|
Post by socrates on Sept 17, 2017 18:02:42 GMT
Maybe a separate thread or area for purely theoretical discussion, instead of having it all through various other threads. What do you think? Maybe a lot of people could contribute who already have clearer ideas for such a group of threads(?)
|
|
|
Post by David Unger on Sept 17, 2017 18:11:23 GMT
I think that could be a good idea.
There is a lot to learn from discussing purely theoretical questions and that could benefit us all.
And of course it can also serve as a place to ask very direct questions about everything from slurring string bowings to jazz harmony.
I am for it.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Sept 17, 2017 19:03:29 GMT
Great idea Socrates and may I say I'm glad you are here.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Sept 17, 2017 20:49:34 GMT
OK, but how does this differ from the "How do I.." board?
|
|
|
Post by David Unger on Sept 17, 2017 21:05:15 GMT
OK, but how does this differ from the "How do I.." board? I'd say that "How do I...?" is more about asking for help and a theoretical thread more about discussing things where the participants discuss things they have knowledge about. More of a place to deepen than to achieve knowledge if you will.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Sept 17, 2017 21:57:41 GMT
My thought there is that even purely theoretical discussion will have some crossover in the various resources and techniques categories, and we'd get duplication or loss of information as a result. I can reshuffle those categories, but it seems like a lot of this would have a home in "Orchestration resources" or something. Still, please continue discussing it and we'll see what rises to the surface. Maybe a separate thread or area for purely theoretical discussion, instead of having it all through various other threads. What do you think? Maybe a lot of people could contribute who already have clearer ideas for such a group of threads(?)
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 17, 2017 23:29:53 GMT
the areas are bound to be overlapping, I think, whatever we do, but I was thinking that a question on orchestration for instance, is probably more technical, than a question on species counterpoint which I would take as more theoretical/compositional. But yes, let us discuss it further.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Sept 18, 2017 0:57:29 GMT
I feel a board with too may categories might be less inviting. How many is too many? Hard to say. But a question about orchestration has as much effect on composition as (and I had to look it up) species counterpoint. Although I don't recall it being called that when I went to school. What instruments can or can't do very much determines what I write. There are so many rules in "species counterpoint" that it is possible to "write" perfect music without ever having to be bothered listening to it. I guess I'm having a hard time separating "How do I write voice leading at a certain point?" from "How do I stack enough instruments (and what would they be) to get an epic sound. Both involve what notes go where, and why.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 18, 2017 1:24:20 GMT
Well, Bob, I did not mean to involve the artistic merits of species counterpoint (nor do I believe that it could have any as such in a wider sense), cause students hate it as much as some teachers of it, but still… I believe that it could be beneficial as a discipline, at least to disciplined minds, so questions arising from its tuition and manipulation towards achieving some kind of originality could be accommodated in a purely theoretical discussion which would be boring to people not interested otherwise. This is one example of a topic only, but there could be plenty of other topics of varied content and participation by people who want to raise questions, give answers, make expositions, reports etc.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Sept 18, 2017 3:42:43 GMT
The questions are fine. Any music topic is fair game. I didn't mean to sound otherwise. My point is that theory and practicality are often close bed-mates.
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Sept 18, 2017 4:20:29 GMT
Perhaps we should wait a bit to see what sorts of discussions crop up, before we decide on adding more sections to this forum. It's hard to predict what sections will be needed or what combination of sections will be best; something we think is an excellent idea may turn out to be rarely-used.
Since phpBB allows much more flexibility in moving things around, I think a better approach is to wait and see what comes up. If the general discussion board, for example, ends up with 50 threads on theoretical discussions, then that would be both evidence for creating a dedicated section for them, and also assurance that said section, once created, will actually be populated with useful information rather than just another mostly-empty room in virtual space.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Sept 19, 2017 16:57:04 GMT
With you there. The obviously popular and unpopular categories will float or sink in due time - I don't want to bloat things while we're still so few. Not against a theory thread by any means, it just needs careful placing Perhaps we should wait a bit to see what sorts of discussions crop up, before we decide on adding more sections to this forum. It's hard to predict what sections will be needed or what combination of sections will be best; something we think is an excellent idea may turn out to be rarely-used.
|
|