The fact that most musicians use 12edo at their instruments is based at math stuff. Obviously an extreme amount of people just go with what people selected (12edo) instead of counciously going for 12edo, but 12 is based at math.
Years from now when Anthony is on his death bed (in probably about 100 years because he's vegan) the last thing that he will say is... "I think I'm going to leave it at that."
@@Jesujej he is a melon with a cursory understanding of music theory at best. He doesn't discuss it because it's not in his wheelhouse. Take that and put it in a vlog for me
As a musician with a degree that is very well read on theory, I appreciate that you don't do in depth theory based reviews. It helps to just listen to a song for it's merits and not the nitty gritty. Thanks Antwaun Fantwaun you rock.
This is also why he doesn't like Cal Chuchesta, who is very well-versed in music theory. And unsurprisingly, Cal is a phenomenal and widely beloved musician. Meanwhile, Melon Boy makes crappy reviews and binge-eats vegan snacks. Stay in school, kids.
@@rixhlilswerve That's a bit ignorant, don't judge him by his fans he's overall a great musician and guitarist and clearly does what he enjoys, and his music is good imo, pop with something extra for musicians to enjoy and take away.
Because y'all don't wanna learn SHIT lol. When I was taking classical lessons, I had to work out of a music theory book (pretty much like homework). It was the worst experience, I didn't retain shit, didn't understand why I needed to learn it etc. I liked the practical side of music much more. But when I started taking jazz lessons, music theory became a part of the practical aspect, without me even realizing. I'd hear some cool notes in a solo or some strange chord that fell completely outside of the original harmonic progression of a song and would wonder "damn how tf does this guy know how to break the rules and play all these notes that fall outside the key signature but still make it sound tough" and this led to all these explanations on relative keys, modal interchange, tritone substitution, borrowed chords etc. Having a greater understanding of theory was just a byproduct of wanting to refine my practical skills, but I'm a better musician and LISTENER because of that understanding imo. Dynamic chord progressions are actually the first thing I subconsciously listen for when I listen to music which is why artists on different sides of the rap spectrum like Tyler and Travis have such distinct music. They don't be using boring ass chords and generic ass progressions. TLDR: music theory is not absolutely necessary but it can definitely expand your compositional abilities and appreciation for music.
music theory is absolutely interesting, no doubt. But i think its something thats more on the side of creating music or at least having an interest in the creation process of music. Being purely on a consumer side I think its totally valid to see and understand music as text, basically. What elements are speaking to you, how do the performers come across, what's the emotional tone and complexity, what stories are told? I think those are equally layered and interesting questions and probably are closer to the real listening experience a fan has when it comes to music. So it just makes sense to give this the most attention when reviewing music.
The context also matters too, which I think tends to be overlooked. You'd like some songs more if they're played in a club compared to if they're played on air, or on Spotify, or if listened to within the context of an album. It can completely change your appreciation of a song
@@JammuRecordsTV yup I agree with that. Music theory is definitely more useful/relevant if you're interested in creating music as opposed to only being a consumer of music. But knowing a few things about it definitely can't hurt too.
@@JammuRecordsTV weird how you portray "having an interest in how the stuff you listened to is created" as a niche thing, when it's this simple: "purely on a consumer side", you will enjoy stuff more if you can understand how it's created, why this or that is a nice (or a terrible!) detail, etc. a good music/movie/literary critic should know about and bring up theory on their reviews because it's part of the actual work. And everything else you're mentioning can be brought up too. It's not all or nothing, art is clearly not just theory but emotional resonance, storytelling, etc. It would be equally boring if someone did a review focusing solely on theory, because some good music isn't that complex musically!
I agree that most people consume music on an emotional level and not a music theory level. I will say though that if you have a decent understanding of music theory, then it can open an even greater appreciation for music from an emotional perspective aswell. Increasing your knowledge of it will help you value the experience a little bit more; at least that is what i have found in my experience and increasing my music theory knowledge. You'll really be able to understand where certain artists are taking inspiration from and seeing how other songs you like "relate" to what your currently listening to.
It can also backfire, honestly. Your ears get trained to pick up and question individual elements of a piece which can sometimes prevent you from absorbing the song as a whole and just engulfing yourself in the sounds.
@@AmRosary05 I agree, growing up I never understood music theory and I ended up leaving my music class simply because I got bad grades in theory 💀. But I’ve realised that it’s because I don’t really care about the so called ‘rules’ of music, it makes music boring and academic for me, I just…I make it, it sounds beautiful, it can sound like a swan swimming across a river, you can tell a beautiful story like in the four seasons for example (I grew up playing violin) without applying theory. Maybe I have some sort of music dyslexia though cause I can play violin, but I can’t read notes, like FACE, can’t apply it, it never sticks, I’ve always used fingerings. Yeah I can compose orchestral pieces but as soon as I’m given rules to stick to, the fun’s sucked out. It why I hate when people crap on pop music for being simple and easy despite not having to mix and master that music in a DAW, or even when classical musicians scoff at pop music in general. I understand scoffing at it when you have to play it because it IS simpler than classical, it IS way easier than classical, but when it is made in a DAW the difficulty of composition is much higher. When pop music is re-composed for a band for concert purposes, yes it it simplified, ofcourse it is, if it were not simplified and concerts employed violinists and flutists and trombones to play all of the little intricacies in the pop music, there’s be an entirely different dialogue surrounding this, but in our time people enjoy instrumental simplicity live, that’s just how it is. I just don’t agree with anyone using simplified versions of a genre to judge the difficulty of the entire genre. All of my friends in the music department growing up said pop music was easy as fuck to play, but they still listened to it and loved it, honestly, barely listened to classical outside of classes. So it’s okay to scoff at something which is obviously easy because it’s been simplified, or because it is easier to play than classical, but when listening, pop music and classical music are equal in terms of difficulty of composition because of the current required methods of composition. Uh…when it comes pop artists who use loops and samples as a crutch and as a basis for all of their songs, I do agree that that is much easier than both genres previously mentioned, it’s it’s down genre of pop, loop pop? Idk what to call it. Damn this rant was long and probably didn’t make much sense. Peace ☮️.
@@comradekirilov3483 why? Isn't it important in life to have fun? I think it's perfectly okay to just play guitar hero for fun instead of playing an instrument for fun.
tychopostma nah you're totally right people should have fun with whatever they want. As a guitarist I wish I had enough time to practice as they do, so I guess I'm just jealous
I hung out in the metal scene in my town growing up. The a-level music students amongst them could take the most viscerally intense or sonicly interesting material sound absolutely frigid with a word salad about pentatonic scales, etc, etc but would get visibly uncomfortable if you mentioned any emotional or aesthetic response you had to something.
I think Anthony said it best when he said he focuses on overall aesthetic. That's what everyone gets from music anyways, regardless of their depth of understanding of music, so I think it's arguably the most important thing to discuss. I also often find that Anthony offers a pretty rich cultural and historical perspective, so it's not as if Anthony doesn't have any deeper information in his reviews.
I agree with your music theory takes melon, but referring to Kendrick Lamar's "Wesley's Theory" as "The N word theory" was a bit much. At least lay off the hard R when you pronounce it.
I find music theory interesting and useful for figuring out why something has the impact that it does. One example for me is the chorus to 'Sunset in July' by 311. There is a part in the melody over a chord change that grabs my ear and I wanted to know why and music theory would explain what I was hearing. I guarantee 311 was not thinking about the theory when they wrote it, it just sounded good to them.
Dr. Melon, As a music major, I agree. When I make music, I care much more deeply about how a banger sounds as a whole thematic piece as opposed to an advanced chord progression works. Ultimately, that wankery is meaningless if you make a bland, emotionless piece. Other music composition majors seem to agree: there is no purpose to have intricate progressions if doesn't translate into an emotional affect. Best, The guy that thinks you shouldn't have called all white people "mayo custards"
as a music student years into my education, I'd say the best comparison between music and music theory that I think most people can get is poetry vs linguistics. you can use linguistics to explain why poetry is good or bad, or at least try, but ultimately you can do whatever the fuck you want, and if it's appealing to people, it's appealing. My composition teacher always put focus on something catchy and recognizeable (Rihanna's "Umbrella-ella-ella-eh-eh-eh" is the example I remember most clearly) over competent song structure. Both are preferable, but unless you're writing music for music geeks, theory should just be a guideline, not a must-do checklist.
I have definitely found myself a bit more appreciative of some trap songs due to my music theory learning. Its definitely not needed but for someone like me, who at times can be very narrow in some of my music choices, it really helps to open myself up.
Honestly that intro jingle was good, maybe one of the best I've heard. Strong trap influence, rubbery bass line, electric simmering hi-hats. I'm feeling a light 9 to a 10 on that beat.
I definitely agree with this. I understand music theory pretty well but it doesn’t really help to determine if the music is good or not. It can be interesting in understanding why the music invokes the feelings that it does, but it’s not integral to a review.
Music theory is probably not interesting to most people who listen to music. It's not even interesting to everyone who PLAYS music, so it's totally reasonable to completely ignore that aspect of it. Rick Beato has a series where he breaks down many well-known songs and why he thinks they're good based on music theory, which is very interesting to me and others, but I can see how it would go over most people's heads as just not relevant or important. It's just a way to explain how certain sounds are achieved and perhaps can enrich your explanations, but not really necessary in explaining how music feels. As far as the point of your reviews, I disagree with how you visualize them. That might sound weird, but here's what I mean. You're not providing a service comparable to car reviews or product reviews. Music, much like film and other entertainment is almost entirely subjective. Technology and items meant for utility like cell-phones, computers, cars, and other gadgets can be judged based on many objective criteria. Entertainment has very little objectivity involved in evaluation of its merits. A lot of it comes down to taste and preference which is why you can have people who are into noise rock and people who hear absolutely nothing but random noise. There's nothing objective about why you find Nirvana enjoyable and why other people don't. You can try to reach some sort of faux-objectivity with art when it comes to technique and presentation, but at the end of the day, if someone finds it enjoyable, there's really nothing you could say to change their mind. It's just an opinion. Now, that doesn't mean that every opinion is equally valid. Opinions need to be justified by good reasons and what you try to do with your reviews is to provide consistent reasons for why you find something to be "good" or "bad." This just means that you have a standard by which you view what is enjoyable or not enjoyable and you can apply that standard consistently. So if you say that repetitive lyrics are bad and then praise a song for repetitive lyrics, it would be inconsistent and would devalue your opinion. Reviewing cars or tech is not the same at all. Cars, for example, have many criteria by which you can judge whether a particular car is better than another particular car. For example, safety, top speed, curb weight, 0-60 acceleration time, fuel economy, weight distribution, tech features, etc etc. Consumers can then make informed decisions based on what they value the most. In most situations, it's a matter of price point and desire. Rarely will two cars be priced the same, yet one will have much better features. You'll have to make a compromise somewhere. An easy example is a sports car versus an SUV. They may be priced the same, but one has much more room and can carry more people, yet it's slower. So you have to decide what fits your lifestyle better. Plus you have factors like brand name, colour, and design, which are all subjective factors that are up to preference of the consumer. Art is just not like that at all. You can't make "an informed decision' based on a movie review, music review, or game review. It's very hard to predict whether you'll enjoy a song, or a movie, or a book without actually experiencing it. Perhaps you can find someone who's personal tastes align very closely to yours and that way you can trust that their opinion will be reflective of your opinion. But at the end of the day, art reviews are just people trying to find meaning and make sense of the art they're reviewing. It's an opinion and it's not objective.
Technique and presentation are absolutely paramount in art. Poor technique and presentation will detract from the overall meaning. A person may find enjoyment in a work which is objectively bad. However, the work cannot become good just because one feels it is good. You do see handwaving of objective bad in a lot of situations where one connects emotionally to the thing. It can be cars or whatever but most recognizable is art and often the feelings experienced trump all objectivity.
Happy New Year, Anthony. I hope you have a great 2019. Also, thank you for all of the great content that you have created in 2018. You deserve everything that you have today and more. I look forward to seeing your continued growth and success this year and for many new years to come.
I always just assumed he just didn’t know music theory tbh Personally I mostly care about chords like if it’s a simple ass I IV V Progression without any 7ths I’m kinda bored but idgaf about crazy time signatures, counterpoint or microtonal tuning.
I worked at a 60's themed diner a few months when I was like 16 and they had a jukebox of old music, and that's where I learned that literally 80% of all the pop music from AT LEAST 1950 to 1970 where I IV V songs. It also made me hate them.
I think that in today's world of remix culture, a lot of "music theory" is often detached from the actual theoretical components and more attached to the cultural significance of the choices being made. I think things like complicated chord progressions and time signature changes are still appreciated but when it comes down to what most people will "get" out of it, if you're making something more esoteric that most people don't even have context for, they'll mostly be getting their base associations with the concept of it. It can still be an effective tool but I feel like when you really get into the weeds of it, it really is more about function as you said. I think that even as a musician it is a very easy slippery slope to fall into acting like you know more about stuff than other people. Certainly there is objective knowledge to be had about music theory, but acting like your utilization of it is really objectively any better as it falls on other people's is pretty presumptuous and arrogant imo.
What? Please try to explain this to someone who actually composes and writes sheet music. Because most people who use music theory.....know music theory. This is showing your lack of knowledge man.
@@JohnDoeTheGoodGuy the Beatles, Phil Elverum, tons of different kinds of folk music and folk artists, Daniel Johnston, Outsider music, Pharrell Williams, tons of normal everyday working musicians, etc
As a musician and a music theory nerd, I agree with this 100%. It all depends on how the theory affects the musical experience. I’d take 3 chord punk songs over unnecessarily complicated and technical math rock songs.
Jacob Collier discography is proof music theory technicality doesn't make it a good song. Rick Beato is also used music theory way too much as a pretentious writing standard rules (in reality there's no rules in music theory)
I think music theory certainly helps when making music or listening to music critically, but I don't think music theory is inherently important in a review, since it is more of a framework and not a rubric.
That's a harmfully misleading description of music theory; music theory is more like a toolbox in most cases. Music theory is about looking at the body of music and music practices which exist, and trying to describe them, sort of like how a good class in social studies might help you be better informed about politics, but doesn't prescribe to you what your politics should be.
@@michaeldrane9090 All I meant was that music theory teaches people "why" things sound the way they do. Whereas Fantano just tells you what things sound like and if he thinks it's bad or not.
You can use your music theory knowledge to point out the things in the songs that you like/don't like. This way your opinion kind of has more value. For example if you just say "this song sucks" without providing any explanation to why you think it sucks, other than you just didn't like it, your opinion doesn't really tell me anything about the music. But if you say "the song has a repetitive structure and the two-bar chord progression is repeated throughout the song, there isn't much variation in the dynamics and registers used in the song and the instrumentation stays basically the same all the time", this tells a lot more about the piece of music, and it is music theory, even though it doesn't talk about the specific chords used in the song or the key the song is in or the specific time signature or anything like that.
i think it'd be interesting for you to explore the theory to some reviews as, well, music speaks enough emotion in itself! it'd be refreshing to consider the choices of musicians when it comes to music and how that relates strongly to the message of a song, along with the general aesthetic/musical vibe.
I would rather take a nap than anything Migos-related, thank you. Suggestion: make a yearly long podcast with the channel Sideways. Conceptually ~ "this year of music theory in music, movies and games".
Adam Neely even does a video on so called "Berkeley Funk" which is the super theory heavy "wankery" that a lot of Berkeley students end up composing and performing at the school and immediately after graduation. Yeah, it's technically and theoretically impressive, but it's largely soulless and forgettable.
@@paulferguson1074 their opinions are meaningful, just not to you. And that’s fine, different strokes for different folk. There’s no objectively meaningful, because meaning is derived from its observers/the audience. What’s meaningful to one isn’t to another
Also, why does great-good rock music never have a chance on many end of the year lists? Tyranny in 2014 and Virtue from this year made barely any lists. But Pop music and rap is on every list. I like pop music, but many of the lists seem to miss the best kind.
@@captainathens It's cause that's what's popular. I love Rock, but the genre as a whole is just not popular nowadays. There's no point taking the time to look for a good rock album and review it when no one will have heard of it or care for it. Besides, chances are if you're willing to delve deep into the underground rock scene, music reviews aren't necessary for you.
Anthony is pretty good at balancing genre reviews, considering he is only one person. Other music sites, like Pitchfork, have developed a poptimist bias and rarely acknowledge important rock albums.
It would be unironically hilarious if Melon was like: 'You see, this use of the Phrygian dominant scale in the bass line (i saw what you did there) by Travis Scott with a swung triplet beat is a great example of rythmic and melodic variation in the lower end of the track. Or some shit like that
Music theory is just the language a composer or producer would use to explain to someone else EXACTLY how to play their track on paper. Music theory is deeper than this obviously but it is NOT necessary to have ANY understanding of music theory to make, play, or enjoy music. Music theory is really interesting, and great for composition, but never needed. All you need is ears.
Music is emotional, and very subjectif (to me)aha.. but like life it self, people enjoy different aspect of the duality at different time, everyone have a different approach to it and thats why its interesting.. cool video fantano, keep them up
You don't need to know the theory to be able to critique something. You don't need to know all the painting techniques to critique a painting. You don't need to know how to operate a sophisticated camera to know a nice piece of photography. You don't need to know how to direct or write a movie to see that it's not good. Music is the same way.
i love all music on the inside The critique that’s been made by an experienced /knowledgeable person has more weight and importance than a greenhorn’s does.
You should mention some jazz albums on your classic albums. Coltrane's Ascension, Ayler's Spiritual Unity, Dolphy's Out To Lunch, Hancock's Maiden Voyage or Monk's Music perhaps?
In this scenario, the chef is more knowledgable about food than the random guy saying what he likes/doesn't like. Just like a musician with a vast knowledge of theory is more knowledgable about music than Fantano and the majority of his fanbase.
As a fan for a decent time now, I never really wanted you to explain music theory, but if you could go down the lies like music/polyphonic road of video essay, I think you'll kill at that. You already usually have a quick macro assignment of the artist's catalog and circumstances of their new release. You could do one on death grips as a prep to your inevitable 33/3 book on them.
I honestly hate music theory snobs. If you learned it, use it, and enjoy it. If someone could legit benefit from learning it, then put them on it. If they're doing fine without it, they're probably not gonna start any time soon. It doesn't make you a genius, nor does it mean you'll be successful, just because you know theory, lol. But I can agree that it definitely helps you dive deeper into enjoying music even further.
I am a guitarist. Paul Gilbert videos are good for music theory, although he doesn't bog down the entire video with it. He shows how you can use it practically in your chord progressions, scales, and arpeggios in a song. He makes it fun. Great guitarist and great teacher.
I think that there are certain elements of music theory that are a very relevant talking point, when it comes to reviewing tracks that have a main focus on instrumentals as opposed to lyrics for example. As, Music theory plays a massive part in how the listener is moved emotionally: E.G cadences, and the way the artist manipulates certain scales ETC.
I certainly think you gain a better appreciation of artists you already enjoy and get exposed to artists you would not have found otherwise, but in general quality of music, music theory isn't too important. Even in very technique and theory driven genres like jazz I don't think it is too important to understand theory to enjoy the music. I find music theory to be a very personal tool in exploring music for listeners and musicians, but not very important in describing whether music is good or bad.
I imagine the functional/emotional structure is the point i.e. the thing theory is trying to describe. Theoretical complexity imo has no bearing my enjoying a track, but I can definitely appreciate subtlety in a song. Rick Beato is the best for illuminating certain subtleties e.g. when it's been orchestrated such that proportionally few instruments are given the mediant in a chord while the overwhelming majority are given the tonic, the use of whole-tone and other strange scales or devices in your household pop or rock, which I guarantee you'll notice whether or not you're theoretically-illiterate, etc. Theories relevance for you (and I see Adam do this also) might look something like showing alternate orchestrations or chord progressions that don't work in the track, or just pointing out if something like a modulation is far to jarring to be inserted where it is, and potentially finding motific material which can be used to lead into it, or where a bridge may need to be inserted, and so on. Not to suggest you're obligated to talk theory or know it to the depth that this whole paragraph demands, but it's utility for reviewing songs (especially constructively) can't be overstated.
As a theory this pretty much what i figured you'd say and i fully agree. When i want music appreciation with way more theory geekery, I watch Rick Beato. But that's definitely not of interest to most non-musicians, and even as a lifelong musician i really dig getting the perspective of another musician without all the deep analysis. There's plenty of great channels for that when we want it.
Its absolutely not vital to dive deep into music theory when reviewing music, but it can be very interesting if you really want to know how music is created. Someone like Rick Beato does a great job in explaining in great detail how a song is made (keys, rhythms, recording, intervals, melody, harmony etc.). Imo 'music theory' doesn't provide a good way to review music though, its more suitable for analysis. I always find it silly to read comments about how complex music is somehow 'better' than simple music. That is not how I enjoy music. So in my opinion you are doing a great job. The emotional aspect (how does this music make me feel?, do I like it or not?) is much important when doing a review.
I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. The majority of people in general don't really have a deeper understanding of music theory. Myself included.
he still sorta does music theory, just not "classical" music theory. saying something like "the luscious pads give an ethereal feeling" is sort of explaining what the purpose of that synth was to give to the song to make it feel the way it feels. thats sort of theoretical, just not in the "usual" way. the actual "theory" is that the long attack, decay, reverb, chorus, stereo imaging etc creates the "pad" sound that gives that ethereal vibe. probably a useless ramble but thats how i think about it.
@@stargazersmusic1505 I think it depends on what instrument you play too, you need 0 music theory knowledge if you play guitar but with piano you need a basic understanding.
@@fkeyzuwu thats not really what music theory is dude. i really don't want to come off as elitist cuz i understand some people don't care about it but don't go on with this kind of subjective shit, using your 5 senses to metaphorically explain how a texture or song makes you feel has nothing to do with theory. That's not nearly as useful to a musician as, lets say "this is a I-IV-V7 in G".
I think that traditional music theory can help explain how some elements of music affect us, so to me it's worth understanding in that sense. Music is also about aesthetics though, so it can be viewed from a sound design perspective (how sounds are combined and arranged to obtain a certain effect or soundscape). However, in the end, you could still think of sound design and sound aesthetic as subproducts of certain elements of music theory. After all, music theory really covers essentially everything, from things like monophonic pitches and pitch relations (consonance, dissonance) to how timbres and complex sounds are created and why they may be appealing to us. Music theory in my conception is descriptive, so it must be used as an analysis tool when paired with notions of subjective taste and judgment. Even if our subjective tastes and our understandings of musical elements tend to overlap in many ways (how people will tend to consider many forms of V-I cadence an element of "resolution"), our emotional backgrounds, listening perspectives, contexts and several other factors will still impact how we appreciate the overall experience of a certain musical aesthetic. The subjective aspects of different musical elements can be stripped down and analysed to describe a "musical common sense" (like the V-I cadence, or why a certain chord sounds the way it does, etc) but in the end it's not a guarantee that all listeners will feel the same way as the common sense dictates, especially if you are evaluating nuanced and complex compositions. In that sense, it is indeed very useful to talk about how elements of an overall soundscape make us feel as individual listeners, and that can indeed be done without many mentions to "formal" music theory if you want to. You could say, however, that you are still indirectly referring to aspects of theory if you consider it the same way I do. So in my view, referring to it directly can also help to dissect our listening experience.
Gotta know dem maths, bro. Nah, i hear ya. Excellent shout out to Adam-- Adam is awesome and he has a great channel. Happy Nu Year, Sr. Fantano, you still rockin!
And some Huang? Excellent! Kids, you want some more theory: check out Rick Beato, Ben Levin and the fantastic Jake Lizzio (um, very guitar-centric maybe).
People make a distinction between the emotional core of a song and the technical, theoretical aspect of the music. I belive them to be one in the same and not much different from each other.
Yeah whenever I talk about music with people it's mostly about the emotions. The only theory that really comes into discussion is the chord progressions, since that has such a huge effect on the overall emotion of a song.
I feel that you can compare this to the analogy of judging a speech or book. Fantano, critiques musical works broadly looking at the contents emotions, timbre, themes etc which you may also pull from a book/literature and how this may be successfull or not. Where music theory in this literature anology can then be seen as the devices like metaphors, word choices where technical and deeper concepts in literature that requires a competent knowledge of language are required. To many, in a review of literature, people wouldnt be too concerned about these minute details as is it the broader picture and story that standouts to a reader. This is clearly the same case in reviewing music.
Music Theory outlines the emotional language of music. It is a set of tools to help us understand and articulate why certain sounds make us feel the way they do. The idea that music vocabulary (a better word than theory) would somehow impede listening "emotionally" is a misconception. I encourage you to deepen your understanding of theory. I believe you will be able to listen in greater detail as the tools become reflexive and it will aid you in better articulating your own opinions. You may even be able to help your listeners understand more about why the love or hate what they're hearing. That would be a beautiful thing. ❤️
Reviewing and analysis are two separate activities and, in my mind, they make sense that way. A review can tell me IF something is good, an analysis can tell me WHY something is good, and I don’t need either one to do the other’s job.
Awwww
Very well put!
Adam. I'm an Atheist and I still think you're a godsend.
Love your videos man. A lot of it goes way beyond what I apply to my own playing, but it's well-explained and fascinating.
When we gonna get a bass jam between both melons
What are you talkin about, man?! "Everything is just major and minor" -Victor Wooten xD
we get it melly ur a pac man main
Its the Vaporwave man!
Bet he thinks Pac is SS Tier
I'm glad u don't talk about music theory
Ikr the guy is obsessed with pacman
@@ThatFuzz lol
imagine using algebra to make songs
this post was made by the click everywhere in FL Studio gang
YyoviviaenCallaoyRioja
PS: Nice memed
The fact that most musicians use 12edo at their instruments is based at math stuff.
Obviously an extreme amount of people just go with what people selected (12edo) instead of counciously going for 12edo, but 12 is based at math.
Entrecallaoysantafe I use it all the time. Metric modulations go insane
I still do this, but now I do chromatic notes.
That's what us intellectuals call e-jazz
Years from now when Anthony is on his death bed (in probably about 100 years because he's vegan) the last thing that he will say is...
"I think I'm going to leave it at that."
Best comment lol
or he'll say "tran-" and promptly die
IKiIledDeath And is immediately reborn into the next life as a newly born child, whose first word is “-sition”
What about the rating though?
@@dailygrind28 light to decent 7 of course, like everything else he reviews
When a melon knows music theory😍
The point is he does not understand music theory though.
@@979259 didn't dropout like a melon
congratz bud now make a vlog about it
@@Jesujej he is a melon with a cursory understanding of music theory at best. He doesn't discuss it because it's not in his wheelhouse. Take that and put it in a vlog for me
When a music knows melon theory
@@979259 ok thanks
This is the very first video that appears in my screen when I search for "Fantano reviews Jacob Collier".
Same, I wish someone big did a review on him
Legit how I got here lol
Same haha
@@radalox after hearing this I think he wouldn’t care for it that much
Same. Interesting that he seems to completely ignore Jacob, even though he’s got such a big fanbase and is so present on YT (and has won grammys etc.)
Little Pump utilizes only the most advanced of musical theories 🧐
Jacob Collier is just a lil pump wannabe
“ pop 4 zans now I’m feeling like a hero ( Superman! ) “ - Ghandi moments after writing the Bible
**Lillian Pumpernickel
>Little Pump
ft. Adam Neely? 🤔
Mediocre Sophistication melon crossover
Mediocre Sophistication please
pLEASE?
@@IFeelSoTongueTied bass man bad
Just look at Adam Neely when you want a good review. When you want 'meme review' for music, you got ... fatno.
When's that Neely Bass collab coming dawg?
It better be soon lol
Melon and Davie504
need to collab.
Neely Melon
i didnt know i needed this until now
@@rupe82 Lmao that too fosho
Heavy breathing from adam neely and rick beato
Rick beato is daddy af
Sideways is also LIT🔥
Also check out 8-bit Music Theory and 12tone
*Aimee Nolte skateboarding intensifies*
@@intelligentshitpastinginc 8bit music theory for life
As a musician with a degree that is very well read on theory, I appreciate that you don't do in depth theory based reviews. It helps to just listen to a song for it's merits and not the nitty gritty. Thanks Antwaun Fantwaun you rock.
*Antanio Fantono
*its
TL:DW he doesn't want to be reminded of it because he doesn't understand it, he failed music school then dropped out and was the shame of his family.
This is also why he doesn't like Cal Chuchesta, who is very well-versed in music theory. And unsurprisingly, Cal is a phenomenal and widely beloved musician. Meanwhile, Melon Boy makes crappy reviews and binge-eats vegan snacks. Stay in school, kids.
k d mayer still sucks big timw
@@rixhlilswerve That's a bit ignorant, don't judge him by his fans he's overall a great musician and guitarist and clearly does what he enjoys, and his music is good imo, pop with something extra for musicians to enjoy and take away.
Lol this is so true it's honestly sad
This is a really long explanation for why you won't tell me the chords to "Santeria" by Sublime, Fantano...
Underrated comment💀
Very nice Anthony, but you didn't have to challenge Adam Neely to a weiner fight in your backyard
Austin Sirois yes he did
It's kinda hot, tbh.
This video has 0 references to Sicko Mode or Mo Bamba. Disliked.
No Playboi Carti analysis either
0/10
Mo Bamba has some interesting music theory behind it
I don't why, but I took this seriously for a split second LMAO
Dude doesn’t know music
Hey you! You wanna listen to Sicko Mode or Mo Bamba?
Because y'all don't wanna learn SHIT lol. When I was taking classical lessons, I had to work out of a music theory book (pretty much like homework). It was the worst experience, I didn't retain shit, didn't understand why I needed to learn it etc. I liked the practical side of music much more.
But when I started taking jazz lessons, music theory became a part of the practical aspect, without me even realizing. I'd hear some cool notes in a solo or some strange chord that fell completely outside of the original harmonic progression of a song and would wonder "damn how tf does this guy know how to break the rules and play all these notes that fall outside the key signature but still make it sound tough" and this led to all these explanations on relative keys, modal interchange, tritone substitution, borrowed chords etc. Having a greater understanding of theory was just a byproduct of wanting to refine my practical skills, but I'm a better musician and LISTENER because of that understanding imo. Dynamic chord progressions are actually the first thing I subconsciously listen for when I listen to music which is why artists on different sides of the rap spectrum like Tyler and Travis have such distinct music. They don't be using boring ass chords and generic ass progressions.
TLDR: music theory is not absolutely necessary but it can definitely expand your compositional abilities and appreciation for music.
music theory is absolutely interesting, no doubt. But i think its something thats more on the side of creating music or at least having an interest in the creation process of music. Being purely on a consumer side I think its totally valid to see and understand music as text, basically. What elements are speaking to you, how do the performers come across, what's the emotional tone and complexity, what stories are told? I think those are equally layered and interesting questions and probably are closer to the real listening experience a fan has when it comes to music. So it just makes sense to give this the most attention when reviewing music.
The context also matters too, which I think tends to be overlooked. You'd like some songs more if they're played in a club compared to if they're played on air, or on Spotify, or if listened to within the context of an album. It can completely change your appreciation of a song
@@JammuRecordsTV yup I agree with that. Music theory is definitely more useful/relevant if you're interested in creating music as opposed to only being a consumer of music. But knowing a few things about it definitely can't hurt too.
Couldn't have said it better.
@@JammuRecordsTV weird how you portray "having an interest in how the stuff you listened to is created" as a niche thing, when it's this simple: "purely on a consumer side", you will enjoy stuff more if you can understand how it's created, why this or that is a nice (or a terrible!) detail, etc. a good music/movie/literary critic should know about and bring up theory on their reviews because it's part of the actual work. And everything else you're mentioning can be brought up too. It's not all or nothing, art is clearly not just theory but emotional resonance, storytelling, etc. It would be equally boring if someone did a review focusing solely on theory, because some good music isn't that complex musically!
I agree that most people consume music on an emotional level and not a music theory level. I will say though that if you have a decent understanding of music theory, then it can open an even greater appreciation for music from an emotional perspective aswell. Increasing your knowledge of it will help you value the experience a little bit more; at least that is what i have found in my experience and increasing my music theory knowledge. You'll really be able to understand where certain artists are taking inspiration from and seeing how other songs you like "relate" to what your currently listening to.
It can also backfire, honestly. Your ears get trained to pick up and question individual elements of a piece which can sometimes prevent you from absorbing the song as a whole and just engulfing yourself in the sounds.
@@AmRosary05 I agree, growing up I never understood music theory and I ended up leaving my music class simply because I got bad grades in theory 💀. But I’ve realised that it’s because I don’t really care about the so called ‘rules’ of music, it makes music boring and academic for me, I just…I make it, it sounds beautiful, it can sound like a swan swimming across a river, you can tell a beautiful story like in the four seasons for example (I grew up playing violin) without applying theory. Maybe I have some sort of music dyslexia though cause I can play violin, but I can’t read notes, like FACE, can’t apply it, it never sticks, I’ve always used fingerings. Yeah I can compose orchestral pieces but as soon as I’m given rules to stick to, the fun’s sucked out. It why I hate when people crap on pop music for being simple and easy despite not having to mix and master that music in a DAW, or even when classical musicians scoff at pop music in general. I understand scoffing at it when you have to play it because it IS simpler than classical, it IS way easier than classical, but when it is made in a DAW the difficulty of composition is much higher. When pop music is re-composed for a band for concert purposes, yes it it simplified, ofcourse it is, if it were not simplified and concerts employed violinists and flutists and trombones to play all of the little intricacies in the pop music, there’s be an entirely different dialogue surrounding this, but in our time people enjoy instrumental simplicity live, that’s just how it is. I just don’t agree with anyone using simplified versions of a genre to judge the difficulty of the entire genre. All of my friends in the music department growing up said pop music was easy as fuck to play, but they still listened to it and loved it, honestly, barely listened to classical outside of classes. So it’s okay to scoff at something which is obviously easy because it’s been simplified, or because it is easier to play than classical, but when listening, pop music and classical music are equal in terms of difficulty of composition because of the current required methods of composition. Uh…when it comes pop artists who use loops and samples as a crutch and as a basis for all of their songs, I do agree that that is much easier than both genres previously mentioned, it’s it’s down genre of pop, loop pop? Idk what to call it. Damn this rant was long and probably didn’t make much sense. Peace ☮️.
Acai did a guitar hero 100% of your MBDTF review melon
Skooty Hotsauce guitar hero players should make music instead
MoltenSword - The Space Ace there’s already enough music out there
he retweeted it
@@comradekirilov3483 why? Isn't it important in life to have fun? I think it's perfectly okay to just play guitar hero for fun instead of playing an instrument for fun.
tychopostma nah you're totally right people should have fun with whatever they want. As a guitarist I wish I had enough time to practice as they do, so I guess I'm just jealous
You have 3 hours to post a video of you playing the Seinfeld theme on your bass.
bruh
bruh
lmao bruh
lmao bruh
Lmfao bruh
We need an Adam/Melon collaboration soon
Also nice PAC shirt
P.A.C.S.
🅱️andersnatch
When it looks like melon isn’t wearing a cap but actually has a luscious Elvis style hair cut Hahahaha.
I hung out in the metal scene in my town growing up. The a-level music students amongst them could take the most viscerally intense or sonicly interesting material sound absolutely frigid with a word salad about pentatonic scales, etc, etc but would get visibly uncomfortable if you mentioned any emotional or aesthetic response you had to something.
But hey, that’s just a theory
*a music theory*
TCARTR // TheDrumaddictTWO aha
Wow. THIS is epic
Aaaaaaaand cut!
Thanks for Unsubscribing!
What a story Mark
Adam Neely wants to know your location
Edit: to give you a high five of course
link pls
I think Anthony said it best when he said he focuses on overall aesthetic. That's what everyone gets from music anyways, regardless of their depth of understanding of music, so I think it's arguably the most important thing to discuss. I also often find that Anthony offers a pretty rich cultural and historical perspective, so it's not as if Anthony doesn't have any deeper information in his reviews.
When you're a pac man main and you want to take it to the next level
program and control man
did u guys know that pacman was originally called pucman but they were afraid ppl would scratch off part of the p and make it an f?
@@RetroAP yes nerd
i thought he was pac man
I agree with your music theory takes melon, but referring to Kendrick Lamar's "Wesley's Theory" as "The N word theory" was a bit much. At least lay off the hard R when you pronounce it.
mjgardner33 I enjoyed the part where he showcased his parody “If my balls could talk”
mjgardner33 He even rolled that R. Making it even harder.
2019 around the corner, still with the same corny ass meme jokes from 2017.
LORDE OWS THE KING if it aint broke
Lol it’s funny because you said he was racist but then he wasn’t lmao
I find music theory interesting and useful for figuring out why something has the impact that it does. One example for me is the chorus to 'Sunset in July' by 311. There is a part in the melody over a chord change that grabs my ear and I wanted to know why and music theory would explain what I was hearing. I guarantee 311 was not thinking about the theory when they wrote it, it just sounded good to them.
Musicians need to watch this video! The same applies to gear that some musicians use and obsess over.
Dr. Melon,
As a music major, I agree. When I make music, I care much more deeply about how a banger sounds as a whole thematic piece as opposed to an advanced chord progression works. Ultimately, that wankery is meaningless if you make a bland, emotionless piece. Other music composition majors seem to agree: there is no purpose to have intricate progressions if doesn't translate into an emotional affect.
Best,
The guy that thinks you shouldn't have called all white people "mayo custards"
as a music student years into my education, I'd say the best comparison between music and music theory that I think most people can get is poetry vs linguistics. you can use linguistics to explain why poetry is good or bad, or at least try, but ultimately you can do whatever the fuck you want, and if it's appealing to people, it's appealing. My composition teacher always put focus on something catchy and recognizeable (Rihanna's "Umbrella-ella-ella-eh-eh-eh" is the example I remember most clearly) over competent song structure. Both are preferable, but unless you're writing music for music geeks, theory should just be a guideline, not a must-do checklist.
yeah but rihanna is wack and umbrella is overrated
Smudmoves Excellent analogy!
@@LfunkeyA literally not even a little relevant to my point but ok
@@Sorgenfri0 true, but gotta troll. also, my point is valid too.
Pff,except liguistics is not for jugding poetry.
I have definitely found myself a bit more appreciative of some trap songs due to my music theory learning.
Its definitely not needed but for someone like me, who at times can be very narrow in some of my music choices, it really helps to open myself up.
Honestly that intro jingle was good, maybe one of the best I've heard. Strong trap influence, rubbery bass line, electric simmering hi-hats. I'm feeling a light 9 to a 10 on that beat.
i personally love learning music theory, but the antiquated language and esoteric ways of thinking i think would put a lot of people off
I definitely agree with this. I understand music theory pretty well but it doesn’t really help to determine if the music is good or not. It can be interesting in understanding why the music invokes the feelings that it does, but it’s not integral to a review.
Fantano is wearing the Rich Evans Pac-Man shirt!
Shoutout RedLetterMedia
Is Fantano going to replace Rich?
Sercan Yelen is Rich going to replace Fantano?
Music theory is probably not interesting to most people who listen to music. It's not even interesting to everyone who PLAYS music, so it's totally reasonable to completely ignore that aspect of it. Rick Beato has a series where he breaks down many well-known songs and why he thinks they're good based on music theory, which is very interesting to me and others, but I can see how it would go over most people's heads as just not relevant or important. It's just a way to explain how certain sounds are achieved and perhaps can enrich your explanations, but not really necessary in explaining how music feels.
As far as the point of your reviews, I disagree with how you visualize them. That might sound weird, but here's what I mean. You're not providing a service comparable to car reviews or product reviews. Music, much like film and other entertainment is almost entirely subjective. Technology and items meant for utility like cell-phones, computers, cars, and other gadgets can be judged based on many objective criteria. Entertainment has very little objectivity involved in evaluation of its merits. A lot of it comes down to taste and preference which is why you can have people who are into noise rock and people who hear absolutely nothing but random noise. There's nothing objective about why you find Nirvana enjoyable and why other people don't. You can try to reach some sort of faux-objectivity with art when it comes to technique and presentation, but at the end of the day, if someone finds it enjoyable, there's really nothing you could say to change their mind. It's just an opinion.
Now, that doesn't mean that every opinion is equally valid. Opinions need to be justified by good reasons and what you try to do with your reviews is to provide consistent reasons for why you find something to be "good" or "bad." This just means that you have a standard by which you view what is enjoyable or not enjoyable and you can apply that standard consistently. So if you say that repetitive lyrics are bad and then praise a song for repetitive lyrics, it would be inconsistent and would devalue your opinion.
Reviewing cars or tech is not the same at all. Cars, for example, have many criteria by which you can judge whether a particular car is better than another particular car. For example, safety, top speed, curb weight, 0-60 acceleration time, fuel economy, weight distribution, tech features, etc etc. Consumers can then make informed decisions based on what they value the most. In most situations, it's a matter of price point and desire. Rarely will two cars be priced the same, yet one will have much better features. You'll have to make a compromise somewhere. An easy example is a sports car versus an SUV. They may be priced the same, but one has much more room and can carry more people, yet it's slower. So you have to decide what fits your lifestyle better. Plus you have factors like brand name, colour, and design, which are all subjective factors that are up to preference of the consumer.
Art is just not like that at all. You can't make "an informed decision' based on a movie review, music review, or game review. It's very hard to predict whether you'll enjoy a song, or a movie, or a book without actually experiencing it. Perhaps you can find someone who's personal tastes align very closely to yours and that way you can trust that their opinion will be reflective of your opinion. But at the end of the day, art reviews are just people trying to find meaning and make sense of the art they're reviewing. It's an opinion and it's not objective.
How long did this take you to type damn
FR FR on mah momma
Technique and presentation are absolutely paramount in art. Poor technique and presentation will detract from the overall meaning. A person may find enjoyment in a work which is objectively bad. However, the work cannot become good just because one feels it is good. You do see handwaving of objective bad in a lot of situations where one connects emotionally to the thing. It can be cars or whatever but most recognizable is art and often the feelings experienced trump all objectivity.
“Y’all know it’s just my opinion, right?”
This is a good comment, but i thought the racist rant about anthonys wife was a little out of place
Happy New Year, Anthony. I hope you have a great 2019. Also, thank you for all of the great content that you have created in 2018. You deserve everything that you have today and more. I look forward to seeing your continued growth and success this year and for many new years to come.
I always just assumed he just didn’t know music theory tbh
Personally I mostly care about chords like if it’s a simple ass I IV V Progression without any 7ths I’m kinda bored but idgaf about crazy time signatures, counterpoint or microtonal tuning.
ABSOLUTELY
I worked at a 60's themed diner a few months when I was like 16 and they had a jukebox of old music, and that's where I learned that literally 80% of all the pop music from AT LEAST 1950 to 1970 where I IV V songs. It also made me hate them.
melon theory
@@owen1686 I just want those thumbs bro
freaking love Adam Neely gosh dang man.
Marry him then, nerd
I think that in today's world of remix culture, a lot of "music theory" is often detached from the actual theoretical components and more attached to the cultural significance of the choices being made. I think things like complicated chord progressions and time signature changes are still appreciated but when it comes down to what most people will "get" out of it, if you're making something more esoteric that most people don't even have context for, they'll mostly be getting their base associations with the concept of it. It can still be an effective tool but I feel like when you really get into the weeds of it, it really is more about function as you said.
I think that even as a musician it is a very easy slippery slope to fall into acting like you know more about stuff than other people. Certainly there is objective knowledge to be had about music theory, but acting like your utilization of it is really objectively any better as it falls on other people's is pretty presumptuous and arrogant imo.
When it comes to Music Theory the people who cite it usually dont know much about it lol. It usually shows their lack of knowledge.
There are actual musicians out there who know nothing about music theory. They only know the practical side.
r/iamverysmart
To each their own. I'd say knowing about music theory definitely helps, but some people can make good music without knowing it in depth.
What? Please try to explain this to someone who actually composes and writes sheet music. Because most people who use music theory.....know music theory. This is showing your lack of knowledge man.
@@JohnDoeTheGoodGuy the Beatles, Phil Elverum, tons of different kinds of folk music and folk artists, Daniel Johnston, Outsider music, Pharrell Williams, tons of normal everyday working musicians, etc
As a musician and a music theory nerd, I agree with this 100%. It all depends on how the theory affects the musical experience. I’d take 3 chord punk songs over unnecessarily complicated and technical math rock songs.
Jacob Collier discography is proof music theory technicality doesn't make it a good song. Rick Beato is also used music theory way too much as a pretentious writing standard rules (in reality there's no rules in music theory)
I think music theory certainly helps when making music or listening to music critically, but I don't think music theory is inherently important in a review, since it is more of a framework and not a rubric.
Currently studying a master of music in composition and pretty much totally agree
Except that if asked I could probably write a thesis on lil pumps beats/modern trap composition
Reviewing music is "I like this, I don't like this" Music theory is "This is how you do this"
That's a harmfully misleading description of music theory; music theory is more like a toolbox in most cases. Music theory is about looking at the body of music and music practices which exist, and trying to describe them, sort of like how a good class in social studies might help you be better informed about politics, but doesn't prescribe to you what your politics should be.
Michael Drane uhhh
@@michaeldrane9090 All I meant was that music theory teaches people "why" things sound the way they do. Whereas Fantano just tells you what things sound like and if he thinks it's bad or not.
@@michaeldrane9090 that's actually basically what Jorge Allen was getting too, but go off.
You can use your music theory knowledge to point out the things in the songs that you like/don't like. This way your opinion kind of has more value. For example if you just say "this song sucks" without providing any explanation to why you think it sucks, other than you just didn't like it, your opinion doesn't really tell me anything about the music. But if you say "the song has a repetitive structure and the two-bar chord progression is repeated throughout the song, there isn't much variation in the dynamics and registers used in the song and the instrumentation stays basically the same all the time", this tells a lot more about the piece of music, and it is music theory, even though it doesn't talk about the specific chords used in the song or the key the song is in or the specific time signature or anything like that.
i think it'd be interesting for you to explore the theory to some reviews as, well, music speaks enough emotion in itself! it'd be refreshing to consider the choices of musicians when it comes to music and how that relates strongly to the message of a song, along with the general aesthetic/musical vibe.
You're asking too much of him. Guy is clueless when it comes to music theory.
Music theory doesn’t come up much but the mix comes up semi-regularly
I would rather take a nap than anything Migos-related, thank you.
Suggestion: make a yearly long podcast with the channel Sideways. Conceptually ~ "this year of music theory in music, movies and games".
Adam Neely even does a video on so called "Berkeley Funk" which is the super theory heavy "wankery" that a lot of Berkeley students end up composing and performing at the school and immediately after graduation. Yeah, it's technically and theoretically impressive, but it's largely soulless and forgettable.
SeanTheOutsider you just described dream theater
@gooby pls in your eyes maybe, but I think a lot of what he writes is groovy, doesn't feel soulless to me.
@@alexchase1856 I love "music nerds" who don't know shit about music theory and think their opinions are meaningful.
@@paulferguson1074 their opinions are meaningful, just not to you. And that’s fine, different strokes for different folk. There’s no objectively meaningful, because meaning is derived from its observers/the audience. What’s meaningful to one isn’t to another
For music theory 12tone is a gold mine.
Kravvall eh, it’s good if you already know theory. Not great as an educational resource
Also, why does great-good rock music never have a chance on many end of the year lists? Tyranny in 2014 and Virtue from this year made barely any lists. But Pop music and rap is on every list. I like pop music, but many of the lists seem to miss the best kind.
Yeah seems like most of his reviews these days are pop/rap albums
@@captainathens It's cause that's what's popular. I love Rock, but the genre as a whole is just not popular nowadays. There's no point taking the time to look for a good rock album and review it when no one will have heard of it or care for it. Besides, chances are if you're willing to delve deep into the underground rock scene, music reviews aren't necessary for you.
Anthony is pretty good at balancing genre reviews, considering he is only one person. Other music sites, like Pitchfork, have developed a poptimist bias and rarely acknowledge important rock albums.
It would be unironically hilarious if Melon was like: 'You see, this use of the Phrygian dominant scale in the bass line (i saw what you did there) by Travis Scott with a swung triplet beat is a great example of rythmic and melodic variation in the lower end of the track. Or some shit like that
melon neely
In my music theory class last year we did a rhythmic analysis of Hot Shower
Music theory is just the language a composer or producer would use to explain to someone else EXACTLY how to play their track on paper. Music theory is deeper than this obviously but it is NOT necessary to have ANY understanding of music theory to make, play, or enjoy music.
Music theory is really interesting, and great for composition, but never needed. All you need is ears.
Beautiful words.
@@awllypollyas8292 i appreciate that
Composition is how music is made
@@Jffy1902 I didn't use the word composition wrong in my comment if that's what you're implying.
Music is emotional, and very subjectif (to me)aha.. but like life it self, people enjoy different aspect of the duality at different time, everyone have a different approach to it and thats why its interesting.. cool video fantano, keep them up
You don't need to know the theory to be able to critique something. You don't need to know all the painting techniques to critique a painting. You don't need to know how to operate a sophisticated camera to know a nice piece of photography. You don't need to know how to direct or write a movie to see that it's not good. Music is the same way.
@someguy ihate oh yeah, definitely. But you don't have to be an absolute expert.
"it's not necessary to be well-versed in your field of work"
@@alexanderforslund9880 Not at all what they are saying.
i love all music on the inside The critique that’s been made by an experienced /knowledgeable person has more weight and importance than a greenhorn’s does.
You dont even need to know about it to make music
radiohead really is the best example of how a lot of theory in application can sound
Good video Anthony except it kind of suffered from absent instrumentation and bland, robotic lead vocals a la Nav's album Reckless
You should mention some jazz albums on your classic albums. Coltrane's Ascension, Ayler's Spiritual Unity, Dolphy's Out To Lunch, Hancock's Maiden Voyage or Monk's Music perhaps?
*calls melon*
hello this is *adam neely*
hey whats up
Eating food and describing why/why not you like the flavor vs being a chef and know what ingredients to use to produce certain flavors
In this scenario, the chef is more knowledgable about food than the random guy saying what he likes/doesn't like. Just like a musician with a vast knowledge of theory is more knowledgable about music than Fantano and the majority of his fanbase.
Conventional music theory excludes too much about what there is to appreciate about music
As a fan for a decent time now, I never really wanted you to explain music theory, but if you could go down the lies like music/polyphonic road of video essay, I think you'll kill at that. You already usually have a quick macro assignment of the artist's catalog and circumstances of their new release. You could do one on death grips as a prep to your inevitable 33/3 book on them.
Its music theory not music law
EpicZeke76 💯💯💯
It hasn’t been music proven yet
Gravity is a theory
@@jaghall47 I am also an Atheist
Theories describe the laws. Have you taken any science class?
I honestly hate music theory snobs. If you learned it, use it, and enjoy it. If someone could legit benefit from learning it, then put them on it. If they're doing fine without it, they're probably not gonna start any time soon. It doesn't make you a genius, nor does it mean you'll be successful, just because you know theory, lol. But I can agree that it definitely helps you dive deeper into enjoying music even further.
I am a guitarist. Paul Gilbert videos are good for music theory, although he doesn't bog down the entire video with it. He shows how you can use it practically in your chord progressions, scales, and arpeggios in a song. He makes it fun. Great guitarist and great teacher.
Circle of fifths❤️
I think that there are certain elements of music theory that are a very relevant talking point, when it comes to reviewing tracks that have a main focus on instrumentals as opposed to lyrics for example. As, Music theory plays a massive part in how the listener is moved emotionally: E.G cadences, and the way the artist manipulates certain scales ETC.
would be like talking about grammar when reviewing books
I just got so scared cause I thought that hat was hair
Reminds me of Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time: "[I] was warned that for every equation in the book, the readership would be halved"
It's okay Anthony, school gave me enough music theory to think about.
this comment section is my art college tbh
I certainly think you gain a better appreciation of artists you already enjoy and get exposed to artists you would not have found otherwise, but in general quality of music, music theory isn't too important. Even in very technique and theory driven genres like jazz I don't think it is too important to understand theory to enjoy the music. I find music theory to be a very personal tool in exploring music for listeners and musicians, but not very important in describing whether music is good or bad.
If music theory isn't a good way to determine what music is good or bad, then what is? Your subjective opinion?
You look good with hair
Armand D melons with hair 💦💦💦
looks like he has that MCHammer hair if you try to look at it that way. lol
thats his hat
funk dungus looks like... LOOKS LIKE!!!
oh i meant that reply for the first guy my bad
Happy new year Anthony, you give me great joy and have expanded my life
Aha, you are the *Doug DeMuro* of music.
melonscore? lmao nah
!!!!!
Sort of but not really
"I want to know the bells and whilstles of the car" you mean the quirks and features? 👉
This is so extremely true
I imagine the functional/emotional structure is the point i.e. the thing theory is trying to describe. Theoretical complexity imo has no bearing my enjoying a track, but I can definitely appreciate subtlety in a song. Rick Beato is the best for illuminating certain subtleties e.g. when it's been orchestrated such that proportionally few instruments are given the mediant in a chord while the overwhelming majority are given the tonic, the use of whole-tone and other strange scales or devices in your household pop or rock, which I guarantee you'll notice whether or not you're theoretically-illiterate, etc. Theories relevance for you (and I see Adam do this also) might look something like showing alternate orchestrations or chord progressions that don't work in the track, or just pointing out if something like a modulation is far to jarring to be inserted where it is, and potentially finding motific material which can be used to lead into it, or where a bridge may need to be inserted, and so on. Not to suggest you're obligated to talk theory or know it to the depth that this whole paragraph demands, but it's utility for reviewing songs (especially constructively) can't be overstated.
the fact that the video is slightly off center
Saint J 😱
Happy new year my sweet melon
Ah, Anthony is being Programmed and Controlled I see
*Spills tea over computer*
Robomelon
As a theory this pretty much what i figured you'd say and i fully agree. When i want music appreciation with way more theory geekery, I watch Rick Beato.
But that's definitely not of interest to most non-musicians, and even as a lifelong musician i really dig getting the perspective of another musician without all the deep analysis. There's plenty of great channels for that when we want it.
I came up with a new Modulation. I call it "Dorian b6" you're welcome world ;)
Dorian b6, my favorite!
Dorian b6 just standard minor (aeolian) tho?? Idk, its new year, Im drunk
is aeolian tho
ha
Wtf is this shit? All my homies use Ionian b7
Its absolutely not vital to dive deep into music theory when reviewing music, but it can be very interesting if you really want to know how music is created. Someone like Rick Beato does a great job in explaining in great detail how a song is made (keys, rhythms, recording, intervals, melody, harmony etc.). Imo 'music theory' doesn't provide a good way to review music though, its more suitable for analysis. I always find it silly to read comments about how complex music is somehow 'better' than simple music. That is not how I enjoy music. So in my opinion you are doing a great job. The emotional aspect (how does this music make me feel?, do I like it or not?) is much important when doing a review.
I think it's too complicated for the majority of people watching your reviews.
I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. The majority of people in general don't really have a deeper understanding of music theory. Myself included.
Anthony included.
he still sorta does music theory, just not "classical" music theory. saying something like "the luscious pads give an ethereal feeling" is sort of explaining what the purpose of that synth was to give to the song to make it feel the way it feels. thats sort of theoretical, just not in the "usual" way. the actual "theory" is that the long attack, decay, reverb, chorus, stereo imaging etc creates the "pad" sound that gives that ethereal vibe.
probably a useless ramble but thats how i think about it.
@@stargazersmusic1505 I think it depends on what instrument you play too, you need 0 music theory knowledge if you play guitar but with piano you need a basic understanding.
@@fkeyzuwu thats not really what music theory is dude. i really don't want to come off as elitist cuz i understand some people don't care about it but don't go on with this kind of subjective shit, using your 5 senses to metaphorically explain how a texture or song makes you feel has nothing to do with theory. That's not nearly as useful to a musician as, lets say "this is a I-IV-V7 in G".
I think that traditional music theory can help explain how some elements of music affect us, so to me it's worth understanding in that sense. Music is also about aesthetics though, so it can be viewed from a sound design perspective (how sounds are combined and arranged to obtain a certain effect or soundscape). However, in the end, you could still think of sound design and sound aesthetic as subproducts of certain elements of music theory.
After all, music theory really covers essentially everything, from things like monophonic pitches and pitch relations (consonance, dissonance) to how timbres and complex sounds are created and why they may be appealing to us. Music theory in my conception is descriptive, so it must be used as an analysis tool when paired with notions of subjective taste and judgment. Even if our subjective tastes and our understandings of musical elements tend to overlap in many ways (how people will tend to consider many forms of V-I cadence an element of "resolution"), our emotional backgrounds, listening perspectives, contexts and several other factors will still impact how we appreciate the overall experience of a certain musical aesthetic. The subjective aspects of different musical elements can be stripped down and analysed to describe a "musical common sense" (like the V-I cadence, or why a certain chord sounds the way it does, etc) but in the end it's not a guarantee that all listeners will feel the same way as the common sense dictates, especially if you are evaluating nuanced and complex compositions. In that sense, it is indeed very useful to talk about how elements of an overall soundscape make us feel as individual listeners, and that can indeed be done without many mentions to "formal" music theory if you want to. You could say, however, that you are still indirectly referring to aspects of theory if you consider it the same way I do. So in my view, referring to it directly can also help to dissect our listening experience.
Fun fact, when you Google "Anthony Fantano Jacob Collier", it takes you here lmao
lol that's what I looked up, but on RUclips
That’s what I just did lol
Gotta know dem maths, bro. Nah, i hear ya. Excellent shout out to Adam-- Adam is awesome and he has a great channel. Happy Nu Year, Sr. Fantano, you still rockin!
And some Huang? Excellent! Kids, you want some more theory: check out Rick Beato, Ben Levin and the fantastic Jake Lizzio (um, very guitar-centric maybe).
People make a distinction between the emotional core of a song and the technical, theoretical aspect of the music. I belive them to be one in the same and not much different from each other.
Yeah whenever I talk about music with people it's mostly about the emotions. The only theory that really comes into discussion is the chord progressions, since that has such a huge effect on the overall emotion of a song.
Him trying to review a Jacob Collier album without talking about music theory would be damn near impossible😂
I feel that you can compare this to the analogy of judging a speech or book. Fantano, critiques musical works broadly looking at the contents emotions, timbre, themes etc which you may also pull from a book/literature and how this may be successfull or not. Where music theory in this literature anology can then be seen as the devices like metaphors, word choices where technical and deeper concepts in literature that requires a competent knowledge of language are required. To many, in a review of literature, people wouldnt be too concerned about these minute details as is it the broader picture and story that standouts to a reader. This is clearly the same case in reviewing music.
Melon is the only one who can still rock that dye t shirt in 2019
And rich evans
Music Theory outlines the emotional language of music. It is a set of tools to help us understand and articulate why certain sounds make us feel the way they do. The idea that music vocabulary (a better word than theory) would somehow impede listening "emotionally" is a misconception. I encourage you to deepen your understanding of theory. I believe you will be able to listen in greater detail as the tools become reflexive and it will aid you in better articulating your own opinions. You may even be able to help your listeners understand more about why the love or hate what they're hearing. That would be a beautiful thing. ❤️
4:33/ to je sva teorija muzike Nadam se da znaš na šta mislim ☺😊🎹💜🎵🎧🌲
Na šta misliš ? :D
@@acika72 poslušaj John cage 4:33 😎
Reviewing and analysis are two separate activities and, in my mind, they make sense that way. A review can tell me IF something is good, an analysis can tell me WHY something is good, and I don’t need either one to do the other’s job.
If a reviewer tells you something is good, your not interested in knowing WHY he thinks it's good?
Ben Shapiro want to know your location*
Adam neely and 12 tone. Especially if you want to know how your favorite songs work music theory wise, check out 12 tone.