[gregorio]

Context defined by who?

Me, this thread and it was explained by others:

He’s coming from a consumer COST perspective.

Yes, but I am learning more about this snake oil problem concerning DACs and I am happy to learn more from you if you choose to educate me instead of using your energy to prove how wrong I am.

And I am happy to give whatever knowledge I may have to those who might find it useful or learn from it. However, if someone claims I’m wrong on the basis of a false/incorrect argument, then of course I’m going explain and try to prove why it’s false/incorrect.

No, but obviously having DACs with most common functionality without snake oil takes something else than the capitalism we have.

Generally the capitalism we have doesn’t lead to this scenario with DACs. With most products there is usually some available development path of introducing meaningful changes, even if they’re changes in features/functionality that are only useful to some consumers. DACs though are a special case, for two reasons:
1. DACs were effectively perfected (beyond the thresholds of audibility) over 30 years ago but more importantly, by around 20-25 years ago that level of perfection could be made/bought for peanuts.
2. We have a very specific group of consumers/target demographic. Consumers generally (but not always) figure out when something is snake oil. Someone has a friend who’s a scientist/engineer/doctor who explains it and he/she tells her friends and word spreads, sometimes there’s an article in the media from a scientist/engineer/expert and sometimes they work out from their own perception it’s snake oil. The audiophile community also sometimes figures out that something is snake oil, green marker pens on CDs was an example and it seems to be coming round to the fact that MQA is snake oil but generally it’s an exceptionally poor community at figuring out snake oil. Essentially it’s a community where the marketers have won! Over the course of more than 40 years, they’ve succeeded in discrediting the science and driving out virtually all the scientists/engineers, there’s no one left to counter the snake oil marketing except a few like us who are treated as crazies/trolls hidden away in obscure parts of the internet.

The only logical progression from reason #1 was a race to the bottom, cheaper and cheaper DACs until the market consolidated to just a few companies, as others were either bought out or went bust because they could no longer compete on price. However, reason #2 provides a feasible option, develop snake oil features which the audiophile community can relatively easily be convinced are real features. The only disadvantage of this option is that the marketers are strictly limited to the audiophile community, they can’t market to other audio communities, such as the pro-audio community because at best they’ll just ignore the BS, most will laugh at you and some will take enough offence from the crass attempt to BS them that they’ll go out of their way to discredit you! But even limited to the audiophile community, at least that offers the chance of survival or even quite a decent return, although not the big money from a wider target demographic.

G

 

[gregorio]

So, all of it can inform me, and a part of it will definitely inform me. Would that be a good approach? …

To be honest, I’m not sure I completely understand your question. You seem to be talking only about notation, which is really only a part of Music Theory. Notation is an interesting subject in itself and it’s what enabled the evolution of western classical music into by far the most diverse and complex music but by itself, knowing about notation doesn’t inform us what notations or combinations of notations results in what perceptual effects/emotional responses. Learning at least the basics of notation will allow you to see what others (other composers) have done but not necessarily how, why, what principles they were following, what rules they were bending or the tricks they’re employing to get you to feel/perceive what they want you to feel. That’s covered by other areas of Music Theory, such as harmony for example. There still might be something useful in just notation, because that has evolved just like other areas of Music Theory. For example, if you go online and order a piece of Bach sheet music, what you’ll actually get is someone’s interpretation probably from a century after Bach died, in traditional C19th/20th notation. What Bach (and all other Baroque composers) actually wrote is a long superseded form of notation called “Figured Bass”. Then in the mid C20th several composers developed alternative forms of notation, often referred to as “Graphic Notation”. And of course, piano roll notation was invented in the late C20th to cater to the need to graphically represent MIDI data (in sequencers). It’s possible some notation theory will help you with certain technical tasks, such as transpositions. It can also influence what you compose but wider areas of Music Theory (such as harmony, melody and rhythm) would be far more beneficial in that regard, at least to start with.

G

 

[vergesslich22]

Thanks again for the valuable information, gegorio.

The problem I tried to illustrate was information loss. For example, when 71db said "Eb", then this notation contains the method he applied. He changed the chord from major to minor, and to tell me he used the notation "Eb" to specifically illustrate this change.

Now put it into a MIDI based machine and eventually, at some point in the future, there will stand "D#". This information loss is quite real and I believe quite often software is too incapable to acknoledge music theory. I mean, it was 71dB's example. So this is the theory. And most software will wipe it out.

Now, in theory software can deduct a lot. E.g. I could press random keys on some home keyboard and it would tell me what chord I may be playing. But this isn't the same as keeping track of what theoretic method has been applied. So, there is a way out of the information loss, but it involves potential mistakes because the deduction of information is not perfect.

So, it's obvious to the user that things don't fit together here. Todays tools are inappropriate; to me this was obvious quite often. And if I wanted to make music, I would have shown a behaviour that is in effect based on music theory, that is true. But there's no good way to really be involved in it in good manner. That has been discouraging, and it still is.

I believe, to be involved in music theory, there's extra work needed that is more work than is obviously needed. The fun goes away. That is just what it was like for me.

 

[gregorio]

He changed the chord from major to minor, and to tell me he used the notation "Eb" to specifically illustrate this change.

Now put it into a MIDI based machine and eventually, at some point in the future, there will stand "D#".

Sorry, I’m still not sure what you mean. Eb and D# are the same note (assuming equal temperament tuning). Do you mean information loss in the purely technical sense that there is no D# in a C minor chord/scale, it has to be Eb (even though they’re the same pitch)?

I suppose it also depends on your sequencer and settings. Some/Most allow you to specify the key signature and will therefore maintain Eb (in the case of Cmin) rather than notate it as D#.

G

 

[vergesslich22]

Sorry, I’m still not sure what you mean. Eb and D# are the same note (assuming equal temperament tuning). Do you mean information loss in the purely technical sense that there is no D# in a C minor chord/scale, it has to be Eb (even though they’re the same pitch)?

I suppose it also depends on your sequencer and settings. Some/Most allow you to specify the key signature and will therefore maintain Eb (in the case of Cmin) rather than notate it as D#.

G

Yes, they are the same note, and the only thing that "Eb" might have in favor is giving it a "name of the applied method".

Well, if there is a sequencer that keeps that as Eb, that would show it, and a user would like to go on learning more music theory. From a music theory perspective, that would be the preferred sequencer setting, wouldn't it be?

In general, I do want to know what music theory offers me. It's just that sometimes the net gain isn't as high as one might expect.

 

[gregorio]

Well, if there is a sequencer that keeps that as Eb, that would show it, and a user would like to go on learning more music theory.

Logic does, Pro Tools does and others do. Cubase does but if I remember correctly, you can only do it in the score editor and it could be a bit buggy but I never used Cubase much and haven’t for many years.

In general, I do want to know what music theory offers me. It's just that sometimes the net gain isn't as high as one might expect.

Think of music theory a little like the formal theory of language. Obviously you have learnt your primary language automatically as a child, you don’t need to explicitly learn anymore about it in order to communicate effectively. However, if you read a dictionary you might come across a word you don’t know that better or more accurately means or implies what you’re trying to communicate. If you learn the formal grammar/syntax you might find ways of using that knowledge, for example breaking those grammatical rules in a certain way for a certain effect. And if you want to tell a story, then knowing about the different story telling structures and forms can make your storytelling more effective/entertaining/enjoyable.

On the other hand, if you’re a really naturally gifted storyteller then understanding the “how and why” might help or it might hinder. If you can just do it naturally anyway, without thinking about it, then thinking about it might be a hindrance, at least until you run out of ideas or can’t figure out how to link some ideas. Most (but not all) of the long term successful music creators knew the theory well (or exceptionally well). There are very few that have the natural ability and of those, almost none have an almost endless supply of fully formed ideas. The vast majority even of those with the natural ability eventually get stuck or run out of ideas entirely. Music Theory can provide solutions to getting stuck and provide alternate directions that can spark a bunch of new ideas.

G

 

[71 dB]

In general, I do want to know what music theory offers me. It's just that sometimes the net gain isn't as high as one might expect.

I can only tell what music theory has offered to me. It has been a game changer. Trying to create music without much understanding of the music theory is like trying to draw in a dark room. Music theory is like putting the lights on.

Now, depending on what kind of music you want to create you can concentrate on certain areas of music theory. If you want to compose Beethoven-style piano sonatas, you need a lot of understanding of functional harmony, sonata form etc. If you want to create EDM, you need to know EDM music theory and watching a dozen Youtube videos by Alex Rome for example might be enough to at least get going if not becoming the next Avicii. If you create movie music, you need some knowledge of functional harmony, but also more modern harmonic ideas such as major chords a tritone away giving an "outer space" feel etc.

For me music theory was very hard in the beginning, but the more my brain learned to think within this context-dependent frame-work, many things have become even self-evident. For me learning music theory has been one of the only good things that has happened to me during the last five years.

 

[vergesslich22]

Yeah that's cool. I think, maybe I was also unconsciously comparing that topic to the thread title. I mean, I was pretty much framed like "why would someone want to listen to or work with 24 bit music", DACs etc. So I might have been searching my mind where applying music theory would involve information loss, just as one might fear it when saving sound as 16 bit wav file. There is indeed some idea to be much too conservative, because 'much too' would be 'enough'. It's not, but only if you know all the circumstances. Good plan, good work. Maybe it's a matter of the unknown unkowns. Oh, google shows Donald Rumsfeld on that search term.

There's something I wanted to say. I'd really like a sound interface with just what I need. Much lower samplerate of course, but also USB-B, because I find it more stable. I'm a bit disappointed by the market, too.

 

[gregorio]

If you create movie music, you need some knowledge of functional harmony, but also more modern harmonic ideas such as major chords a tritone away giving an "outer space" feel etc.

Hmmm not sure I really agree with that. Most film composers have a very good understanding of theory and harmony and not necessarily modern ideas. John Williams for example, arguably the most but certainly one of the most successful film composers is almost entirely based on structures and harmony from the mid/late C19th. In fact most film composers would be classified as romantic/post romantic composers. Some though have been on the cutting edge of contemporary music developments (Bernard Hermann and Bebe and Louis Baron for example). Some are more like music producers though, they don’t really know much/any music theory, they just come up with some of the melodies, it’s all arranged, harmonised and orchestrated by others, they just ask for alterations until they’re happy and supervise the recording and mixing. One Oscar winning film composer I worked with had the compositional and music theory skills of a school child!

Even EDM is based on many very old or relatively old music theory principles. So learning them could certainly prove useful. Of course, knowledge is one thing, how you use/apply it is something else entirely.

G

 

[vergesslich22]

Music Theory can provide solutions to getting stuck and provide alternate directions that can spark a bunch of new ideas.

There is music I love and (at least now) I know it's based on music theory, that is just the safe bet. And there has been music where I heard that music theory had been used. Like... a "conformistic form". It sounded a bit formal, like .. you see through it, see the mechanics, and start to dislike it quite soon.

I'd never tell anyone what music I expect to be what, if anything of what I just said was true. I know it hurts peoples feelings to make judgments. But I have been afraid of conformism myself, conformity is like the enemy of the artist, a little bit? Anyway that's the whole feelings or thoughts behind it.

 

[bigshot]

I see the impressive acomplishment that the composers of the likes of Bach have achieved. TBH I was quite often hindered by the fear that I might tarnish the fun of music making with any process that is systematic and therefore would also show me how much work is to be done, e.g. by entering all notes and pressing all buttons, all the decisions that are more the result of math-like thinking and less the result of just fun and some experiments. It's like some question .. like do you want this to be a hobby, an extensive hobby or even some sort of career. And I have not decided yet how big the hobby shall be, but I don't have to, currently. I have found some personal art form and will see what it's good for at some point in the future.

Bach's music is a many-faceted jewel. You can't know too much about it and with all the different ways of looking at it, you can never fully comprehend it. It took me twenty years to even come to terms with Bach's music. I still don't fully comprehend it. I think one could spend their whole life studying Bach.

Speaking for myself, art isn't just my occupation and my hobby, it's also my passion. I don't just study things I need to get paid, I study for pleasure. I work in animation, but my passion for creative expression extends far out into live action film making, music, fine art, dance, design, storytelling, illustration and architecture. I use all of this in my work, and I find that not only does knowledge lead to more understanding, it broadens my frame of reference to open my mind to other kinds of art I hadn't considered before. I found that knowing about African Art told me something valuable about Picasso, knowing about Albrecht Dürer told me something about comic books, and knowing about Bach's music teased me with some sort of peek at the infinite perfection beyond this world. When I was in college, I thought I had a pretty good handle on things... now I know a lot more, and the most important thing I've learned is how much more there is to learn.

I see people who don't think critically about art. They either "like" it or they don't. They don't want to think about it. They just want to experience it and move on to doing whatever they're doing. That's fine for them. But that tends to keep you corralled into a small subset of art-- usually the things you liked when you were a teenager or young adult when you were still open to learning about new things. With that approach, you can know a whole lot about a little bit. But that doesn't work for me. I see a whole world of different cultures and different outlooks and I want to sample the best of all of it.

The drawback to all this is the physical side. My house is floor to ceiling bookcases, walls crammed with framed art, tens of thousands of 78s, LPs, DVDs, Blu-Rays, disk arrays with hundreds of terabytes of data... It never ends. But I want to absorb and process as much of it as I can before I die, and I know putting limits on my passion will stand in the way of doing that.

 

[bigshot]

Stravinsky is probably the biggest influence in film scores. For Star Wars, John Williams pilfered The Planets and Wagner because that fit the action serial format. But most movies have more complex emotional themes. It seems that there's standard issue influences depending on the picture. For instance, it seems that every time there is a snow scene, the composers trot out Sibelius.

Of course a lot of what passes for film scores now are just loops and chords without structure. The synth and sampling has made it easy to infer symphonic music without actually creating symphonic music,

 

[gregorio]

There is music I love and (at least now) I know it's based on music theory, that is just the safe bet. And there has been music where I heard that music theory had been used.

Music Theory is the study and explanations of the practices and possibilities of music. If it can be considered music and it can be explained then it uses Music Theory. In other words, without any exceptions I know of, all music uses Music Theory. The only question is whether it has been used knowingly, for example if someone has composed something purely because it felt right, without realising/knowing the music theory behind it. That would be quite rare though, nearly all music creators have at least some knowledge of some aspects of music theory.

The confusion sometimes comes from the concept of traditional music theory, which was laid down in the Renaissance and Baroque periods and was bound by very strict rules. Of course though, music theory didn’t just stop in 1650, it carried on studying and explaining music up to the present day, so it incorporates C20th classical music innovations and pop music genres. It just depends on how far/deep you’re willing to get into it.

G

 

[bigshot]

There is music I love and (at least now) I know it's based on music theory, that is just the safe bet. And there has been music where I heard that music theory had been used. Like... a "conformistic form". It sounded a bit formal, like .. you see through it, see the mechanics, and start to dislike it quite soon.

Music theory is like language. You can use it to write Beethoven's 9th symphony, or you can use it to write 100 Bottles Of Beer On The Wall. The theory itself doesn't make it good or bad, it's how the rules are applied that matters. All art has rules. Some people apply them with a formula and others think about them and bend them to create what they are trying to create. That's the difference between mediocrity and greatness in a nutshell.

 

[bigshot]

In general, I do want to know what music theory offers me. It's just that sometimes the net gain isn't as high as one might expect.

There's more than one aspect to music theory. When it comes to notes and notation, you probably need to study an instrument and play to be able to master that. The other side of it is musical structure. Classical music is great to learn about form, time signatures, harmonies and dissonance, and arrangement. You don't have to play an instrument to appreciate that part. Following the progression from Haydn to Beethoven to Wagner to Stravinsky that way is very enlightening.