Music theory nerds forget this important thing
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ค. 2024
- www.guitartheoryrevolution.com
00:00 Introduction - Is music theory important?
01:03 What Kurt has to say
03:28 Why musicians bounce of music theory
08:11 Does theory limit your creativity?
11:19 The mistake the music theory nerds keep making
20:50 Do I hate Berklee graduates?
22:45 Why do music college bands make boring music?
24:50 Can you even call yourself a musician if you can’t jam?
27:07 If you only learn one thing, choose this.
29:36 What is Guitar Theory Revolution?
If you’re interested in discussing this topic with other motivated musicians join me in the free YBIAB Mastermind Group: / 347980245960491
Check out my Brand Discovery System, the course that will show you have to discover your unique artist brand in order to stand out from the crowd and gain new fans easily:
yourbandisabusiness.teachable...
If you like the look of my Guitar Revolution hoodie you can get your own (or t-shirt) in different colours here: guitarrevolutionstore.com
#diymusic #diymusician #independentmusic #independentmusician #musicmarketing #musicindustry
#musicindustry #musicbusiness #musicbiz #logicprox #musicproducer #recordlabel #fruityloops #musicproduction #musicstudio #musicartist #musicvideos #singersongwriter #musiclovers #indiemusic #musicismylife #recordingstudio #rappers #producers #ableton #musiclife #studiolife #musicians #spotify #1000truefans #localmusicscene #musicscene
Some people seem a little bitter because they've spent so long learning theory but aren't as succesful as they'd like
I'm also not as successful as I like! :D
@@yourbandisabusiness Few of us are!
That guy is successful because he has 1.7M subscribers.
@@llamasarus1 Sucess is fairly subjective. That guy looks super successful to me too.
@@davec8473 Success has objective metrics that define it like subscriber count
The secret is Practice. Theory is just what you need to communicate with other musicians. Thanks for your thoughtful review. ❤
you dont need to understand the theory, but it farking helps lol
Yes it helps, and I'm learning all the time!
this happened to me with programming. before I learned programming I was able to wing it and put code together that I hardly understood to do amazing things, now after many years of learning programming to a point of mastery; all the formalities, options, philosophies etc royally get in the way of and impede the creative execution.
That’s an interesting perspective.
Sing sing sing. Like you said, Cobain sang along with his favorite stuff for years. If you sing along with your favorite music, you literally feel music’s vibration in your body. Through singing, you develop a completely intuitive way to create that comes from within, from the heart. Theory is all in the head, completely cut off from the heart.
Agree! Nothing wrong with combining both of course.
Taylor swift said once something along the lines of: songs should come to you naturally, it's when you get stuck that music theory is a very useful tool to overcome that obstacle.
Yes, that's how I often use it. When I'm not sure where to go next with a piece of music.
@@yourbandisabusinessanother thing to music theory can help you gain skills unconsciously like recognizing patterns in chords and stuff
@@enzoarayamorales7220 Yes it helps you recognise what’s going on in songs and when people are going ‘outside’.
Listening to music and enjoying music should come naturally too. If I have to learn theory to “appreciate” music then I’m out. As is most of the music consuming public.
I said something similar in my comment before reading this. I think it can be indispensable when you get stuck. Especially if you want to make sure you don't repeat something you tend to do in your other songs, which is a bad habit since you think up things because that's the way you already think.
He's 100% correct.
Kurt, Tyler, Cornelis: Thanks!
I do wonder if there's something innate about having a musical 'ear'. My wife loves music, grew up listening and singing with music and even tried playing guitar but self admittedly she has zero musical 'ear' and when I sing a a part of a song like the bass line she will flat out say she doesn't even hear that part of the song lol
That's the eternal nature vs nurture debate. Maybe it's a thing... but if it is it's not worth worrying about.
@@yourbandisabusiness True, interesting one though
Hey this was a very interesting video and introspective analysis, Subscribed!
B.S. degree in audio engineering, business, and theory.
My songwriting has most of the time come from a flow state and habitual methods.
Theory was always there to help me out of my writers block.
Thanks for joining!
With respect to Tyler, he is a good dude, and his content is solid. Dudes who paid for music school and put that work in under someone's judgemental oversight will always feel like its the best way. And I don't blame them. If you know "I am roughly in F," you know enough to start communicating. You don't need to know it's a Fmaj7/N9
Hi, I really think Kurt was a genius. 13 years ago I met a guitarist who is now my best friend. He has no ideas of what is music theory (I did study classical guitar for 20 years and I can’t do anything else than just interpret) he is a huge fan of Kurt and as soon I heard him, I saw Kurt now. I have a home studio and I give him access to it whenever he wants and magic happened. I did work in recording studios and show him how to mix, record, and master his music. He is doing all by himself, all the instruments. After all those years I don’t understand how he is doing all of that. Well, the theory is not necessary, I have the proof of it every day at home. His name is Mister Weirdman.
I would say fluency on a polyphonic instrument (piano or guitar) is what is useful in creating music. This is what lets you faithfully make the tune in your head concrete and external. The tune itself though - has to come to you. All the music theory in the world won't allow you to write a good tune. I agree with Kurt here, in fact, a lot of theory knowledge tends to get in the way.
I think knowledge of theory can definitely help. But yes, if you don't have an ear for finding something that sounds good then theory won't help. So work on that side of things as well.
This guy: "There's no right or wrong way to do music"
Theory nerds "you're doing it wrong, where's the theory bro"
Want some advice? Develop your own unique inner musical voice. Play around with intervals, chords, rhythms in your mind or by using your instrument(s). Learn to do improvisation. Let music become part of your mind, emotions, aspirations.
Great advice
I have a few points to make on this subject.
Regarding the "music theory: good/bad" matter, the same thing exists in the world of cinema, where I believe film schools have killed Western cinema.
Here is my point of view: film schools do not produce artists, they produce engineers -- people who are experts at the manipulation of the audience through cinematic cliches. It is no coincidence that both Spielberg and Lucas were from the first generation of filmschool graduates in the US (UCLA, I believe).
I read the intro to a book about screenwriting and the writer (a filmschool teacher) raised the fact that people say "but this is supposed to be art" and I find the counterexample he gave to be very telling: "A star athlete does not rely on his talent alone, but also on training."
The problem with that? An athlete is not an artist! An athlete is someone who specialises in optimising the performance of certain actions! So he trains to strengthen the relevant muscles and improve his technique, to make his moves as efficient as possible.
So what we get from this is that film schools produce people who _are optimised to producing certain products:_ you study screenwriting? You can quickly churn out scripts that are "well written" (based on the Robert McKee template of "how to write a script"). Talent? Originality? Innovation? Those words are not relevant.
The same goes for music schools: the theory nerds will tell you that if you want to convey a certain emotion you should use such or such scale or chords. But this limits people's expression and pushes them into the use of cliches.
(Bryan from Critical Reactions said he finds "post-hardcore" like ATDI fascinating, because he doesn't understand how the music is written: if he wants to write a pop-punk song or a heavy metal song etc., he knows how to go about doing it, but not with "post-hardcore". But the moment you say "I'm going to write a pop-punk song" and you have a template for how it should be structured, you're going to make bland, cliched crap! And this is what happens when you get over-analytic about art and try to qualify things, rather than going by feel.)
This brings me to another point that's worth raising: making the distinction between "music theory" and "music school".
Zappa knew music theory, but did *not* study music: he went to the library, borrowed a book about composition and sat and learned on his own. So what he did is learn a _language_ that helped him execute his ideas.
But when you go to music school, you are basically indoctrinated in How Music Should Be™, which means limiting creativity and opting for cliches.
And there's another problem with music schools: homogenity. You talk about training one's ear. Well, in music school all the students have their ear trained _the same way!_ All the students are given the same examples and the same exercises to do... so their idea of what music should sound like is similar.
Another point is that I take issue with the wide use of the word "genius". I really don't know if Curt Cobain was a musical genius... Zappa yes, but Cobain? Saying that is a copout for the theory losers, to avoid a proper explanation for why he is good and they are not.
I think something worth keeping in mind is the importance of _character._
Here is a good example: nearly all Christian rock is complete shite; a lot of "Satanic" and occult music tends to be good or interesting.
There's a good reason for this: religious people are, by definition, conservatives who are looking to walk in line and live like people lived in the past. OTOH, people who are attracted to mysticism, occultism, radical politics, tend to be people who are not satisfied with mainstream society and are looking for something different -- so when they make music, they'll also tend to be adventurous and look to break rules and boundaries.
If you take Cobain, he didn't just listen to punk and pop, but also metal and things like Daniel Johnston and the Pastels and all kinds of underground music. Add to that a hard life and mental illness and you have a person who is a little more complex than the average cliche punk or metalhead, with a wide spectrum of emotions and musical influences, which results in unique songwriting.
I completely agree with you about music school bands being identifiable and bland and I think that is not just because of what music school does to people, but also because of what kind of people go to music school! I had several friends who studied music and they'd always talk about fellow students being "so talented", but do any of them ever do anything interesting? Pfft. Nada. They're basically boring middle-class people who listen to jazz and classical music and like to sit around smoking pot. Pretty bland and boring people. So bland and boring music.
And one last point worth making: most people who play guitar learn how to tune the guitar to the "standard" tuning and how to play some chords... so they've learnt a bit of music theory that helps them a lot! Even Cobain!
Some great points here. I agree with the comparison to the film industry. I hardly watch movies anymore because it's just copies of copies of copies. Earlier writers, directors and actors had actually lived life (been in the army, travelled the world), now we have an industry that grew up watching movies.
Regarding the musicians that went to school, it's an interesting point as to whether the schooling creates homogenised musicians or whether a certain type of musician goes to music school. Perhaps it's a bit of both. I think I've mentioned it before but one of the reasons why I initially bounced off of music theory is because 1) The people saying how important it was for writing good music, could not write good music themselves. 2) All the music I thought was good seemed to break all the rules anyway. There is clearly something wrong if these great schools are churning out bland musicians while someone like Zappa taught himself. It means that people like Zappa (and all the others) are teaching themselves something that the school curriculum is not (or can not).
I don't know much about Christian music so I can't say much about how original is.
Yes character and life experience are very important. If you consume all the same content as other people and live a life like 99% of other people then there's a big chance that what you create will be like what most other people create.
@@yourbandisabusiness There's something worth keeping in mind, regarding music school.
Here's a quote from Zappa's Packard Goose:
Information is not knowledge / Knowledge is not wisdom / Wisdom is not truth /
Truth is not beauty / Beauty is not love / Love is not music / Music is the best
Now, if you take a book about music theory (or any other theory, for that matter) and read it, you've encountered some _information,_ but you don't actually _know_ music theory. To actually _know_ it you need to study it seriously, do exercises etc. -- that is what music schools do: they take young people and instill in them a _knowledge_ of music theory.
But, like the song says, _knowledge is not wisdom!_ Wisdom is the ability to make smart use of that knowledge and is acquired through years of practical experience.
So music school grads have _knowledge_ of music theory, but lack _wisdom,_ whereas the people who spent years listening, writing and performing music might lack the theoretical _knowledge,_ but they are _streetwise_ -- they know _instinctively_ how to do things.
Think of someone who just started playing guitar. If you ask them to play a certain note, they'll have to look at the fretboard, think a moment and decide which string to press on which fret, in order to give you that note. But a person who's an experienced guitarist doesn't have to think -- he'll just act instinctively, playing whichever note he wants.
The same with composing: someone who graduates school might think "I want to evoke this emotion, so I need to play in that key and use such and such chords", but an experienced person will just do what he _feels_ will transmit the emotion he want.
@@greggerypeccary Thank you, that's a great comment.
beginner guitar player here. (6 months)
so i come from a different background, i come from the sound design/producer/DAW hero making music type of way.
I had "commercial musical succes" as an producer and dj.
all my music that went viral (radio, played on festivals and the internet) i made without music theory knowledge at all.
my teachers analyzed it with music theory knowledge and said to me, this doesnt make any sense at all... but it sounds good...
right now, because i picked up the guitar i am a bit forced to have some knowledge of theory (did that on purpose)
and it helps me out to harmonize different instruments or synths together way faster.
so is theory overrated? i say yes..
you can make hit pieces without, just because you dont pay attention to the "rules of theory" even though there are no rules in making music...
What is "music theory" even? In this video, it seems like it equals "knowing names of scales and reading sheet music", which is not a good definition. Writing sheet music can be an unnecessary extra step for creativity, but if you want a classical string quartet to play one of your pieces, you need to know how to write a score.
It sounds like you have trained your ear to be able to find what sounds good. Now your knowledge of theory will help you going forward. The best of both worlds!
@@yourbandisabusiness i think so yes..
i have to say i find it a bit harder to be creative.. because im thinking to fast of music theory instead of making something..
its a balancing act i quess you have to find for youreself.
I agree that Cobain was trolling he knew definitely some basic stuff.But I believe that talent and creativity is more important than knowledge
most people who say "you don't need theory it crushes creativity" are not Kurt Cobain... This kind of just stems from laziness, music theory is just a way for you to understand what you are doing so you can contextualise it.
Also saying "Oh you know theory but you can't write songs" is just as much of an assumption as all of the assumptions Tyler made about "lazy people who don't learn theory or famous people". some of the most famous and important music in the west (classical concerto and jazz standards) are entirely reliant of what the west calls "music theory"
(which by the way in my country (Switzerland) is something you learn from the age of 10 (like sheet reading and piano thoery )
I was talking from the perspective of my younger self who bounced off music theory. My opinion is different now.
Absolutely. Completely agree with you.
Can you disagree with something? Let's have a discussion! :)
No. Learning "music theory" EXPANDS your options as a songwriter. Instead of knowing 3 chords which can fit a place in a song, you can learn 50. Instead of hours of trial-and-error or getting lucky, you know exactly what to do. How is that limiting? There is no contradiction between knowing terminology/underlying structures and having a genre internalized by listening and copying. Just ask any jazz musician.
I think music theory is great. But as you say about the Jazz musicians, training your ears is important as well.
Must be why we are inundated with incredible songs and awesome songwriters on youtube that are non derivative. RIGHT???
I like your metaphor about reading the dictionary to write. I feel like studying scales too much is very similar to this. the thing i dont like about theory is it can sometimes seem like its focusing too much on the math instead of the sound. Trying to understand theory has taken a lot of fun out of music for me at times. The part i do like about it though is its way to communicate chords. I think im at a point where I mostly just want to learn lots of chord shapes, but primarily play and create by ear.
Yes chords are especially important to me as a songwriter
I think theory is a great tool for appreciating music in a more studied way. I don't think it's necessary for anyone who plays an instrument to develop a useful understanding of music.
Jazz is dope, never looked back
I like Jazz as well (see the Coltrane poster behind me) and it has influenced some of my songwriting.
1:56 while there are no “right” or “wrong” ways to do music, there are certainly best practices.
There are efficient and inefficient approaches. Sometimes improving has to come from unlearning ingrained bad practices and Shedding past incorrect assumptions.
That’s why it’s helpful to have a coach/mentor to help guide you.
A few things about Kurt, for those of you who were not lucky enough to be a teenager when "Nevermind" came out.
1. Kurt was not just an indie musician, he was the patron saint of indie musicians. Their credo was "do it yourself". He didn't go to a conservatory obviously because he would have lost his punk cred, but also punks don't go to music school. They are self taught. In a way they don't have teachers or mentors. In another way, Kurt's university was the Seattle music scene, where he could just watch Mudhoney, Green River or the Screaming trees and pick up some knowledge from them.
2. Music knowledge is not music theory. Music theory is the stuffy book they force you to read about chords and inversions and intervals and harmony. Music knowledge is about how you pick up a guitar and play it, how to do guitar feedback, how to smash your instrument, a lot of different stuff.
3. Kurt Cobain's comment was quite funny to me, because his particular genius was that his chords in the songs he wrote were so much more sophisticated than his fellow punks that he had to be better at music theory than most of them. (At least he had great knowledge of harmony, whether it was formal or not.) And he brought that knowledge into punk, a genre that was infamous for not being musically sophisticated. This is why music geniuses like Kurt Cobain don't go to school. They are more like PhD researchers who add to the body of knowledge rather than learning from somebody.
4. Kurt was more about breaking rules. Those of you who never lived through 1991/92 would not understand what a profound impact he had on the music industry. When he found himself turning into another rock star, that was so against his anti-establishment principles than he killed himself.
It's good to have a teacher, mentor or coach. It's not always easy to find the right one.
Thanks for the insights
There's a difference between creating despite a limited knowledge and just being too damn lazy to learn how to use your instrument. Even Kurt maybe didn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of advanced theory but he wasnt totally in the dark either, and while he may not have focused on musicianship as a goal unto itself he had a working knowledge of how to construct a piece of music
Yes, he had trained his ear to recognise what sounded good. Even if he didn't know the words to describe what he was doing.
“Without craftsmanship, inspiration is a mere reed shaken in the wind” - Johannes Brahms.. I'll take my musicianship from him over Kurt any day.. Even if Nirvana was/is cool!
If that's your taste. But I would argue was just as much a craftsperson as anyone else, as I do in this video. It's just that he trained his craft in a 'non-scholarly' way.
People view theory wrong. It is not something to make you better at music, though it helps in understanding it. But music theory in essence is a language. Knowing it makes it easier to tell other musicians what you mean. Like, it is more easier saying "it's these notes of the pentatonic scale" or "put your fingers here, here, here, and don't use this one note".
Music theory's practical application is condensing information to explain something concrete. Yes, there is no need to learn it if you know what you're doing, but it's hard to explain to other people what you mean in some group situations. Without MT, it's like doing sign language with other people who are trying to understand what you mean.
Yes it's great for communication, exploration, understanding and learning.
Thanks for the upload, subbed!
If i may offer my 2 pence, the writing process should always be music first; if it sounds good, it probably is!
Like language, we train our ears first and then move forward growing our vocabulary as we go. Almost everybody can write a poem with our default set of vocabulary, but there's a spectrum within that. Some stick to "roses are red, violets are blue", yet others may look to learn synonyms, antonyms and so on, in order to try and better describe what they feel. That's not to say one is better than other. I believe music is no different in that regard. Music theory helps us to grow and form a more intimate relationship with our language through knowledge alone, which can impede on the ability to say what we feel, straightforwardly speaking.
As long as the writer keeps in mind that it's the message that's the most important rather than the theoretical complexities, good music to be understood by the masses will be made. Hence why genres such as jazz remain a somewhat niche interest as it seldom keeps in mind the untrained listener and, let's face it, most casual listeners aren't listening to identify changes, and what tools are used to catch them.
Like language, all of the above can be achieved by having great ears. Theory is a robust toolkit to help achieve that when your ears are tired, but it's not necessary to making the music *you* want to hear and play.
100% agree. And your language analogy is apt. I speak two and a bit languages and the process is very similar. Our brains use the same pattern recognition ability for music and language and there's a lot of research about this topic which you can find online.
music is art.
instruments are our paintbrush.
and just like when you paint you can make beauty without knowing any art theory.
but you can use art theory to make art. and once you learn it you can break the rules in ways you want too.
depending on what art you want to make you may never even need to learn any theory.
and depending on the art you want to make you may need to learn allot of theory.
what is the art you want to make. and what do you need in order to make said art.
that is the real question.
not if music theory is good or bad.
it's nether. it's just music theory. it's a tool.
the hammer is nether good nor bad. it's how you learn to use it.
I agree. I just wanted to highlight the importance of training your ears.
@@yourbandisabusiness training your ears is a really good tool, that i think i need, so thank you
@@asfasfasfasf124 So do I !
Everybody forget the fact that music has existed long before theory...Every musical instrument can be learned by a good ear...Theory doesn't make a good musician and good musician doesn't need theory...
It's not necessary. But it can be useful.
@@yourbandisabusiness Yes, it can be very useful. It can open some different horizons.
Annie Leibovitz joked that people interested in photography would ask her what kind of camera she used. She said, "If you're thinking about cameras, you're not taking pictures." Something like that. But at the same time you can bet your ass she knows about cameras and all the technical aspects of photography. Sting was asked why he chose a certain outside chord at one point in his song and he said it was where he thought it should go in his head. He wasn't thinking theoretically when he wrote it but at the same time Sting knows theory. That makes perfect sense to me and that's how I think of theory.
Agreed!
TRUTH nobody really knows what the next guy ACTUALLY knows. "Really good ear" really indicates a knowledge of the sound of intervals and chord progressions not neccessarily knowing the lingo. Whether you want to admit it or not every player or singer does use theory in this way. Music is for the soul. It doesn't need words to describe it. Just because you're not thinking of it in a grammatical/mathematical way does not mean you're not using theory. Every person knows what gravity is. You don't have to know anything about physics for the rules to apply.
That's a great analogy. We've all seen professional sports players take advantage of some very advanced physics; throwing curve balls, overhead kicks etc. They may not be able to explain it in terms of mathematical formulas but they've trained to know what to do.
The Beatles didn't know theory either, they used their ears and years of playing cover songs to create their music. Kurt had a good ear, but he didn't know the specific terms, modes, keys and scales that were underlying his own music. And he didn't care. He didn't have to know that. He played what sounded good. Theory simply helps explain *why* something sounds good. It really should be a limit the restricts the music.
On the other hand Kurt was a snob who attacked Pearl Jam for not being "real Alternative" because they used Blues based solos. He didn't know keys or modes, so he didn't have any idea of what to do for soloing - which he sucked at. What's he's doing here is trying to justify his being a crappy soloist because there were a great many soloists from Vai to Satriani at that time. (Coincidentally, Eddie Van Halen didn't really know theory that great either. He also just played what sounded good to him.)
Even if he could play flashy solos I'm not sure Kurt would have done so. Jeff Buckley was a great guitar player who could shred but he very rarely showed it offand never on any recordings.
You can watch Eddie Van Halen's criticism against Music Theory
Any particular video you have in mind?
I agree, It makes me laugh when people try to explain songs in music theory terms, when the writers had no to little idea what they where doing theory wise. Same with virtuosity, it's the use of the notes not the technical ability that matters. To technical and mathy for the sake of it and the feeling is lost.
Well I think it's fine to explain how a song is put together in terms of music theory. But don't confuse the destination / outcome with the journey / way. The process of becoming a good composer or songwriter can not be understood by looking at the final composition or song.
every (non jazz) musician could compose better with more knowledge of theory while still doing cool minimal modern music whatever they're doing. they would just get it right at the first try instead of having to try every note to see which one they wanted. but where are the examples of the opposite? in what way could morton subotnick or debussy or stravinsky or charlie parker or duke ellington, john coltrane, james jamerson etc et have done better if they knew less? sure, deejays (used to) have knowledge that musicians lack, but they usually have muso studio guys to make the music for them
Something in the Way
Kurt Cobain really said THAT?? I am shocked ...
It seems he did
i lost interest in rock music when i was a teenager, jazz and classical are so much more interesting
I like all kinds of music. Jazz, classical, pop, rock and metal.
Tyler's a great songwriter, for the record.
Which song of his do you recommend?
@@yourbandisabusiness Burn The Witch and his "Back to Basics" EP
What Kurt's saying is true for the 0.0001% of super innovative geniuses (ie it's true for him)
if Kurt respected proper chords would he invent a new style where you use the power chord shape for everything?
it's wrong and lame for most people (the other 99.9999%) who could be way better if they complimented their instrument practice with some book learning
Musicianship is why Stone Temple PIlots had a more sophisticated sound and NIrvana was three chord music for middle school kids. Unfortunately, most music theory nerds don't write more sophisticated songs, but rather show off with fast, BS guitar noodling, like horrible LA "Metal" dumbness.
No one would say that an engineer may know too much about building bridges to build bridges or the engineer say that knowledge compromises his creativity.
Agree, but a lot of "Artists" are just "conmen & conwomen" selling to others that the con people is behind something "meaningful" ... Full of Ego people selling to not so Full of Ego another ones had to perceive and feel Full of Ego people from a down-up mentality.
Narcissistic profiles tends to impose subjectivity over objectivity.
But would you take advice from someone who has never designed or constructed a bridge but has read all the books about the correct way to do it?
@@yourbandisabusiness Yes I certainly might if I thought they knew what they were talking about.
What about the left/right brain dichotomy? Math(logic and theory, basically) and matters of the heart lie in different hemispheres of the brain.
Apollo/Dionysius.
I think the root of the discussion is an ancient argument and spans all art forms.
“We artists are tightrope walkers over the void and our critics are shaking the rope.”
-Cocteau, “Diary of an Unknown”
Perhaps but I wonder if this is a real dichotomy or something that our culture believes too unquestioningly. Renaissance artists were not shy of using science and technology to create their art.
@@yourbandisabusiness we all have both sides and they work with each other. I don’t think it’s so cut and dry.
Myself, I study, but when I improv, I consciously try to not think about it and let that logical knowledge come through the unconscious discovery of a musical idea.
Whether intentional or not, I think every artist has to go through this.
There were Orphean cults that revered him as the first artist.
He went into the underworld (the unconscience) to retrieve his love, Eurydice (the work of art) and when he resurfaced with her, she was no longer his (the work belonging to the rest of the world).
It’s not a mistake that Gluck, Haydn, Offenbach, Stravinsky, Fauré and many others retold the story.
@@matthewlafountain3018 Perhaps it's useful as many maps often are. But it's still a story.
Lithium is absolutely in a key, lol Sure it goes off the rails on flat 6 & 7 as did the Beatles. What makes it strange is the order of the chords in the progression is disorienting. Theory helps us to understand the world of music around us. It might help in writing when you get stuck but that's a left brain activity. While the creative part is left to the right brain:) Pun intended!
Nirvana Lithium
D F#m Bm G
Bb C A C
I iii vi IV
bVI bVII V bVII
saying kurt cant jam with people is crazy lmao
I can 100% guarantee you that he would not be able to jam on a single jazz standard in any meaningful way.
Strictly speaking kurt definitely cannot jam with anyone aside from God
@@MrAdravix More likely the other guy downstairs.
@@axeman2638I couldn’t think of anything worse than Kurt playing jazz. Imagine a talented jazz musician jamming along to Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol Flow Through The Strip. 🤮
@@mbg4041 listening to him play Nirvana is plenty bad enough for me.
Music is win is cancer.
What makes you say that? He seems like a decent guy.
Yes well calling Cobain a musician is like calling McDonalds food, it sort of resembles it bit it's poison not nutrition.
That's overly negative IMO. I think he was great.
@@yourbandisabusiness says more about you than him I'm afraid.
@@axeman2638 That I like good music?
@@yourbandisabusiness And you probably eat MacDonalds as well.
And think it's food.
@@axeman2638 No I don't eat McDonalds. You are being rude and childish.
Nirvana are one of the main reasons for the decline of musical quality since the 90s.
Stupid depressing mentally and physically toxic noise.
I don't think he is to blame but I do think too many people take the "anti-craft" angle too far.
@@yourbandisabusiness Not him, the owners of the business that his music happened to align with the agenda of at the time.
Having a guy from Berklee on your team can be crucial, like Charlie Puth: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Puth