Modes The Beatles Used

Have an urge to learn, or a calling to teach? Want to share some useful Youtube videos? Do it here!
User avatar
challism
Posts: 1553
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 19 Jul 2019

I like this guy's yotuube channel. It's full of so much great information. I enjoyed this video so much, I thought I would share it with you all.


User avatar
MarkTarlton
Posts: 528
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

Post 19 Jul 2019

love this stuff! he is a great teacher, and used some fantastic examples :)

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 8105
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 19 Jul 2019

I was going to point out there was little evidence they knew what they were doing was “modes”, and that’s one of the first things said in this video. Which makes this subject interesting in an academic level, but on another level it’s irrelevant. I would even go so far to say that once you learn the “rules” and names of things, you are more likely to “think” instead of “feel” when coming up with ideas.

Point being, you don’t need to know any of this, and for some of us, we may even be better off if you simply do your best to make cool sounding music. I feel I had to “unlearn” my music theory before I could ever begin to compose music I liked. ;)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
boingy
Posts: 791
Joined: 01 Feb 2019

Post 19 Jul 2019

selig wrote:
19 Jul 2019
I was going to point out there was little evidence they knew what they were doing was “modes”, and that’s one of the first things said in this video. Which makes this subject interesting in an academic level, but on another level it’s irrelevant. I would even go so far to say that once you learn the “rules” and names of things, you are more likely to “think” instead of “feel” when coming up with ideas.

Point being, you don’t need to know any of this, and for some of us, we may even be better off if you simply do your best to make cool sounding music. I feel I had to “unlearn” my music theory before I could ever begin to compose music I liked. ;)
I remember reading a guitar mag some years back that had a technical analysis of some of Kurt Cobain's Nirvana songs. There was much discussion of scales, modes, intervals and modulations and I remember thinking "Yeah, I bet Kurt just strummed away until it sounded good".

User avatar
Timmy Crowne
Posts: 198
Joined: 06 Apr 2017
Location: California, United States

Post 19 Jul 2019

Thought-provoking video. Thanks for sharing, OP. I'm split on the theoretical debate: On one hand, legendary artists created great popular music from their instincts without thinking about theory. On the other hand, those of us who don't have such instincts can benefit from understanding the technical aspects of their work. We could simply play by feel for a lifetime and never approach anything so globally compelling. I guess it comes down to the question of who is your music for?

User avatar
rgdaniel
Posts: 277
Joined: 07 Sep 2017

Post 19 Jul 2019

I've always said (about my own stuff) that not knowing what the hell I was doing (at least harmonically) was very liberating. I have no choice but to "wing it" in terms of modes and key modulation and such. Learning slowly. Rhythmically, though, I'm fine, as long as I don't OVER-think it.

User avatar
aeox
Posts: 2350
Joined: 23 Feb 2017

Post 19 Jul 2019

selig wrote:
19 Jul 2019
I was going to point out there was little evidence they knew what they were doing was “modes”, and that’s one of the first things said in this video. Which makes this subject interesting in an academic level, but on another level it’s irrelevant. I would even go so far to say that once you learn the “rules” and names of things, you are more likely to “think” instead of “feel” when coming up with ideas.

Point being, you don’t need to know any of this, and for some of us, we may even be better off if you simply do your best to make cool sounding music. I feel I had to “unlearn” my music theory before I could ever begin to compose music I liked. ;)
👏
Random songs/ideas go here:
https://soundcloud.com/ae-ox/polar/s-Ocxtj

User avatar
NekujaK
Posts: 614
Joined: 09 Oct 2016
Location: USA

Post 20 Jul 2019

Knowledge of music theory is definitely not a requirement for making music, especially if your focus is on creating original works. However, there are situations where theory comes in very handy. For instance, if you're composing on spec, it can save you lots of time and wasted effort to know which scale or mode conveys a particular mood or feeling in the music. It's also handy if you're trying to write in a particular musical style.

I'm not a jazz guy, but I hang out with lots of incredibly talented jazz players, both young and old, and all these cats are heavily steeped in music theory. It's what enables them to drop into any gig or session and instantly start playing - impeccably. And their abilities are not limited to jazz - they can literally play anything you throw at them. But of course, they also have great ears and musical instincts to go along with all the theory.

Ultimately, music theory is a nice tool to have in your musical toolbox. Just a few choice nuggets of knowledge can have a huge impact on your music.
wreaking havoc with :reason: since 2.5

User avatar
Reasonable man
Posts: 432
Joined: 14 Jul 2016

Post 20 Jul 2019

I think the same argument can be made of modular music.
You can create wondrous patches in Reason ..... alot of time you can arrive there by not entirely knowing the science or physics behind what your doing or why.
The problem is recreacting those sounds/ patches in different environments and using different hardware and software,. In that case i can only imagine that it pays to know what your doing and why your doing certain things at any given time to achieve the results in your head.
ideally when it comes to mixing, music theory or modular physics etc etc It will prob end up being advantagous to fully understand the 'why' of what your doing rather than not. But without the ability to train yourself to turn it all off when that is exactly whats required ...then its entirley palusible that most of what your output will end up being is generic, robotic , lacking originality and formulatic in the extreme. Thats not good.
Theres definatley no right or wrong answer. In the end i think it all just becomes more work ...which is more time and we all know that time is the enemy of just about everything!

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 8105
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 20 Jul 2019

Timmy Crowne wrote:
19 Jul 2019
Thought-provoking video. Thanks for sharing, OP. I'm split on the theoretical debate: On one hand, legendary artists created great popular music from their instincts without thinking about theory. On the other hand, those of us who don't have such instincts can benefit from understanding the technical aspects of their work. We could simply play by feel for a lifetime and never approach anything so globally compelling. I guess it comes down to the question of who is your music for?
My take is you can develop your instincts, or you can develop your logic/theory. Your choice – both can be improved by focused work in my experienced.

Long ago, after a few years of high school and college theory, and failed attempts at writing from that angle, I decided to instead work on my feel. I knew I was going to take one step back, but hoped for two steps forward in return. Within a few years I was signed to MCA/Master Series - not saying they are 100% related, but I CAN say I couldn't listen to ANYTHING I wrote from a theory angle, and still enjoy my own music that comes from a "feeling" angle.

I also agree that if you're not composing, but rather arranging or doing any other "work for hire" type things, theory to some degree can come in handy. Basically, if you need to communicate music ideas to other musicians, "theory" is based on THEIR language. But if you want to create your own music yourself, you don't need any of it.

So it's more about what you're trying to actually do (create, or work for those who create), than who is going to listen to your music IMO.

TL/DR: The Beatles didn't need theory, but George Martin definitely did need theory.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 8105
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 20 Jul 2019

Reasonable man wrote:
20 Jul 2019
I think the same argument can be made of modular music.
You can create wondrous patches in Reason ..... alot of time you can arrive there by not entirely knowing the science or physics behind what your doing or why.
The problem is recreacting those sounds/ patches in different environments and using different hardware and software,. In that case i can only imagine that it pays to know what your doing and why your doing certain things at any given time to achieve the results in your head.
ideally when it comes to mixing, music theory or modular physics etc etc It will prob end up being advantagous to fully understand the 'why' of what your doing rather than not. But without the ability to train yourself to turn it all off when that is exactly whats required ...then its entirley palusible that most of what your output will end up being is generic, robotic , lacking originality and formulatic in the extreme. Thats not good.
Theres definatley no right or wrong answer. In the end i think it all just becomes more work ...which is more time and we all know that time is the enemy of just about everything!
I think engineering and sound design are both more analytical tasks, where creativity can be used to aid the process in some cases. Conversely, I see song writing/composing as being a more creative task, where analytical thinking CAN be used to aid the process in some cases.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
NekujaK
Posts: 614
Joined: 09 Oct 2016
Location: USA

Post 20 Jul 2019

selig wrote:
20 Jul 2019
Long ago, after a few years of high school and college theory, and failed attempts at writing from that angle, I decided to instead work on my feel. I knew I was going to take one step back, but hoped for two steps forward in return. Within a few years I was signed to MCA/Master Series - not saying they are 100% related, but I CAN say I couldn't listen to ANYTHING I wrote from a theory angle, and still enjoy my own music that comes from a "feeling" angle.
I took guitar lessons from a pro session player a few years back, and was surprised to discover the lessons were about 80% theory and only 20% technique. I was already a halfway-competent guitar player since my teens, but now my head was swimming in so much music theory that it completely paralyzed my ability to play. During one lesson, as we traded improvised solos (me struggling, him playing effortlessly), I finally had to stop and ask what he thinks about while he's playing - I wanted some insight into how he applies all the theory he was teaching me, because his musical ideas were always creative, interesting, and totally in the pocket, while my brain was constantly scrambling to figure out what scale, mode, or note choice I should be playing.

He looked up at me and said, "Hopefully nothing."

:shock:

The point being, his deep knowledge of theory had become second nature and instinctively informed his creative process. In his younger days, he also experienced paralysis when first learning theory. He went from being a hot sh*t uneducated rock guitarist to a schooled musician who could barely put a cohesive solo together. But with study, practice, and the tincture of time, all that theory eventually absorbed into his being, and he transformed into an even better guitarist and musician.

So as you point out, for musical creativity, we definitely need to get our thinking brain out of the way and rely on our impulses, feelings, and instincts. But intellectual knowledge can also be useful, if it can be integrated seamlessly it into that creative place within us.
wreaking havoc with :reason: since 2.5

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 3 guests