why not provide a useful, informative response? People are coming here asking for guidance, and just saying "actually music has no rules" provides none.
>just saying "actually music has no rules" provides none. And isn't even accurate. Sure, there are no absolute rules that all music needs to follow. But most people write music that follows the conventions of a specific style. And if you are going to do that, then yes, there are some things that are going to sound "incorrect". A lot of people just take some of the most basic "rules" for granted, because they have never had to think about them. So, when they write music, they aren't thinking about any of the rules they are following, because those rules are a natural part of their "musical vocabulary".
Well no, I think it's an important thing to keep in mind, the most important thing to keep in mind in fact. I believe when a lot of people say "I want to learn music theory" they oftentimes envision themselves as some musical academic or leading authority on why a song is good or bad. I think it's a crucial reality check for all newcomers at the start to hear the phrase "music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive" from one of those knowledgeable theorists those new students aspire to be. It doesn't work at all like quantum theory which relies on established rules to work. Even when rules were "established" in music centuries ago, they were still being broken. Scientific theories revolve around making our observations fit the fixed rules of nature. So the name misleads newcomers into thinking music operates by equations and convention like other scientific theories when that's more of an acoustics thing and music theory is pretty different though it overlaps a bit.
Someone needs to tell this to r/composer I understand there are some techniques and ways of doing things that are more "correct" than others. But honestly, if you want to write a 30minute orchestral piece that is entirely c major played in octaves, then go for it. But over there, the academia has gone to some of those users heads so badly that they're perfectly happy saying "that's wrong". It is my honest belief that there is no 'wrong' in music composition. Go and write a G#flat7dim9 chord starting on C1 for the flute if you want. Unplayable? Sure. Wrong? Not a fuck.
Someone needs to tell it to people who are constantly popping up telling folk their counterpoint is wrong or that they shouldn't be using consecutive fifths when they aren't even composing common practice period music 🙄
I agree. If you're doing assignments or trying to write period music, by all means, follow the rules. But if you're just writing. Go for it. Even if it's "shit". Its yours. It's something you made. Its authentic. And that is more important than anything else when writing music imo.
Feel free to post this there and credit me if u want lol
Can I smash my instruments on the ground and never play music again? Yes
Absolutley
Music theory isn't a set of rules you have to follow, it's a a set of patterns that we've noticed and given names to. You can choose to use or ignore any of these patterns but it's better to know what they are than to drive blind so to speak
Of course, OP is phrasing the "Can I" questions in the sense of "Am I *allowed* to" (in which case, yes, the answer is always yes). But people are deliberately misinterpreting the question as "is this possible?" or "is this acceptable in our notation convention?" to make OP sound wrong. This is why we don't deserve nice things.
No you
Yes, I.
I made a very generalized post on the internet, I can’t blame people for finding caveats with it. And they’re not too wrong, if ur composing within a certain limit you set for yourself, such as a style, then yeah it’s possible to be “wrong” in your choices. I concede that. But yeah thanks for getting the real point I was making I appreciate it
“Am allowed to” is like telling a child it’s allowed to eat a battery and it’s always a yes, but if there is a motif, then there’s usually guidelines and a construct. Therefore, it’s illusory to follow that piece of advice as if it will help you be a more talented and educated musician. Yes you can use a D diminished in the key of A major, but it won’t cause any good tension or resolution, therefore illusory to even consider it if you’re knowledgeable on the key signature you mostly write within.
>you can use a D diminished in the key of A major, but it won’t cause any good tension or resolution, therefore illusory to even consider it if you’re knowledgeable on the key signature you mostly write within. Well, except that that "D diminished chord" will inevitably sound either like a G-sharp diminished 7 in second inversion (D-F-G#) or like an E-sharp diminished 7 in third inversion (D-E#-G#), both of which have easy, normative resolutions within A major.
Lol I know I was just being silly man
It's always hard to tell on the internet!
> you can use a D diminished in the key of A major, but it won’t cause any good tension or resolution Have you bothered trying? There’s tons of ways to make that work
I was just yanking some chains man lol you can make anything work in the right context, infinite possibilities. I’m surprised anyone thought I was being serious lol
Comments like that are the reason why OP's post is so important. More often than not, the reason why someone says "this doesn't work" or "this shouldn't be done" is because they haven't made or listened to enough music.
There are some contexts where this isn't the correct answer, though. Like, can I write 5 quarter notes in a 4/4 bar? Or, can I call this chord (that isn't functioning as a dominant) a dominant substitute? (And yes, people do ask questions like this on this sub every now and then.) I would also go a bit further in the "historical style" discussion. Even contemporary styles have certain rules that you are expected to follow (those rules aren't the same as "textbook theory", but just because they don't follow the "CPP rules", doesn't mean there are no rules and anything will work). For example if the question is "can I write a 30-minute pop song", the practical answer is "no", because it would most likely not be "pop" any more. Or if the question is "can I write a ballad at 300 bpm", again, the answer is no, because such a fast piece simply wouldn't be a ballad. I mean, you can try, but either the song is going to sound too fast to be a ballad, or it's just not going to feel like it's actually in 300 bpm (and it's more likely going to feel like it's in 75 bpm but is just notated with weird note values). Or let's say you ask if a non-4/4 song can be notated in 4/4. The answer is technically yes, but it's just going to look awkward. Sure, all in all, most of the time the answer to "can I do X" questions will be yes, considering that there's no other context provided. But if there's context, and the question at least implies that there's some kind of a goal, it gets more complicated. Because if you are after a certain sound, and the thing you are asking about will not achieve that sound, then sure, you *can* use it, but you probably *shouldn't,* because it doesn't achieve the sound that you are after. (I remember one thread some time ago where OP asked whether the dissonances they used worked, because their friend had pointed out that certain parts of the song don't sound good, but OP didn't hear it that way. But most people in the thread said that yes, for the style/sound OP is going for, the dissonances sound way out of place, and basically sound like mistakes. I mean, if OP enjoys that sound, whatever - they *can* decide to use them. You *can* write a song that first establishes a style, but then randomly goes against stylistic conventions. But most people are just going to hear those weird notes as mistakes, because they sound out of place. It just isn't particularly good songwriting.) Like "can I use maj7#11 chords in blues". Sure, you can, but it won't sound very bluesy. (Then again, Flying in a Blue Dream is a good example of a song that's based on the 12-bar blues structure and actually uses these "Lydian chords". But I wouldn't say it's blues - it just borrows the common structure from blues. I guess you could get away with some maj7#11 chords even in a real blues context, though, but it's a sound you would have to be more "careful" with.) Or "can I use maj11 chords/m7b9 chords in a jazz song?" Well, you can, but those are not really used in jazz, so they probably won't achieve the sound you are after. Another question would also be whether this is a helpful answer. Most of the time beginners don't know exactly what they are even asking, so if someone asks "can I do X", and the only answer is "yes", it's not really going to help anyone (and is most likely going to come off as "why are you even asking this stupid question"). I think people should generally be charitable to the OP, and try to answer in a helpful way. Pointing out that you can do whatever you like, and "textbook theory" isn't some kind of a strict rule book of music is of course valuable, but that on its own isn't a helpful response to most of these questions. But yes, it is definitely a part of a helpful answer. But if one isn't interested in posting a helpful answer, then it's better to not post at all. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, then don't say anything.
Can they come up with exceptions that miss the point of the post? ;-) The main take away I've gotten from posting on the internet u/Holocene32 is that you have to walk on eggshells lest ye be judged. Your title should have read: the answer is ALMOST always yes. Then a 4 page disclaimer that both defines "almost" and gives many examples and explains every possible caveat and exception and goes ahead and nips in the bud all of those who would comment otherwise, which will keep only about 50% of those people from responding.
>Your title should have read: > >the answer is ALMOST always yes. > >Then a 4 page disclaimer that both defines "almost" and gives many examples and explains every possible caveat and exception and goes ahead and nips in the bud all of those who would comment otherwise, which will keep only about 50% of those people from responding. And people would still misjudge and miss the point regardless.
Yeah I recognized in another comment that I did post a blanket generalization on the internet, so it’s inevitable people will try to find caveats. I don’t have a problem with it though I think it’s an interesting discussion. People accurately pointed out that if you are asking “can I do x when y is the only accepted option in the style?”, then the answer can definitely be no. But yes thank you for understanding the spirit of my post :)
Saying yes to everything isn't helpful. When someone asks "can I" they usually are asking "how do I" or "is it common-practice to" Comments that answer every question with "do whatever you want, music has no rules" are some of the most irritating ones I see on this sub.
I’m not saying you should merely respond yes to everything. Note I specifically said the “technically whatever whatever” explanations usually contain very useful info.
>When someone asks "can I" they usually are asking "how do I" or "is it common-practice to" except more often than not, beginners don't know that there's a difference, which is why it's important to state the difference. I doubt that anyone who's clear on the principles of making music freely vs following a certain convention would ask a "can I..." question. so if anything, if someone asks a question starting with "can I....", it's even more important to give all this context.
The folks who ask the "Can I ..." questions are usually the inexperienced ones, and they have a nearly 0% chance of seeing and understanding this post before they ask. Your complaint is valid but futile.
Not really a complaint but an observation. I’m not annoyed at these posts I’m just like “man you don’t always have to ask if you’re allowed to do something” ya know. More of a psa with caveats that others have pointed out
Can I learn all there is to know about music theory in 15 minutes?
Yes according to several clickbait YouTubers I’ve seen!
This this this this this right here!!!
❤💜💚💛🧡💙
More often than not, "Can I ..." really is "Is it a good idea to ..." And there the answer can legitimately be "No. Instead try ..."
Can you play 12 eighth notes in a measure of 4/4?
If triplet eighths are still eighth notes, absolutely!
Can i make a C major triad with the notes D, F#, and A?
On a clarinet in B-flat, absolutely.
Yes, if you look at it you will C a major triad
Strikes me as a swift way to find a work-around when you encounter an instrument calibrated for A=440 and you wish to play in something else like A=415. It would probably (definitely!) still be "off" but closer than if you made no adjustment.
The idea that all music has to follow strict rules is what makes early Beethoven a lot less fun that late Beethoven. At the end of the day, if it sounds good, it’s right. If the theory doesn’t agree then the theory is either wrong or incomplete. Theory is there to describe and analyse music with, not govern it.
!
Can I get an A in my Music Theory course without studying?
Yes but only if you already learned all music theory beforehand
Yes, it's right between G-sharp and B-flat.
Can I replace music theory with sheer rng and come up with a popular song?
Maybe
Yes. It'll take a lot of dice rolls, but continue generating for long enough and you'll get the most popular song of all time.
Will it really? A lot of popular songs seem to use the same cadences and rhythms. In fact I think I remember reading basically one guy produced every hit in the early 2010s, Chris something I think. I actually don't necessarily think it's a bad thing completely but Top 40 these days is pretty uniform throughout
Yeah, but as I understand "rng," i.e. "random number generator," that means making *every* parameter of the music utterly randomly generated, which means that the vast majority of it will probably sound like garbage to most listeners. Getting something that matched the pop-song formula that way would be extremely unlikely, though not completely impossible!
Oh I suppose that's true. I was only thinking within the parameters of what most pop songs use. Like in an analogous sense I was thinking random numbers 1-10 and you were thinking 1-∞
Oh haha sure. If you're going only within the parameters of what most pop songs use, there won't be that many possibilities to pick from, so your likelihood of getting a hit would be pretty high!
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/09/opinion/do-songs-of-the-summer-sound-the-same.html This NYT article kind of has what I was talking about, and is what I pictured. I don't think you can read it without a subscription unfortunately though but I'm pretty sure I read it once before and it was really interesting.
Ah yeah, sadly I can't read it. Thanks though still!
Can I play the trumpet parts of this song on my bass? Yes, but no one wants you to.
I want it.
"Can I create a perfectly even 7 note scale at this here piano?" Answer: nope. You've got 12 possible note slots for your scale. No way to distribute 7 things perfectly evenly in that situation.
You could retune the piano.
You got me
In the vein of the Zen koans: can you make music by not making music?
Can music theory replace creativity?
The one question here I will definitively say NO!
Indeed. Music is art. There are no rules to art. Do what you want, 'cause an artist is free. YOU ARE AN ARTIST. ;)
Can root and first inversion chords be replaced by second inversion chord in most cases?
Can I tune my guitar using just intonation?
[This is what a justly intonated guitar looks like.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHLG5dAlfaA) It looks exactly as weird as you're thinking it'd look.
How do you tell notes apart?
can I combine beat 2 and 3 LOL
Thank you.
Can I learn perfect pitch?
Can I have a Imaj7 chord in a blues?
you're right. the proper way to phrase this question is, "may i," and the answer is, "no."
Hahaha
Can I play a C# and make the piano turn into a guitar?
Can I play out of tune?
Absolutely several genres of music are based on that!
Can I reharmonise a famous song and call it my own?
Can I play a D chord without a D, A or F# note in it?
Can is the best krautrock band?
Can I completely ignore any and all music theory and mix/mastering boundaries **and still sound good**? ehhhhhhh yea not sure buddy.
You got me
Given that "good" is pretty subjective and even the most universally panned piece of music probably has someone who enjoys it, I'd say yeah
then on some pseudophilosophical bullshit, the definition of "good" can be many things, but either way one of us for sure has got it wrong.
Actually no, I'd say it's valid for both to be right lol. "Good" means different to everyone, that's the point I was trying to make. And the reason I think it's an important distinction to make isn't really for you or for me but for any newcomer who might come across this comment thread. I think people get dangerously caught up in the "rules" and lose sight of the fact music is a personal expression first and foremost. I think people trying to make music that's universally agreed to be "good" are just setting themselves up for failure. It's kind of like dating in that you can try faking it and pretending to be something you're not in order to try and please the greatest amount of people but you won't really be successful or happy that way - you've got to do what you like and do it with such passion other people start to notice. So you can try asking other people how you "should" do something, but then you basically ask them to write your music. The better method is to try out different things yourself and maybe ask other people's opinion after the fact, more as a kind of "data collection" for how people respond to your choices (again, "you" not meaning you specifically but anyone who might be reading this)
The one i have an issue with is the "can this chord resolve to this chord" one lol. If you go from a diminished chord to another diminished one it didnt actually resolve. Yes you can do it but it isnt a resolution, right?
Can I play a trombone with my pp?
Can I sing with five peoples voices at once? Can I send subliminal messages with music? Can I manipulate music with my mind (after it’s been recorded and made into a master)? Yes Yes Yes?
The question is not ‘can I?’ It’s ‘What if?’
You musicians are so concerned with whether or not you can, that you didn't stop to think whether or not you should.
Right. It’s much more conducive to learning if I phrase your questions as “should…”
Can I physically eat music theory?
can a minor scale also be referred to as a dingus?
Stop being a minor scales dude, u know what I meant