All right, all of you NG-goers. I've noticed that a lot of people either
a) Don't use Music Theory or
b) Wish to learn Music Theory

So I have started this thread in order to help people understand it a little better. Either I or any other person may answer questions from anyone who wishes them to be answered on this thread. I do not promise you that I will know the answers to all of them, but I'll try :)

Please do not post in this thread if all you want to say is you don't believe in Music Theory (meaning you don't believe it's necessary). I want this to be productive.

I have no idea if this type of thread has already been made; I did, however, check, and found nothing. So, in conclusion, I hope this turns into something worthwhile and not something that falls downhill.

Enjoy, or something like that.

MusicalRocky

I can understand you wanting to re-establish this, but it's unnecessary to do so.

Use the old thread.

I knew someone would point that out. The reason I'm "restarting" it is because the other one became less of a Music Theory/ Educational thread and more an expression of people's definition of music or "good music." You understand me? Sorry if I was wrong to start a new thread of it.

Music Theory is about technical sense, it became philosophical because people kept asking why it's technical. It's not against the rules to ask the thread to get back on the subject.

the real question is,how many people here can actually sit through theory lessons hehehehehe
i find that theory becomes more less important (what??) the deeper i get into music

Hahaha. Maybe that's because you're getting better at it and don't need to think about it when composing, eh?

Anyways, this thread might as well DIE.

i only ever realy use theory when i have to harmonize or write a solo...the rest of the times i just go by ear
i don't havet he kind of discipline it takes to sit down and map out my way before i get to playing hehe...the playings the fun part afterall ^_^

At 6/16/06 03:57 PM, xXDathDalerXx wrote: i only ever realy use theory when i have to harmonize or write a solo...the rest of the times i just go by ear
i don't havet he kind of discipline it takes to sit down and map out my way before i get to playing hehe...the playings the fun part afterall ^_^

Yeah, I definitely know what you mean.

How about this = the official Music Theory "questions" thread...cuz yes, the old one now sucks

Hang about, that sig looks familiar; is that an alt, Glaisne?

I agree with a music theory questions thread; it might see some use. I recall another thread from somewhere over the musical rainbow that went into great lectures, and was a little sore on the eye and brain. This way, people can ask what they want to know, and someone is bound to pick up (looks over at the Classical posse). On the other hand, music theory doesn't really come into play in a lot of music on here; a lot of theory is harmony and structure, two things only certain types of music will actually utilize (stares again at the Classical bunch). Let's just see how things go with it.

At 6/16/06 08:06 PM, Grumbleduke wrote: Hang about, that sig looks familiar; is that an alt, Glaisne?

Actually, it's a name change to my actual artist name...Glaisne is my character name in LARPing, so that's what I signed up with here, but everywhere I post music I'm Triskele.

Now...BACK ON TOPIC EVERYONE!!!

PS - Just because I LARP, doesn't mean I'm obese or poorly...

There was a relevant paragraph beneath that, you know...

Do you get tired of people shouting "LIGHTNING BOLT!" at you? That clip gives you all an undeserved bad name.

Hm...Interesting...I guess this thread...Is revived...Or something :) Questions a coming!

At 6/16/06 08:23 PM, Grumbleduke wrote: There was a relevant paragraph beneath that, you know...

Do you get tired of people shouting "LIGHTNING BOLT!" at you? That clip gives you all an undeserved bad name.

I know.

And I've never seen that clip actually...and I'm a healer, so my incantation is actually:

Sword cut, spear stab, mace smash, arrow jab, let the white light of healing descend on thou. Sword cut, spear stab, mace smash, arrow jab, let the white light of healing stop thy spilling blood. Sword cut, spear stab, mace smash, arrow jab, let the white light of healing mend thy bones. Sword cut, spear stab, mace smash, arrow jab, let the white light of healing close thy wounds. Sword cut, spear stab, mace smash, arrow jab,let the white light of healing restore thy vigor. Sword cut, spear stab, mace smash, arrow jab, the white light of healing hath healed thou

...it's fun, I swear.

Oops, off-topic again ;)

Was this thread really ever on-topic?

At 6/17/06 12:22 AM, DavidOrr wrote: Was this thread really ever on-topic?

It was promising until I chimed in.

At 6/16/06 08:41 PM, Triskele wrote:
And I've never seen that clip actually...

Just for you so you know how NOT to LARP.

This topic has derailed already and we've not hit page 2. Oops :).

ok. here's a question to get it on topic:

an inversion of a 3rd in a major augmented 5th, what note is it if the root note is e?

At 6/17/06 12:56 PM, mhb wrote: ok. here's a question to get it on topic:

an inversion of a 3rd in a major augmented 5th, what note is it if the root note is e?

A 3rd inversion of that (I believe) would be, bottom to top, B G E

Actually, I correct myself: C G E

(Sorry for triple-post)...Wait a second, mhb...did you mean that the root of the inversion is E or did you mean the E Major augmented 5th chord? If you meant the root of the inversion is E, then the answer is E G# C. If you meant the augmented E major fifth chord, then the answer is C E G#.

3rd inversion? Meaning if you inverted so that the 3rd is the bottom note?

Then it'd be G#, C, E...pretty simple ^.^

At 6/17/06 02:01 PM, DJ_Dinero wrote: 3rd inversion? Meaning if you inverted so that the 3rd is the bottom note?

Then it'd be G#, C, E...pretty simple ^.^

Um. No, that's not exactly what an inversion is. With an inversion you put the bottom note on top. So let's say I have an A minor augmented fifth. That's A C F.
1) A first inversion would be (put A on top) C F A.
2) A first inversion would be (put C on top) F A C.
3) So a third inversio would be (put F on top) A C F, the same as no inversion. Haha.

Get it?

i guess you really misunderstood my question.

the inversion of the third of an e major augmented 5th.

Eh eh! If we want this to be a credible Theory Thread, this needs pointing out: the augmented fifth of E is B#, not C.
Inverting the E+ chord would become G# - B# - E. If you'd start calling it a G#+ now, it would be G#, B#, D##.

At 6/18/06 06:47 PM, WinTang wrote: Eh eh! If we want this to be a credible Theory Thread, this needs pointing out: the augmented fifth of E is B#, not C.
Inverting the E+ chord would become G# - B# - E. If you'd start calling it a G#+ now, it would be G#, B#, D##.

1) Where'd you get D## from?
2) B# is C

*Thinks* Oh haha. D## = E. I see. Silly me. And yet, why not just write E? Unless you're composing in a certain key in which it's more pleasing to the eye to put D##...

At 6/18/06 06:57 PM, MusicalRocky wrote: *Thinks* Oh haha. D## = E. I see. Silly me. And yet, why not just write E? Unless you're composing in a certain key in which it's more pleasing to the eye to put D##...

because if you write E it's wrong
in theory you can not write E cause it's an augmented G# chord

OH I see. Yeah. That's wrong if you write E. Like writing D F G## for a D minor fifth, right?

At 6/18/06 06:47 PM, WinTang wrote: Eh eh! If we want this to be a credible Theory Thread, this needs pointing out: the augmented fifth of E is B#, not C.
Inverting the E+ chord would become G# - B# - E. If you'd start calling it a G#+ now, it would be G#, B#, D##.

Ownage.