Weird thing to say, I studied music theory in university (a fact I purposely avoided just to see how much the conversation would devolve into people insulting my grasp of theory). Your point is the equivalent of “you need complimentary colors to make good art.” Forgive me if I’m skeptical when someone declares what is necessary in an artform.
One, it’s not at all like saying “You need complementary colors to make good art.” First of all, no one says that. Second of all, complementary colors are a basic principle of art that any artist should understand, in order to be able to apply them to the effect that they desire. But that is a long way from saying you need them to make good art. It’s more comparable to how a musician needs to understand sharps and flats in order to use them to the effect they desire in their music. But you can make music in a key signature with all naturals.
However, what defines a complementary color is a geometric proportion. They are located at 180° from each other on the color wheel. That doesn’t change by culture, even though some cultures may have used pigments with different hues, and applied them with different techniques and forms. Just like other cultures have different musical systems, but the proportional distance between notes is what creates the harmony, and anything outside of the harmonic proportion is sharp or flat relative to the harmonic.
Second thing: I never “declared what is necessary in an artform,” so you can take that strawman somewhere else. If anything, you’re the one declaring what is “necessary,” because you seem to be arguing that you need more than three chords to make good music (which is false). Good music can be made with only three chords, and that’s a well-established fact, so the fact that you don’t understand that makes me question how honest is your statement that you studied music theory in college. What was it, a one-semester elective? You apparently didn’t pay very much attention if you think a song with only three chords must sound generic. There is so much variation that can be done on three chords. More than I can or am willing to lecture you on here.
Oh, and to your point about the classical composers? Yeah, lots of them composed musical arrangements with only three chords. Have you ever heard of an etude?
Weird thing to say, I studied music theory in university (a fact I purposely avoided just to see how much the conversation would devolve into people insulting my grasp of theory). Your point is the equivalent of “you need complimentary colors to make good art.” Forgive me if I’m skeptical when someone declares what is necessary in an artform.
Two things:
One, it’s not at all like saying “You need complementary colors to make good art.” First of all, no one says that. Second of all, complementary colors are a basic principle of art that any artist should understand, in order to be able to apply them to the effect that they desire. But that is a long way from saying you need them to make good art. It’s more comparable to how a musician needs to understand sharps and flats in order to use them to the effect they desire in their music. But you can make music in a key signature with all naturals.
However, what defines a complementary color is a geometric proportion. They are located at 180° from each other on the color wheel. That doesn’t change by culture, even though some cultures may have used pigments with different hues, and applied them with different techniques and forms. Just like other cultures have different musical systems, but the proportional distance between notes is what creates the harmony, and anything outside of the harmonic proportion is sharp or flat relative to the harmonic.
Second thing: I never “declared what is necessary in an artform,” so you can take that strawman somewhere else. If anything, you’re the one declaring what is “necessary,” because you seem to be arguing that you need more than three chords to make good music (which is false). Good music can be made with only three chords, and that’s a well-established fact, so the fact that you don’t understand that makes me question how honest is your statement that you studied music theory in college. What was it, a one-semester elective? You apparently didn’t pay very much attention if you think a song with only three chords must sound generic. There is so much variation that can be done on three chords. More than I can or am willing to lecture you on here.
Oh, and to your point about the classical composers? Yeah, lots of them composed musical arrangements with only three chords. Have you ever heard of an etude?