what is your philosophy of music?
what your theory on how music works?

>>126875419 (OP)
our brains are just processors bro
and sound waves in certain patterns trick our brain to process the information
which through backwards engineering we have found which combinations and waves make our brain feel good
(influenced by social needs/ programming of society from early)

>>126875419 (OP)
Quite simple, actually.

Music has various different sides that need to be addressed. Harmony is the most important, because its development allowed everything else to fall into place - melody, rhythm, form (structure), to some extent orchestration, timbre, technique etc.

Harmony, in simple words, is association between different pitches. A chord is harmony. There are many different types of chords but the they are all based on 3 fundamental triads - I, V and IV chords. These chords have their functions - their roles and how they should behave. To understand why and how those functions work, you'll have to study scales and voice leading first.

In a major scale (which was originally derived from harmonic overtones - which are collection of notes that can be heard when you play any single note on an instrument, by very careful listening) we have so-called "voice leading" rules, so which note can follow the next one (e.g. a leading-tone (7th note in scale) will have to resolve to tonic (8th note), because of its natural tendency). All those rules are completely natural and were discovered because they appeal to our auditory senses. All music you listen to more or less follows those rules. What's more, is that there are pure mathematical models which show how those notes resolve and why they resolve: in short, in an implied home key, let's say C major, the note B appears relatively late in overtone series of C, this makes it not "at rest" when heard in relation to C. So it "wants" to resolve to C. It's semitone apart from C.

From those rules(there are more), chord functions can be defined. Such as why V chord has natural tendency to resolve to I, because V chord contains the leading tone (7th note, B in C major).

>>126875419 (OP)
>>126875864

This is just tip of the iceberg that music theorists and composers have discovered, there are things so complex that an entire thread wouldn't be enough to explain and you'd need a few books to actually digest it. That doesn't mean you should become a composer, no. But it has some obvious implications. Firstly, that composers who understand this complex language of music are MUCH more capable to make great, exemplary art. And they absolutely do it. Bach's fugues are some of the most, if not THE most sophisticated form of music ever made, by someone who was so fluent in music that no one else to this day could ape him. Beethoven arguably did, but in different aspects, namely the form.

This is not merely "my theory" on how music works, but factual. Everything to this point I've said is demonstratable and true.
But as for my philosophy, I would say one should put as much time and effort as required, to understand and ENJOY greatest pieces of music ever composed. If you like music, that is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yfHY22Ew1c

2/2

>>126875864
>Harmony, in simple words, is association between different pitches
You already fucked it up

>>126875864
>>126875871
Bach is so scary

>>126875885
I guess if you're so illiterate everything comes off silly

>>126875908
Yeah I know you don't know why you fucked it up and it will come off to you like I don't understand your Wikipedia post.

>>126875918
>why you fucked it up
Where? How?
>your Wikipedia post.
No. This is basic pedagogical definition that you can find in any relevant theory textbook, illiterate anon.

personally for me the album is like a set of things that are supposed to happen when you have the band tag in your life that is communicable to others. i don't really like using metadata concepts in my thinking, but, that's why songs have lyrics or titles or convey an idea.
like, I Will Posses Your Heart is something you actually do (or happens), it's not Ben Gibbard threating you with a songwriting canard. or, alternatively, you WILL like the thing on the song if it exists in your life, so if you get a job, every song/band/album about jobs is the pattern processing or pitch association other anons have mentioned

>>126875864
It was about YOUR philosophy, not just the very well thought over theory, cretaed throughout years, so what's your point? I'm genuiely curious

>>126875419 (OP)
If it sounds good it is good

A good song is when the singer can actually convince you that they believe the words.

>>126876238
The first part of my post was answering this question:
>what your theory on how music works?
I shortly explained how it works and why it's not merely my theory, then I stated my opinion at the very end of the second part.

Music (and art as a whole) is a super fucking interesting concept in general
Basically our primal brains have visceral emotional responses to certain frequencies of light (visual art) and sound (music) as well as the interactions between those frequencies (chords, color combinations, visual forms, sonic textures), then our more advanced mental processes are capable of extrapolating on those reactions to combine increasingly complex works that invoke entirely novel and alien sensations with layers upon layers of depth to be interpreted, all out of our most basic sensory functions and caveman-brain responses.

>>126875864
You're mostly right, but wrong and surface level just enough to piss me off

>>126875419 (OP)
Music is made by those who hear it, not necessarily by the performer. It is up to you, the audience, to make music from the sounds you're hearing.

Just like with any other medium of art. Art isn't made by the painter, and don't confuse the painting for the art. the art is made by those who see it.

>>126876849
When you perform on a musical instrument, you're expressing music that you've already made, or imitating an expression of music that someone else has made.

notation and "music theory" exist to help composers communicate to the performers how to express the music.

>>126876341
right, didn't saw that one, you have a lot of knowledge about theory I must say, but also a lot more to uncover about music itself rather than just understanding and enjoying it. It's something spiritual at some point, full of feeling at least, I like your reasoning, but for me, it's only peak of the beauty lying within!

>>126876774
You're posting on a mongolian board dominated by kpoop and similar garbage, and you're pissed off at someone explaining basic concept to anon? That's pathetic.
>mostly
Which part of that is wrong?
>>126876946
>but also a lot more to uncover about music itself
Such as? If you don't listen to art music we can stop this discussion now.

>>126875419 (OP)
Don't overthink shit like this. Ruins the magic. Learn basic theory to construct songs you enjoy or describe them (to produce new music) but don't go beyond that.

>>126877144
Peak brainlet moment

>>126875419 (OP)
>philosophy of music
>theory on how music works
if it sounds good to me then it is good
there

That Keith Richards was 100% correct when they said there are songs in the air now and you just need to put your antenna up to receive them. A lot of artists have said the same thing in different ways. It's really the same thing David Lynch talked about with the ocean of consciousness and all that.

>>126877125
>Which part of that is wrong?
Almost every part is slightly wrong.
>Harmony is the most important, because its development allowed everything else to fall into place
While the latter statement is arguably true, it's just silly to say harmony is the most important. They're all important and work together.
>There are many different types of chords but the they are all based on 3 fundamental triads - I, V and IV chords
This is a good place to start, but there are many chords outside these functions. Also, 3 part harmony is by no means fundamental or more important than 2 or 4 part harmony.
>All music you listen to more or less follows those rules
I would accept "most" but not "all". Plenty of music doesn't follow classical 18th century voice leading lol
>the note B appears relatively late in overtone series of C,
That's not really the reason. It's more nuanced than that. A big part of it is cultural and also the fact that it's so close to C. So the voice only needs to move a little bit.
Much of voice leading rules are about making the harmony easy to sing, which generally means few leaps in the parts.
>Bach's fugues
Muh fugues. Bach had lots of contrapunctal works with fugal writing. I mean, you're right, but people focus so much on the fugues when tons of his work has fugal or canonical writing even if not being called "fugues"

>>126877582
>Almost every part is slightly wrong.
The statement about harmony begins with enough of a simplification that it becomes incorrect (also misses an obvious and important part). It's generous to write more but I think you're wasting your time.

This question can't be completely answered, and being super reductionist about it doesn't get to the heart of the matter either. But here is a little piece that hasn't been brought up yet:
Everyone's perception of music is different. Perceptions of where rhythms and musical phrases 'start' and 'stop' are different for everyone, and you can choose to hear or interpret a phrase or section multiple different ways if you want.
These differences in perception plus the personal and cultural history of both the artists and the audience allow music to be a living entity that keeps changing over time.

1. The more sick riffs, the better.
2. "riff" in this context means any memorable musical idea, and is not limited to repeated melodic phrases.

>>126877125
>art music
what music isn't art

>>126878075
"Art music" is a well known term, retard. Google is your friend.

>>126877582
>it's just silly to say harmony is the most important. They're all important and work together.
Since you agree the latter is true, you can also agree that it is the most important. I never said it is the only important thing, no. What I said, is that it is relatively more important, which is true.
>but there are many chords outside these functions.
Every one of them is based on these 3 fundamental triads. Any classic textbook will tell you what I just said.
>, 3 part harmony is by no means fundamental or more important than 2 or 4 part harmony.
That was never implied. Triad does not denote a 3 part harmony at all. What books have you even read? Maybe I'm more old fashioned and follow late 19th century coventions, calling a triad 3 part harmony is absurd. This is all just semantics.
>I would accept "most" but not "all". Plenty of music doesn't follow classical 18th century voice leading lol
Since I'm replyig to a /mu/tant, it's fair to assuke they've never heard indigenous folk music or modernism. Pretty much all music *more or less* follows those patterns, because they are not just some random inventions, but rather natural tendencies, which is what I was trying to explain.
>A big part of it is cultural
Nonsense.
>also the fact that it's so close to C.
I did say that at the end. But that's not the only reason. Harmonic overtones and mathematical models explain voice leading better than anything else.
>but people focus so much on the fugues when tons of his work has fugal or canonical writing even if not being called "fugues"
.... Your point? A fugue is by far the most sophisticated form of polyphony. And I'm not sure what that even has to do with my point at all. I'm sure you'll argue with that as well LOL.

>>126878315
>calling a triad 3 part harmony is absurd.
just* 3 part harmony.

A four part harmony has triads, the note is just doubled.

>>126878201
>"Art music" is a well known term, retard. Google is your friend.
That doesn't answer his question, retard.
He asked
>what music isn't art
Maybe you're one of many ESL posters on the board who often find this stuff confusing.

>>126878075
>>126878201
>>126878393
>what music isn't art
Whatever is pop and folk music, is not art music.

wtf

>>126875864
Currently listening to him. He's the GOAT.

>>126878332
is that chords finished, finally?

>>126878315
>Since you agree the latter is true, you can also agree that it is the most important
No because the latter is just a historical origin, but in modern practice it makes no sense to say any aspect is more important than any other.
>Every one of them is based on these 3 fundamental triads.
No - non functional harmony exists. That's why I said you are mostly right, in the sense that for most chords in tonal harmony what you say is correct, but this is not universal.
>Triad does not denote a 3 part harmony at all.
Yes, it does. "Triad" means 3 parts.
>This is all just semantics.
Ok as long as you admit what you said was semantically incorrect and thus confusing.
>Harmonic overtones and mathematical models explain voice leading better than anything else.
Your explanation went beyond math. The math tells you that B is an overtone of C. But the idea that B should resolve to C because of that is not "math."
>I'm not sure what that even has to do with my point at all.
It doesn't, it's just cheesy

>>126878597
>No because the latter is just a historical origin,
The importance of historical origin cannot be understated.
In modern practices, it's still fair to say that harmony is the most expressive element of music and offers by far the most complexity of artistic merit.
>No - non functional harmony exists.
Those are not traditionally called chords. A 19th century pedagogy will tell you those aren't chords. I don't agree with modern practices.
>Yes, it does. "Triad" means 3 parts.
Incorrect. A triad refers to a chord built from three distinct pitch classes. In can be in 4 part just as well as it can be in 3 part. The term triad is used in 4 part harmony.
>Ok as long as you admit what you said was semantically incorrect and thus confusing.
If it was incorrect by some 21st century definitions - I don't really care.
>Your explanation went beyond math.
I didn't really touch the math as it would make an already confusing post even more confusing to average /mu/tant. The idea that B should resolve to C is that frequency ratio is highly dissonant and unstable(16:15). And as I said, dissonant ratios tend to resolve to simpler, consonant ratios, that is what sounds "pleasant" to human auditory senses.

I'm not sure what you're after. All I was trying to do is simplify and compress loads of information into one (two, in fact) post to try to answer OP's question. No one is going to bother writing a better answer. Perhaps the stupidest thing I said was "Quite simple, actually." Because now I understand that my post can raise more questions than it can answer, unfortunate!

Here's an example of Art Music in the most true sense of the term if anyone's still curious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swbj9jR4rZY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1WxdJ5VUXw

I am impressed, and scared too that this board is like "this". Fuck man might as well head back to jacking off than reading throuh all the "wisdom nuggets" inhere. Subhuman fucking plebs.... And posers. Signed;
-A tourist

>>126875419 (OP)
>what is your philosophy of music?
Everybody should be their own favorite artist and make music for their own personal enjoyment without releasing it to the public for money.
>what your theory on how music works?
This is “telling MY truth” participation trophy tier cope. Music works in one way regardless of anyone’s theories or feelings. Go read a book on audiology and acoustics if you want to know how it works.

>>126880632
>a book on audiology and acoustics
Any recommendations?

>>126880632
Your first take is dangerously based, good sir. Dangerously. Some of the greatest music ever made is sitting on hard drives only heard by close friends and family members. Thousands and thousands of tracks that could inspire the world, kept for the lucky few dear enough to their creator to experience.

>>126875419 (OP)
I hate Arctic Monkeys like you wouldn't believe. My daughter listens to them all the time and their music is terrible. Literally every one of their songs has blatant riffs from more popular songs thrown in. One of their songs sounds exactly like the intro song to Ernest Scared Stupid.

>>126881551
your daughter tastemogs you