# Learning music theory - why it matters



## muk

In the thread linked below the old question about whether knowing music theory is worth it has come up again. I first wrote this post as an answer for that thread, but it would have been too long and offtopic for that. 

https://vi-control.net/community/th...to-me-fascinating-writing.71693/#post-4233215

So, rather than simply deleting my post I'm opening this new thread here. I am solely stating my personal opinion on the subject here. I realize it might be a controversial topic, and so I am trying to state my position in a sober, non-offending way. Anybody wanting to chime in please try to do the same. It is an important topic and I would hate to see it deteriorate into a flame war. 




DarkestShadow said:


> I actually couldn't care any less about rules as long as it sounds good to me.





NoamL said:


> *THAT* seems like the exact right attitude to have, especially towards film music. If it adds the right feeling to the scene, it is good. Theory means nothing. If there are dramatic reasons to write something "the wrong way" then it isn't the wrong way at all.



It is the exact right attitude to have *if you know about music theory in the first place *in my opinion. Because there are reasons - and very good ones at that - for each and all of these rules to exist. They don't exist to make a composers life harder because he has to learn them. Exactly the opposite. If you know them writing music becomes a lot easier. 

And about that sentiment 'whatever sounds good to me is good': This is self-deception. Whatever sounds good to you is good to you, but that doesn't mean it will be for anybody else. Music theory is an integral part of our western music culture. It does not only describe how the music that forms our cultural background has been written, but also why it has been written that way. It helps to understand what sounds good or bad in our shared cultural musical background, and why that is the case. If you don't know any of it you are flying blind.

Now, before the 'but it's all subjective'-argument comes into play: to each individual person it is subjective. Musical taste is subjective. But to our society as a whole it's not. It is exactly the same as with moral rules. Personally somebody may think that stealing is no problem and should be allowed. That's a subjective opinion. And that person may act accordingly. In our society as a whole stealing is seen as not ok though, and thus one personal subjective opinion gets overridden. The person will be seen as immoral by society, and no matter that his subjective opinion is different.
It's exactly the same with music theory. To you parallel fifths may sound good in a choral piece with individual voices, or you may not hear them at all and never have heard of them anyway. It doesn't matter. To our society as a whole, with our cultural background, it does not sound good. And you can only avoid them if you know about them in the first place.

Learning schoolbook theory may not be the only way to acquire an understanding of these things in music. Just as reading excerpts from the law or texts about ethics are not the only way to learn about what is deemed immoral in our society. You learn part of it through observing what people do and don't do, by talking to people about what they find good and bad behaviour etc. But if you also want to know _why_ it is deemed immoral, studying ethics is the only way. And here is why you want that: it puts you in a position to solve new problems yourself. If you only know about ethics and moral behaviour through observation of how people in our society behave, you can only mimick that behaviour in situations you already know. If you are posed with a new moral question, a situation you have never come across before, you will not be able to decide what you want to do based on sound reasoning if you don't know how ethics work.

With music theory it's the same. Knowing music theory puts you in the position to solve_ new musical problems _on your own, rather than just mimicking what others do in situations you already know_. _And that is, in my opinion, exactly why anyone serious about music wants to learn music theory.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt

I can totally see your point. It's sure useful to know the rules and then "consciously" breaking them, if due.

However, I think I personally can only write by instinct.
I already notice how it mentally inhibits me and stifles my creativity if I dissect, deconstruct and categorize the sonic fireworks and harmonic love-letters to noone into chords, rhythm, counterp... whatevertafak. 

I accept that it is useful to know about these things to be able to use them as tools when realizing ideas - and yet it can by no means be necessary for every composer.
I'm sure this is *highly individual*. There are some that might greatly benefit from it and they might finally be able to express what they always wanted to say - but there are sure also others that will benefit rather minimally from it.

I hardly ever feel like I am missing harmonic vocabulary. I there are harmonies I don't know, then I most likely also don't want to know them, haha! I listen and have listened to an huge amount of music and that's where I learnt my harmonic vocabulary from.
I'd say music is not it's terms but how it sounds and feels like. And I'm happy that I, when thinking about music only feel and hear things.
That's all a personal preference an aversion against music related things that are not the music itself.

And, my goal as a composer is not to satisfy society or the majority. I stick to what I want to write and see how far I can come with it - and where I land...
But even if this would be my goal - if I learn my musical vocabulary from listening to music that does well in the area I want to work in (in my case Production/Film/Trailer-Music) then I'm likely to have a good idea of what people are responding to.

People also like to hear something fresh once in a while.   A lot of Hans Zimmers scores are rather "non-classical" and do the one or the other funny thing orchestrationally and harmonically, and he is the most successfull film music composer of all time.

And_ "new musical problems" _can also be resolved by instinct, if you know what you want to achieve (people hundreds of years ago didn't know what exactly my vision is...).
But of course that is also individual.
For sure there are composers who need/benefit from this stuff more than others.

I think I will restrict myself to transcribing as I can stay a within music and only music when doing this. No ridiculous sounding chord and harmony names that rip apart what has been a bold ride on a dragon, a whisper of longing or the rise of an empire...


----------



## Ethos

Music theory isn't "rules". It's over 1500 years worth of research into what sounds good and what doesn't. Willfully ignoring that vast resource is silly, like reinventing the wheel time and time again.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt

Ethos said:


> Music theory isn't "rules". It's over 1500 years worth of research into what sounds good and what doesn't. Willfully ignoring that vast resource is silly, like reinventing the wheel time and time again.


It's not about re-inventing the wheel. Most of these rules (yes, based on a long time of... research...?) are used in every piece and a large amount is easily understood and applied to ones own compositions - by knowing them from other pieces one has internalized.

I also only care about what sounds good to ME and I sure don't need to be lectured about my own taste, lol!


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

There's a reason why certain stuff works and certain patterns and regularities just keep coming out on top. You can try and purposely go out of your way to throw all of that out of the window in order to make a statement ... which is Ok, it's just that it ends up sounding like shit. Look what happened to Schönberg and those who came after him, haha.

I don't think you need to be a theory whizz and learn all this nonsense people in universities are hammering their heads with. But it's important to know and understand the foundations of western music and all the relevant building blocks and good practices. It just gets you faster to your goal, eliminates a lot of aimless and incompetent fumbling and desperate waiting for happy accidents, and ensures that what you're doing is musically sound and in good taste. There's nothing wrong with that.

It's not neccessary to view these things as "rules". Rules are for morons. These are tools. There are situations where you use tools unconventionally, divert them or put them aside. Tools are one part of the equation - instincts, imagination, identity and a bit of faith in chaos are the other. That's what makes things an art, as opposed to a craft. But these things are not mutually exclusive at all.


----------



## fretti

I'll just throw in my humble opinion here: one can write music without a deeper knowledge of music theory; but it's faster and easier if one knows it pretty well and it's the daily job to write music, because it just gives a base and direction of what is possible and what to do when. And one doesn't really have to think about it.
But it's definitely possible to write good music to a film without having studied all musical eras and knowing all ins and outs of them.
I can come up with a certain chord progression, but it takes me a (little) while, as I only have a basic understanding of music theory and play guitar (and in my earlier days also piano). But when I ask my mom (who is a professional and studied music in university; played/studied piano/organ for over 20 years) about what I could do with whatever chord etc. she just gives me 100 options of what to do without even thinking about it.
So if one wants to be a professional composer, without knowing music theory one can definitively write scores, but it just takes a lot more time and energy to do something, a person with lots of music theory knowledge does "in a few seconds"...


----------



## Lionel Schmitt

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> You can try and purposely go out of your way to throw all of that out of the window in order to make a statement


I would never do that. Would be stupid. Just don't plan to learn about it.  


Jimmy Hellfire said:


> good taste


There is no such thing. All subjective.
And just because a majority agrees doesn't make it true - otherwise we'd have to consider music we hate to be good and our opinion to be wrong because most others disagree.

I like you tools approach though, that's how I want to to see it as well if I should ever concern myself with that stuff. 



fretti said:


> a person with lots of music theory knowledge does "in a few seconds"...


From which article/study does this information come? (Although it is likely that someone knowing about this stuff will be faster, I don't know how significant the difference is. Could also lead to over-thinking and lack of instinct.)


----------



## Paul Grymaud




----------



## Lionel Schmitt

Paul Grymaud said:


>


----------



## muk

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> good taste





DarkestShadow said:


> There is no such thing. All subjective.



That's plain wrong. By the same token you would say: 'there are is no right or wrong in moral values. They are all subjective. Just because the majority agrees on some moral values doesn't make them true.' When in fact it does. Because there will be laws enforced to make sure all members of society stick to these moral rules, even if some don't see their value.
With music you won't go to jail if you don't know music theory. But there is a price to pay: the majority of the society will perceive your music as inarticulate and bad quality. Music is a form of communication. And communication involves more than one person. If you want the other persons to understand what you are saying (be it music or speech), you have to follow certain rules. If you don't you may find it subjectively beautiful what you are saying, but to everyone else it will be unintelligible.

Another analogy would be a writer who makes spelling/grammar mistakes because he doesn't want to learn grammar. In most cases a reader will probably be able to understand the meaning, but frequent mistakes do spoil the reading fun to the point of completely ruining it. And application letters will be trashed immediately. To some degree that applies to music too.


----------



## fretti

DarkestShadow said:


> From which article/study does this information come? (Although it is likely that someone knowing about this stuff will be faster, I don't know how significant the difference is. Could also lead to over-thinking and lack of instinct.)


No article or study at all. Just a general observation (and then assumption to a bigger picture). Because when I compare myself to a few people I know personally and wich are absolute pros in music theory (one being a composer himself) do things of wich they know will work and wich would take me multiple tries and more time until I achieve the same thing.
Well my example with seconds was incredibly over exaggerated; but depending on the knowledge level of the people to compare, I guess it varies from a small amount (almost unnoticeable) of time to a huge amount of time. Imagine someone giving you a key you should do a chord progression in. I for instance would first have to think about chromatic signs, count in my head what is "allowed" etc. wich takes a lot of time for me; and then I haven't even decided on what chords I would chose. But people with experience and knowledge in that field could write something really quick.
Might lead to over thinking; but when I want to do a specific thing I also tend to over think and over try some things, so I guess that mostly comes down to the person...

Wasn't meant though to your statement, just a general assumption from my site to the whole topic here


----------



## Lionel Schmitt

muk said:


> That's plain wrong. By the same token you would say: 'there are is no right or wrong in moral values. They are all subjective. Just because the majority agrees on some moral values doesn't make them true.' When in fact it does. Because there will be laws enforced to make sure all members of society stick to these moral rules, even if some don't see their value.
> With music you won't go to jail if you don't know music theory. But there is a price to pay: the majority of the society will perceive your music as inarticulate and bad quality. Music is a form of communication. And communication involves more than one person. If you want the other persons to understand what you are saying (be it music or speech), you have to follow certain rules. If you don't *you may find it subjectively beautiful what you are saying*, but to everyone else it will be unintelligible.


You actually agree with me that it is subjective. It is impossible to disagree with that.

And laws being enforced in and of itself doesn't justify them (nor does majority agreement). We need only look at countries where being gay is illegal.

As long as I can write in a way that makes someone burst out in tears in front of me (happened), I am happy.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt

fretti said:


> I for instance would first have to think about chromatic signs, count in my head what is "allowed" etc. wich takes a lot of time for me; and then I haven't even decided on what chords I would chose.


Hmm... I just do that by instinct.  No thinking at all, lol.
Well, everyone writes differently...


----------



## muk

DarkestShadow said:


> You actually agree with me that it is subjective.



No I don't. But we would have to discuss Noam Chomsky for that. My point is that even if it _were_ subjective it wouldn't matter because society treats these rules as objective truths, and not understanding that comes at a price. A price that you are apparently willing to pay, which is completely fine by me.


----------



## aaronventure

If someone is actively composing music and it sounds good/alright while they claim they don't care, know or rely on theory, they're not thinking about the same thing. They already know "theory" and are actively applying it, they just can't communicate their knowledge or music verbally. Or they can't "find" the thing they're looking for instantly. That's where I think music theory helps - to give words to the techniques and knowledge you possess so you can communicate with fellow musicians and to be able to better analyze music and categorize your knowledge.

I am still 1000% convinced that you can't learn how to write a song or how to move people by reading a book or watching a video. You can get pointers, but you have to go out and do it, then be self-critical or have someone else give you clear and well structured criticism (which is pretty hard to find nowadays). You have to study what others did. Study actual works either by transcribing or score studying. That's where you get information how to write music. You transform that information into knowledge by applying it and internalizing it. You don't necessarily know how to explain it with words to someone else - but that's okay, that's where books and theory come into play.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt

muk said:


> No I don't. But we would have to discuss Noam Chomsky for that. My point is that even if it _were_ subjective it wouldn't matter because society treats these rules as objective truths, and not understanding that comes at a price. A price that you are apparently willing to pay, which is completely fine by me.


 Notice the *Bold* in my quote of yours. 

Aaalright. There is some ultimate truth coming from somewhere as to which music/writing is "wrong" and which "right".   

Well, I know that society treats subjective matters as objective truths, which is one of my biggest problems with society and I still don't wish to submit to that.


----------



## muk

DarkestShadow said:


> Aaalright. There is some ultimate truth coming from somewhere as to which music/writing is "wrong" and which "right".



Yes, that is Chomsky's position (he made it applied to linguistics though, not music). While it may seem like a bit of a stretch when first heard he actually has some very compelling evidence for it.



DarkestShadow said:


> Well, I know that society treats subjective matters as objective truths, which is one of my biggest problems with society and I still don't wish to submit to that.



I see where that sentiment is coming from, and I share some of it. It is a double-edged sword for sure. It is responsible for some very important achievements (the human rights, for instance). But at the same time atrocious things happened and still happen by the very same mechanism. In music, luckily, the worst that can happen is that society will not acknowledge some of it and it being forgotten over time.


----------



## mikeh-375

_From which article/study does this information come? (Although it is likely that someone knowing about this stuff will be faster, I don't know how significant the difference is. Could also lead to over-thinking and lack of instinct.)_

Hi Darkest S.
The difference is extremely significant. Knowing about stuff gives you many options to explore from the outset in a piece and although some people think technique gets in the way, it is quite the opposite, it is your ticket to complete freedom of expression - technique does not damage instinct neither, it supports it if needed.It's a bit like a pianist who has practised scales etc and one who has not, when a difficult passage is coming up, the practised player will be thinking how he can make the passage musical, the un-practised pianist will be thinking, shit I hope I don't f*** this up (again). Ok, a bit weak as an analogy, but easy to see. I've said this before, but technique allows you to open an inviting door for inspiration and if it comes in, technique then also allows you to dress it up properly to present it in its best light. Admittedly, I always think in terms of concert music, but believe me it applies in media too, especially if the clock gets tight for whatever reason.

I don't yet know of a composer who actually got worse for learning the craft a little more, but I do acknowledge that it is not for everyone - the beauty of it is that one can cherry pick to bolster weakness if they want to and not go too deep.


----------



## hawpri

Instead of replying directly to anyone, I'll share a little about my experiences.

One of the reasons I avoided studying music theory is that I didn't want to attend classes and deal with all the work. I also initially worried that it would somehow change or stifle my style of creativity and change the way I was able to write music.

I put it off for a long time. I never read any books, blogs, never watched tutorials and didn't learn how to read music. With a DAW and samples it had seemed like a person wouldn't need that. I didn't see how there could be a point strong enough to make me rethink it, and I didn't give it much thought at all.

Eventually at the encouragement of my wife I set apart the time (only two years) to attend college as a music major. For a while it DID seem to make writing music in my old creative ways harder. I wanted to quit/drop out basically every day, but I didn't have a valid reason. It was just hard, and then there was the ear training/sight singing courses.

In hindsight I think that where I had previously felt very free to create whatever I wanted and however I wanted I was also ignorant as to what it was in a composition that was happening theory-wise, and it actually stifled and affected creativity the whole time. The way I tried to write music for class (for example, like a second semester student) slowly and forcefully crept into the way I wrote music for personal enjoyment. There was a long period where I began to feel as though I wasn't as free as I had felt before, but there wasn't anything I could do about it because I couldn't quit after getting partway through the college's music program.

During the 4th semester of theory that I began to appreciate that there was a subtle and massive change in my creative workflow and musical thinking in general. After that point I slowly started feeling like I was able to approach composition a lot like before, only better and without feeling like I had to create something from nothing every time. I was never creating anything from nothing to begin with, and I was always aware of that. All of my musical influences were formally educated composers and I was slowly (very slowly, and not even correctly) learning a small amount of what could work musically from them.

Post-college, learning from score study is now possible for me where it would have previously not been possible. Existing resources like YouTube videos of analysis or lectures and masterclasses have become accessible resources because I know enough to properly follow along and take notes. I would have made progress and some advances in two years without college because of trial and error and through a lot of experimenting, but it wouldn't have been anything near to what it is now with some education as a guide to fall back on.

tl;dr there's no valid reason to avoid learning theory. It doesn't ruin your creativity or limit your expression.


----------



## wst3

Won't put a number on it, but it's been ages since I've heard the adage "tools, not rules". This was almost a mantra in high school and college introductory theory classes when I was a student.

And I had NOT A CLUE what they meant.

My lucky break was that I am curious, so while one part of me wanted to be completely free to write whatever I wanted, another part of me was curious. I also had some really good teachers, which helps a lot.

Apologies, but I echo the sentiments in the post above, understanding music theory (at least to the degree that I do) has helped me understand what I am doing. And sometimes it provides the missing piece to a puzzle, how to get the sound I'm looking for.

Another part of it - which I fought a lot - is sight singing. The value of those exercises is almost immeasurable. I always had pretty good relative pitch, but now I could quantify the intervals, which makes them much easier to write down, or find on an instrument.

I understand the reluctance to study theory, and in the end it is a personal choice, but I am so glad that I did. And I do encourage my students, and friends to do the same. I can't think of anyone that came back later to tell me they had wasted their time. (maybe I just have strange friends and students?)


----------



## Dewdman42

Imagine that you were shipwrecked and landed on an island with natives that spoke no language you had any knowledge about whatsoever and you needed to communicate with them. Without understanding their language you can only just point and grunt and smile and frown and try to appeal to a few very crude basic human expressions, and try to communicate with them. If you knew their language, even some basics, you could begin to communicate with them at a basic level. After a few years you'd be able to communicate with them at a much deeper level and talk about more detailed ideas and perhaps after a decade you might possess enough understanding of the subtle nuances of their language to really communicate with them at a deep level of nuance and human emotion.

Music is also a language. The Rules or Tools or whatever you want to call it...is nothing other than a language you can use to frame musical expression. In language we have rules of grammar and spelling for a reason. In music if you rely only on your ears, then unless you are a very gifted prodigy, you will likely produce nothing other then the most basic, crude and mediocre music. As your knowledge and understanding of the musical language improves you will produce better and better music. Its simple as that.

I have known many musicians that were frustrated by the left brain activity of learning music theory and avoided it. Sometimes they had a lot of great natural musical feel, but they were always limited, they tended to make stuff that all sounds kind of the same way, they happened to stumble upon some musical approach by accident and they just keep doing that, or else it sounds unstructured and chaotic or just has an unpolished quality to it. They simply lacked understanding of musical language.

Some people I have known literally thought and told me so, that learning musical theory would "ruin" their musical inspiration. I once played in a beatles cover band and I wrote out the simplest vocal scores for everyone to learn the vocal parts. You would think I had handed them a tax demand from the IRS the way they looked at me when I gave them the scores. Total contempt for music theory. That is their loss.

Music theory is not an absolute. There are different ways of looking at it. There is the way I learned the university. There is a completely different way that I later learned studying the Berklee materials under mentorship. There are other approaches..its all fine..those are all just different musical languages that tend to arrive to similar results with some variation, but they all involved learning some "rules". We were always told, that as you learn the "rules" you would eventually figure out and gain wisdom of when its ok to break the rules. Then it becomes more like Tools. But mind you, it doesn't take long to realize that most of the rules are actually good rules for a good reason. 

Music theory will EXPAND your repertoire, not limit it. and it will increase the speed at which you can get it done and it will provide a way for you to cover a vastly broader array of musical styles and situations.


----------



## agarner32

DarkestShadow said:


> And, my goal as a composer is not to satisfy society or the majority. I stick to what I want to write and see how far I can come with it - and where I land...
> But even if this would be my goal - if I learn my musical vocabulary from listening to music that does well in the area I want to work in (in my case Production/Film/Trailer-Music) then I'm likely to have a good idea of what people are responding to.


I’m curious how you can be composing for films and not have a goal of satisfying society or the majority. Isn’t that part of the gig?


----------



## Parsifal666

agarner32 said:


> I’m curious how you can be composing for films and not have a goal of satisfying society or the majority. Isn’t that part of the gig?



He or she could just be doing this as a hobby, which is perfectly fine.

To me learning music theory is such a striking no-brainer it amuses me whenever it comes in to question here. The more you learn, the more tools you have.

Btw, for all the people who are stuck with hundreds of 16 bar projects that ultimately go nowhere, learning music theory can more than help you with that. And also btw there are ALOT of people like the aforementioned in the world now as sample libraries become commensurately less expensive. Young composers could really use lessons in chord theory, voice leading...without those things you're going to be stuck over and over and wondering why.

Just do it, you will NEVER regret that time spent.


----------



## NoamL

muk said:


> It is the exact right attitude to have *if you know about music theory in the first place *in my opinion.



I guess I kind of took that for granted... so you are right to say so @muk !


I would NEVER suggest to somebody NOT to learn music theory.

#1 learning music theory
#2 learning to read sheet music
#3 learning to transcribe (including ear training)

These are essential skills for a composer. 

I don't agree with the "My knowledge is deliberately limited" / "If there are harmonies I don't know, I don't want to know them" / "Knowing music theory will only make my music too intellectual" line of thinking.

My personal experience is, I went through a phase of intensively studying JW's music, including slowing it way down to transcribe harp glissandos & string runs etc. In this way, I realized he was using scales I had no knowledge of, like the hexatonic and diminished scales. And I realized that just listening to music and nodding along did not really mean I was "understanding" it; I had to transcribe it to really get into the mind of the composer and realize _why_ the composer was writing certain things. However, by transcribing I also gradually gained the ability to at least _partially_ figure out what tools & devices a composer is using _while_ listening.

That being said I will still defend my "If there is a filmic reason for breaking the rules, do it" position.


----------



## Parsifal666

NoamL said:


> I guess I kind of took that for granted... so you are right to say so @muk !
> 
> 
> I don't agree with the "My knowledge is deliberately limited" / "If there are harmonies I don't know, I don't want to know them" / "Knowing music theory will only make my music too intellectual" line of thinking.
> 
> M



This is great, +1000000! I didn't know I could still laugh that hard. Wow, I *really* hope young composers don't think that.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt

Parsifal666 said:


> *He or she* could just be doing this as a hobby, which is perfectly fine.


I know that I don't look all that masculine but... really?? 



agarner32 said:


> I’m curious how you can be composing for films and not have a goal of satisfying society or the majority. Isn’t that part of the gig?


I'll see where I land and how far I come. And that I don't actively try to appeal to the majority doesn't mean my stuff can't be popular. I think a lot of what I plan to write in the future has "majority appeal" potential. It's just not my primary goal.

I don't plan to write for film btw - film is more the "style" I produce pretty much all the time. Productionmusic will be my realm. Has it's own rules but those come naturally to me because of I listen to a lot of library music. (some amazing stuff out there!)


----------



## fretti

NoamL said:


> That being said I will still defend my "If there is a filmic reason for breaking the rules, do it" position.


"You have to know the rules to break them" if thats the right translation.


----------



## Dewdman42

Yea I don’t really understand the desired ignorance either, but hey whatever floats your boat. All the great composers studied the music preceding them intensely fwiw.

But there is nothing wrong per say with doing whatever is enjoyable to you and if it makes you happy to keep music mysterious to you then there ya go.

But I don’t know ANYONE that regretted learning music theory. I do know a fair number of people that in ignorance speculated they would be better off not learning it.


----------



## fixxer49

Dewdman42 said:


> I do know a fair number of people that in ignorance speculated they would be better off not learning it.


Why someone - especially someone who aims at a *career in music* - would willingly choose to cut themselves off from the very* language of music *is just... beyond me.

And why they would think that is a good idea is just… Dunning-Kruger?


----------



## Dewdman42

Some people are under the misguided notion that music theory is intellectual in nature rather then artistic and so somehow going down that rabbit hole might ruin the magical inspiration they think they have.

The thing is inspiration doesn’t go away just because you become educated. It’s also not “magic”. It’s just the human creative process. If anything it expands it. Ideas you hear in your mind can be realized outside your mind as something other people can actually hear too.


----------



## Replicant

I've noticed over the years that there are two different, but related things people are talking about when they discuss the value of learning "music theory".

The first is the literal definition, by referring to every sort of term possible to describe something in music. A large portion of this knowledge is indeed not particularly useful outside of communication with other musicians, but even then, subjective terms that have a shared meaning within the group can substitute.

The second, and more pragmatic meaning when people talk about "theory" as it relates to composition, is essentially the study of harmony. The study of scales, modes, intervals, counterpoint, and part-writing.

_The latter_ has hundreds of years of study that has been broken down into ostensibly a science unto itself. There is absolutely value in learning it, and the majority of composers and songwriters whose works have stood the test of time have a had thorough understanding of it.


----------



## Dewdman42

And the thing is it’s pretty difficult to study the second part of what you said without first studying the first part. That is the language that has been used by musicians for hundreds of years to communicate musical ideas with each other. Any serious music theory text will require that mode of communication. I would find it very difficult to study harmony without first learning to read music. Not to say that current musical notation is categorically the best way to depict musical ideas, but it’s a tradition going back hundreds of years to use that method of representing music visually in a way that can be passed from one musician to another and has proven to be quite adequate.

I can’t imagine sight singing and ear training without visual symbols to associate sounds with. Using this language you associate harmonies and voicings you hear with structures that can be discussed and understood. 

How can ya have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat?


----------



## Rodney Money

Concerning using music theory, 2 weeks ago one of my bosses, the Dean of the Upper School, asked me to compose a trumpet fanfare for the school's graduation commencement ceremonies coming up in early June. I had a theme based on the phrase "Just Gotta Get Right Outta Here" from "Bohemian Rhaspody" in my head. Then I harmonized it in 4 trumpet parts all on sheet music without the need for a Cubase rendering to check how it sounded, threw it into Finale simply to make it look good, and was done in less than 30 minutes. I told the Dean that I was done. She said, "That was fast!" I told her, "Well, I had the math down pat already."


----------



## ashtongleckman

Music theory is a fantastic tool. Like a color for a painter, a hammer for a builder, you can use it when you see fit. Like previously mentioned, it describes hundreds of years of musical ideas and evolution, and it's a brilliant way to classify certain things, learning how musical elements interact, etc. With that being said, theres times where it's best to just simply rely on your musical instincts, seeing where your mind takes you. Sometimes the coolest inventions are thoughts that arose out of the abandonment of logic, or the proper/safe way of doing things.

So does it hurt to learn theory? Nope. I think as composers we should take in absolutely everything we can, listen to as much music as we can, learn as many approaches as we can, filter the stuff we like and we dislike. I can only say music theory has been a super helpful tool for me, but is it absolutely needed? No. But I think it's certainly worth it to learn, if for no other reason than to expose yourself to it, whether you use it or not.

One thing that I've heard people say is that music theory limits one to make creative decisions. That would depend on how you uses it. You can take it fundamentally and believe you can't go outside the boundaries of it, or you can simply add it to your pool of influence. When you do it that way, the ideas can then be combined, altered, shaped completely differently, and inspire new ideas, that's how new things arise. Or you can use those ideas in their default state. It's a helpful tool in that regard. 

Music is an art. There's no one way to do it. Music theory is one avenue.


----------



## Replicant

ashtongleckman said:


> So does it hurt to learn theory? Nope.



Yeah, exactly. I've never known someone say they wish they _didn't_ know theory.


----------



## Parsifal666

Music theory delimits you and helps you to not be someone whom is eternally stricken by the spirit of endless sequencing.


----------



## ashtongleckman

Parsifal666 said:


> Music theory delimits you and helps you to not be someone whom is eternally stricken by the spirit of endless sequencing.



Many composers who heavily utilize theory use sequencers. Desplat, JNH, HGW, Newman, Marianelli, etc. There is absolutely no correlation between one's knowledge of theory and using a computer to write music.


----------



## chrisphan

Not knowing theory also means very different thing for different people. People who don't want to learn theory often cite Christian Henson as an example. I can bet that he knows what minor, and major chords are, and much more, plus he has good keyboard skills, so it's very misleading for him to say that he doesn't know theory. I agree that you absolutely don't need to go to school for it though.


----------



## CT

ashtongleckman said:


> With that being said, theres times where it's best to just simply rely on your musical instincts, seeing where your mind takes you. Sometimes the coolest inventions are thoughts that arose out of the abandonment of logic, or the proper/safe way of doing things.



I think this is how most people probably write music. I would hope that nobody composes with the theoretical stuff right at the forefront of their mind, dictating everything, unless it's some very process-driven thing they're writing. 

Knowing this stuff isn't about calling on it every second to make decisions for you, it's about honing your instincts and the way your brain deals with music in an intuitive way, so that you can do exactly what you describe and just let those instincts and intuition take over, for the most part. You can be inventive and imaginative, but there's a foundation to it. 

Even when you're in that zone, then, what you know about the inner workings of music matters. It's not as if you can tell you brain to *not* utilize something it knows. Informed instincts are better than uninformed instincts, even when you consciously decide to do something different. I guess that's the same thing as "know the rules before breaking them."


----------



## PaulBrimstone

Okay, theory/harmony/counterpoint/whatever does become more challenging as one descends into the rabbit hole, but the simple truth is that in the beginning, at least, it simply _*isn't that difficult*_. I do suspect a lot of folk fear some musical monster that they will be unable to slay. But it doesn't have to be about Stravinsky-level complexity for all of us: a huge amount of progress and reward can be made with just a little effort. I just don't get all the resistance to learning a skill: surely it’s worth a try?


----------



## gregh

I think having abstract ideas about music - rather than just a history of perceptions - is important for creating. But the sort of theory underlying work by Alvin Lucier or Aaron Cassidy is very different to that underlying Hans Zimmer or Shostakovich. I think it misleading when people assume theory is only of the Bach to Brahms sort. The sorts of theory you need to learn or at least understand and work with should be driven by your goals as a musician. The important thing is to understand the commitments various approaches bring and to try and align ones goals to those commitments


----------



## ashtongleckman

miket said:


> I think this is how most people probably write music.



Absolutely. I mean ultra experimental stuff. The empty space where music theory hasn't totally filled in the dots. The mystery of micro polyphony for example, all those endless tonal clashes that can't all be marked on a page, the endless sonic possibilities of sound, etc. There isn't a theoretical explanation for everything, and I think thats where some of the coolest ideas come from.


----------



## jiffybox

I've been composing/recording/performing since the mid 80s and I can honestly say I have never known once—when performing, when writing, when ever—even what _key_ I was in. And it's weird. I knew I was playing a G or an Am or what have you, but that was about it.

I figured out how to write and compose pretty quickly by studying others and maybe cribbing inspiration here and there and it worked for me. That said, I have always wanted to know theory. Or at least have enough of a grasp on it to know what I'm playing. I've tried, but I've always tanked. I had the same problem learning languages and that was equally frustrating. Maybe I'm just not very good at learning, but I've always learned my own way of doing by just _doing_. Fortunately I've mostly played with others in the same boat, but how I'd love to walk into a situation with a string quartet or a pianist and be able to speak their language fluently. Yet, I've written hundreds of songs, scored some films, tore up many a stage, and have produced a pretty eclectic and accomplished catalog over the decades so I can't beat myself up about what I didn't learn. It never seemed to hinder my work. But who knows how much more my work might have soared if I knew more theory? Impossible to know, but I wonder.

With this in mind I have spent the past 6-8 months gearing up to study music...again. At first, that meant theory, maybe a Berklee Online thing, I wasn't really sure. Then I got sidetracked by wanting to study recording and synthesis because honestly I always felt my mixing/recording skills have hindered my tracks more than lack of theory. So now I'm somewhere in between. I'd like to master _both_, really. And I hope to. First up is a recording class at Berklee Online this fall. I think when it comes to technical stuff it helps to learn from a "skilled technician", but maybe theory I could learn on my own.

With that in mind, any legit suggestions about the best method or program or course or technique to learn theory? Could be online, could be a book, could be...anything? I've struggled so often in the past with various methods that I just long for a Rosetta Stone of sorts that makes it all click. Perhaps that's asking for too much and too easily, but I just want a solid footing here.


----------



## Mackieguy

For a long time I thought music theory was just that - theory. I never needed it as I knew what I liked and didn't like and wrote my music accordingly. I didn't need some old dead guy from 500 years ago to tell me how to write my music! However, I decided to take some music theory in college (because I wanted an elective more exciting than Math Appreciation 101) and it changed my perspective of theory. Here it is:

Music theory did not tell me HOW to write music, but rather it told me WHY I liked the music!

Music theory is not the rules of music, it DESCRIBES music. By taking music theory, it opened up my eyes to the LANGUAGE of music. Suddenly I could start communicating with other musicians in a much deeper way. Instead of having to hum/"buh duh dee da" something to a band member and HOPE they get where I was going, I could hum it and then actually describe in some detail what I was hearing in my head. The result was that our band became better - not because we knew more rules (though that did happen over time) - but rather we became better at communicating with each other.

So my conclusion is that music theory is not a set of rules rather a way to COMMUNICATE!

My $0.02.


----------



## ashtongleckman

Mackieguy said:


> For a long time I thought music theory was just that - theory. I never needed it as I knew what I liked and didn't like and wrote my music accordingly. I didn't need some old dead guy from 500 years ago to tell me how to write my music! However, I decided to take some music theory in college (because I wanted an elective more exciting than Math Appreciation 101) and it changed my perspective of theory. Here it is:
> 
> Music theory did not tell me HOW to write music, but rather it told me WHY I liked the music!
> 
> Music theory is not the rules of music, it DESCRIBES music. By taking music theory, it opened up my eyes to the LANGUAGE of music. Suddenly I could start communicating with other musicians in a much deeper way. Instead of having to hum/"buh duh dee da" something to a band member and HOPE they get where I was going, I could hum it and then actually describe in some detail what I was hearing in my head. The result was that our band became better - not because we knew more rules (though that did happen over time) - but rather we became better at communicating with each other.
> 
> So my conclusion is that music theory is not a set of rules rather a way to COMMUNICATE!
> 
> My $0.02.



One of the cool things about music theory is it isn’t just attached with one period. It could be some guy from 500 years ago like you mentioned, or 5 years ago. It actually follows the evolution of music, and is developed as we develop new concepts, so a hundred years from now, theory will actually be expanded upon, and that process sort of continues. It’s just a way of doccumenting everything.

Theory is what you make it. I don’t see it as rules. I personally see it as a set of recommendations that can be followed or broken. Depending on what your creativity calls for.


----------



## D Halgren

jiffybox said:


> I've been composing/recording/performing since the mid 80s and I can honestly say I have never known once—when performing, when writing, when ever—even what _key_ I was in. And it's weird. I knew I was playing a G or an Am or what have you, but that was about it.
> 
> I figured out how to write and compose pretty quickly by studying others and maybe cribbing inspiration here and there and it worked for me. That said, I have always wanted to know theory. Or at least have enough of a grasp on it to know what I'm playing. I've tried, but I've always tanked. I had the same problem learning languages and that was equally frustrating. Maybe I'm just not very good at learning, but I've always learned my own way of doing by just _doing_. Fortunately I've mostly played with others in the same boat, but how I'd love to walk into a situation with a string quartet or a pianist and be able to speak their language fluently. Yet, I've written hundreds of songs, scored some films, tore up many a stage, and have produced a pretty eclectic and accomplished catalog over the decades so I can't beat myself up about what I didn't learn. It never seemed to hinder my work. But who knows how much more my work might have soared if I knew more theory? Impossible to know, but I wonder.
> 
> With this in mind I have spent the past 6-8 months gearing up to study music...again. At first, that meant theory, maybe a Berklee Online thing, I wasn't really sure. Then I got sidetracked by wanting to study recording and synthesis because honestly I always felt my mixing/recording skills have hindered my tracks more than lack of theory. So now I'm somewhere in between. I'd like to master _both_, really. And I hope to. First up is a recording class at Berklee Online this fall. I think when it comes to technical stuff it helps to learn from a "skilled technician", but maybe theory I could learn on my own.
> 
> With that in mind, any legit suggestions about the best method or program or course or technique to learn theory? Could be online, could be a book, could be...anything? I've struggled so often in the past with various methods that I just long for a Rosetta Stone of sorts that makes it all click. Perhaps that's asking for too much and too easily, but I just want a solid footing here.


I've started doing the Composer's Foundation course at Scoreclub and it is really good. You really have to work as it is full of practical exercises instead of someone just giving you information. If you do a search here it comes highly recommended.

Edit: Just reread your post and you do have to have a pretty good grasp on basic theory for Scoreclub. Musictheory.net might be a good start.


----------



## Parsifal666

ashtongleckman said:


> Many composers who heavily utilize theory use sequencers. Desplat, JNH, HGW, Newman, Marianelli, etc. There is absolutely no correlation between one's knowledge of theory and using a computer to write music.



That's not what I meant by sequencing, my friend.


----------



## Alex Fraser

I spent years training in music theory. From the age of 8 - 18, music was pretty much my life. Music lessons, exams (written and playing), and onto university for further study.

Add to this, I have a natural aptitude for music. It's not really a brag. I can't put up a shelf, paint a picture and I'm a lousy cook. But I can do the music thing OK. I've got a good ear. I've got perfect pitch and know my way around the ivories. Whilst I often use my theory background, I'm lazy and rely more on natural instinct. I use the piano roll exclusively, not the score editor.

In my opinion you need _both natural musical instinct and theory._ Natural instinct alone will get you a long way, but the theory will always help you. Conversely, a composer well versed in theory but with no music instinct often sounds like someone running through a set of rules.

I'm teaching myself the art of orchestral mockups. (Who here isn't?) I can fudge my way around the arrangement, listening to scores, working out parts until they sound right. But I'm at the point where buying a couple of scores and learning the theory will pay dividends. Less trial and error. Instead of finding out for myself that certain instruments/note combos don't work, I can learn from others. That's where the theory comes in.

But I believe you can know *too* much theory. Witness the multiple page debates here on VI control whenever classical music and theory come up. They're full of point scoring and little to no help. I glaze over. It's a balancing act. There's no point in filling your head with years of theory and historical study at the expense of working out how to produce a phat bass drop, right?


----------



## Parsifal666

Alex Fraser said:


> There's no point in filling your head with years of theory and historical study at the expense of working out how to produce a phat bass drop, right?



Excellent post. But haven't we had enough of that last, yet? It's become so clichéd as to sound cartoony and lame imo.

I could be wrong. I just wonder if people ever get tired of that sound. It's been three years since I first got really done with using that (and let's face it, it's an effect more than anything else).

No offense to sycophants of that sound (and even less to people whom make $ off that sound, just my peccadillo I suppose). Way overplayed...kind of like that HZ/JNH opening-to-Dark-Knight action synth sound.

Now that I think about it, how about that long, Scandinavian ice evo sound? Whenever I hear any of the above I think "already dated". Just my opinion.


----------



## gregh

Alex Fraser said:


> I'm teaching myself the art of orchestral mockups. (Who here isn't?)


 Not me - haven't the slightest interest although I admire the skills of those who do manage a good mockup. Must be others in the same boat


----------



## ashtongleckman

Alex Fraser said:


> But I believe you can know *too* much theory.



I disagree. I think you can know too much theory without knowing how to use it to it's full potential, but I don't think one can actually know "too much theory."


----------



## Alex Fraser

ashtongleckman said:


> I disagree. I think you can know too much theory without knowing how to use it to it's full potential, but I don't think one can actually know "too much theory."


I probably should have said "spend too much time learning theory at the expense of other skills." That's more along the lines of what I was trying to say. Blame my lack of coffee and British humour/flippancy.

I think to be a composer, you need to have some level of skill in multiple disciplines. Theory, yes, But also engineering and all the other technical bits. There's only so many hours in the day to learn all this stuff. Anyway, I think we're on the same page.


----------



## fixxer49

Alex Fraser said:


> I can *fudge my way around* the arrangement


is this like some kind of badge of honor?


----------



## Alex Fraser

fixxer49 said:


> is this like some kind of badge of honor?


Ah, that British slang thing getting in the way again. My apologies.
I mean to say I can work out the arrangement by experimentation and compromise until it sounds "right" by ear.
More theory knowledge would cut down on the "fudge."


----------



## Michael Antrum

I've always thought that learning music theory, is kind of like being able to speak a foreign language whilst on holiday in a country that speaks that language. Even a most rudimentary knowledge is extremely helpful and you'll get a lot more out of the trip.

The basics of notation can be learned in a couple of weekends - none of it is hard, there's just a fair amount of it. When you get that under your fingers, then the world is your lobster....

I don't quite understand why someone wouldn't want to learn a bit more about something they want do, but I certainly wouldn't criticise anyone for taking a different view. Vive la difference !

A knowledge of Music theory, however, won't stop you from writing crap music, but at least you will understand why it is crap.


----------



## fixxer49

Alex Fraser said:


> Ah, that British slang thing getting in the way again. My apologies.
> I mean to say I can work out the arrangement by experimentation and compromise until it sounds "right" by ear.
> More theory knowledge would cut down on the "fudge."


I hear you. I'm just not getting this mobbed-up celebration of mediocrity when it comes to theory.
For instance, would you hire an attorney who said, " I can fudge my way around a contract"?
Would you be comfortable with a doctor who said, "I can fudge my way around a proctology exam"?

I would RUN, mate. (especially from the second!)


----------



## Alex Fraser

fixxer49 said:


> I hear you. I'm just not getting this mobbed-up celebration of mediocrity when it comes to theory.
> For instance, would you hire an attorney who said, " I can fudge my way around a contract"?
> Would you be comfortable with a doctor who said, "I can fudge my way around a proctology exam"?
> 
> I would RUN, mate. (especially from the second!)


Genuine LOL!
I'm not trying to suggest theory is a bad thing or lack of it should be celebrated. I'm only trying to suggest that it's a single tool in a larger toolbox. And I'm saying this as someone who's had years of training in it.

Edit: And yes, I agree with you. You wouldn't hire an arranger or orchestrator who "fudges" around the notes. But for a composer, theory is something you leverage to get the end result.


----------



## ashtongleckman

Alex Fraser said:


> I probably should have said "spend too much time learning theory at the expense of other skills." That's more along the lines of what I was trying to say. Blame my lack of coffee and British humour/flippancy.
> 
> I think to be a composer, you need to have some level of skill in multiple disciplines. Theory, yes, But also engineering and all the other technical bits. There's only so many hours in the day to learn all this stuff. Anyway, I think we're on the same page.


No problem man, I gotcha.


----------



## Dewdman42

it is also true that there are many cases out there of people that learned a lot of theory and don't have the musical intuition to compose anything that anyone wants to listen to. I remember some university professors like that even. I know a lot of fabulous musicians actually, that can play their instruments like a demon, but don't ask them to write any music, because basically it stinks. Perhaps that is where some people get the ill conceived notion that music theory will ruin them. Music theory alone definitely will not make someone into even a semi decent composer.

But neither is musical intuition alone enough. The greatest composers bridged the gap between musical intuition and intellectual understanding of music theory, can be as deep as you want to go.


----------



## fixxer49

Dewdman42 said:


> it is also true that there are many cases out there of people that learned a lot of theory and don't have the musical intuition to compose anything that anyone wants to listen to. I remember some university professors like that even. I know a lot of fabulous musicians actually, that can play their instruments like a demon, but don't ask them to write any music, because basically it stinks. Perhaps that is where some people get the ill conceived notion that music theory will ruin them. *Music theory alone definitely will not make someone into even a semi decent composer.*
> 
> But neither is musical intuition alone enough. The greatest composers bridged the gap between musical intuition and intellectual understanding of music theory,* can be as deep as you want to go*.


+1. Thanks for articulating most elegantly what I attempted to through bad proctology jokes.


----------



## Saxer

jiffybox said:


> With that in mind, any legit suggestions about the best method or program or course or technique to learn theory? Could be online, could be a book, could be...anything?


What about a teacher? A jazz piano player/arranger would be best I think. With your life of practical music knowledge most other beginners course would be too basic. You need someone to talk to while learning.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath

One aspect I always miss in this discussions about theory and think is the most important imo is the following: a certain concept of music theory always describes a specific genre. E.g. the always mentioned parallel octaves are mandatory to avoid if you want to sound like haydn and 18th/19th century classical music but the rule is absolutely pointless as soon as you step out of the genre up to the point of rock music where almost 90 percent of its harmony consists of parallel 5th. The whole sound is made from that interval. This is just a small example out of hundreds. 
So if a young guy who learned his electric guitar chops in his teens wants to finally get his “music theory” knowledge updated and consults a “serious” music theory teacher who knows everything about classical harmony is taught that parallel 5th are completely wrong without getting explained the context he most likely will scratch his head and feel a bit confused. At least that was how I felt in my first theory classes in conservatory. 
On the other hand if you need to write in a certain style and didn’t study it’s rules everybody will hear very soon that you don’t know what you are doing. Which doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing. I think a lot of interesting music came exactly out of that and a lot of completly boring music comes out of the exact application of a set of rules. 
So to me there is not so much “the”music theory but a lot of different possibilities to put those notes together with certain rules that sometimes even contradict each other depending on what you want to achive. 
The bad news, depending on how you look at it, I think is that it cannot be avoided to study and take the time to learn the various acoustic phenomenons and even name them in terms of music theory so you can communicate with others about it if you want to grow as a composer. I also think that studying music history and understanding how everything developed and came to the point where we are now is very useful but certainly not mandatory to create good music. But I think we should always be aware of what I mentioned above. 
I didn’t read through the whole thread so forgive me if I repeated something.


----------



## muk

Markus Kohlprath said:


> E.g. the always mentioned parallel octaves are mandatory to avoid if you want to sound like haydn and 18th/19th century classical music



That is not quite true. They are mandatory to avoid in any music where you want several voices to be heard as independent voices, no matter the genre. The reason behind the rule is that if two (or more) voices move in parallel fifths or octaves, they blend in such a way that they can not be perceived as two voices anymore, but rather as one texture. And that does not sound good in a context where the voices are perceived individually before and after. In any writing where individuality of voices is not intended in the first place, parallel fifths and octaves are of no concern. And in cases where the merging of voices into textures is the goal, writing parallel fifths and octaves is a great way to achieve that (Debussy did that quite frequently, for example).


----------



## DivingInSpace

Can we please stop calling music theory rules? It is by no means rules, it is on the other hand a language based on music that has already been written, and with that a set of tools that can make writing, communicating and understanding music easier. It describes what the music actually does, not what it should do. If you ever think music theory is holding you back or restricting you, it is only because you don't really understand music theory.

This has probably already been said, but it really can't be said enough.


----------



## muk

That is spot on @DivingIn Space. I think these are some of the most persistent misunderstandings about music theory that it stifles creativity, that it is a set of hard rules that you need to follow, and that it is only useful for ancient classical music but doesn't apply to or isn't necessary for modern music genres. Each one of them is profoundly wrong.


----------



## cmillar

If you only want to work with yourself...not communicate or create with other humans....and only stay in your own studio and compose/produce your own music without ever having to interact with other humans....then, you can get away with not knowing or understanding anything about music theory or history.

But...

For those of you who depend entirely on sample loops, pre-recorded musical phrases, drum loops, and sound libraries for the 'creation' of your own music...

.. you must surely understand that pretty well all the things that others have composed and created for you to work with are based on music theory, or understanding musical rhythms, tonalities that work together, etc. etc. etc.

You can say that you're happy and ignorant and don't need to know anything, but you're really just 'creating' off all the hard work and labour of many others who have gone before you. (....kind of like those Brazilian gold-mine operators who make money while all the slaves carry mud up the hill and dump out the bag at the top)

Humans, when working with each other to create music, have to communicate with each other and have to agree on certain musical parameters (ie: tonality, rhythm, a melody to work with and embellish, etc. etc.)

If you just turn on your computer and twist knobs and copy and paste pre-set soundware and software together, then yes.... go ahead and be happy living in your own little world.

We presently live in a strange and weird time in that the creation of music has become very machine-like, AI-like, and a lot of people think that music IS Garageband or FruityLoops or pre-packaged software/loops. That's all that many people have ever been exposed to. They just assume that if it came with a computer, then it must be so.

Kind of sad that most 'musicians' today have never actually played and created any music with other living, breathing musicians.

(Kudos to Hans Zimmer for getting his show and music on the road....maybe he can inspire many of you younger, less experienced musicians to realize that when it really comes down to a human experience, there is nothing greater than having real people performing music in a live situation.)

You'll notice that for all the things that H. Zimmer says about being musically 'untrained' or not knowing anything about music....I don't believe him when he says that.

He knows what an Em chord...he knows what chord progressions are....he knows how to construct a melody linked to a tonality..... and he grew up playing live music with other living, breathing musicians......he knows the joy of performing and creating music with people.

He knows you have to be able to communicate with each other in this world of music.

He respects the Beethovens, Debussy's, Mahlers, The Beatles, the Jerry Goldsmiths's, etc. that have gone before us.

Hence, thanks to people like this, some music theory has been developed throughout our little human history.

Chew on that for awhile....or.... be happily ignorant and continue to write music that can only be created through your benefit of having bought someone else's hard work and paste together some music that can sound like somebody else's pasted-together music.

We don't have to be slaves to software and pre-programmed music creation software.

Learn a little music theory and create some of your own music.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath

muk said:


> That is not quite true. They are mandatory to avoid in any music where you want several voices to be heard as independent voices, no matter the genre. The reason behind the rule is that if two (or more) voices move in parallel fifths or octaves, they blend in such a way that they can not be perceived as two voices anymore, but rather as one texture. And that does not sound good in a context where the voices are perceived individually before and after. In any writing where individuality of voices is not intended in the first place, parallel fifths and octaves are of no concern. And in cases where the merging of voices into textures is the goal, writing parallel fifths and octaves is a great way to achieve that (Debussy did that quite frequently, for example).


I was very sure there will be some misunderstanding and confusion when I post something on this subject since this is often the case when musicians talk about “theory” or “rules”. And nobody of us has the time to deliver an exact scientific publication and specify how exactly he means a word. So of course parallel 5th and 8th are an acoustic phenomenon you have to be aware of if you write harmony with different instruments no matter what genre. Sorry about not pointing that out more clearly. And there are numerous other harmonic, counterpoint and orchestational devices alike that you have to take into account and that effect each other. So it was just meant as a well known example.


----------



## wickedw

I've found learning music theory to be a creative liberation. It makes it easier for me to transfer the music I hear 'inside' to the outside (piano/paper/daw), without having to fumble around for hours and hours on a piano... In that time the musical idea has probably been altered already as well.

I can see why some younger people aren't interested in it though... About 10 years ago I was releasing House music with 'okay' success, even got to do some quite well paid remixes for some top artists like Bruno Mars. I was 18/19 years old or something and I couldn't name you a single chord, I got everywhere by having an idea and then fumbling around till I got there... In the end I stopped mainly because I didn't like the touring part of it and because A&R managers wouldn't let me release the music that I wanted to release and tried to push a certain style on me.. But when I think back about it now, If I had known music theory I would've been able to make that music so much better. Now I cringe when I hear some of it back and some of it is just okay...

Point is you can have some successes in music without knowing any music theory, but you can achieve so much more actually knowing it.

Also I have to agree with @cmillar about Hans. It was actually his concert with the band that showed me the passion of true musicians that made me want to get out there again.. It brought back the kid that used to stand in his room pretending to be John Williams conducting the orchestra while listening to his Jurassic Park CD.

TLDR; even the basics of music theory is a creative liberation.


----------



## jhughes

I didn't read the whole thread but some thoughts about theory:

To me, theory helps put a label and categorize in groups all the things I hear and read. Kind of like if you know what turquoise is, you can put it under a shade of blue. Kind of like a mechanic has this nice label for the parts-transmission/alternator/battery/etc.
Theory allows me to assimilate faster. For example, knowing my scale degrees and notes in each chord allows me to transpose faster than doing it by ear when the music gets complicated. Moving a lick or harmonic device through multiple keys is made possible because I know my theory.
Even something as simple as "up a minor 3rd"...How are you going to communicate to another musician that if you don't even know what a minor 3rd is?
I'll never forget the first time I theoretically discovered a minor iv chord and how it functions, all of a sudden I could instantly hear it in any song. VOILA! Before I had a label for it, it was this thing that passed by without much notice.

I'm not interested in theory for theory's sakes, only to increase my hearing and conceptualize music better and FASTER. I have found that probably 80% of the theory I've learned is extremely useful, 20% of is extraneous info that could be discarded by someone wishing to up their game. The problem is people remove the aural part from theory.

I've been around people my whole life that thought theory was a demon (lots of folks music for years where "self-taught" is a prize to wear). To be honest, everyone of those people reached a plateau and didn't get any better. They largely play the same stuff they played ten years ago. They are happy I guess and that's all that matters; at the same time they COULD have improved.
How can someone not want to even study something as important as Rhythm?
My singer-songwriter friends whom refuse to learn any music fundamentals-everything they write sounds the same in the same ole keys. They have no vocabulary to draw from. They might know other people's material but that isn't enough, you have to get inside the person's head and understand on a deeper level.
I've seen people that won't learn anything properly tell everyone, "I have my own style."....about 95% of the time those people sound awful. Meanwhile, they try to convince those of us that hit the books that somehow it will ruin our voice.
If Theory doesn't increase your hearing abilities and vocabulary then you are going about it the wrong way.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

jhughes said:


> I've been around people my whole life that thought theory was a demon (lots of folks music for years where "self-taught" is a prize to wear). To be honest, everyone of those people reached a plateau and didn't get any better. They largely play the same stuff they played ten years ago. They are happy I guess and that's all that matters; at the same time they COULD have improved.



Guilty as charged!!! 

I resisted diving into the world of music theory (and formal music lessons) forever. After taking the plunge last year, it was the BEST move I have made in my music composition career. My piano playing abilities have increased ten fold, and with the theory I have learned, my compositions and INSPIRATION has gone to the next level. The world of possibilities that opened up creatively is just wonderful. For anyone procrastinating, just do it. And believe me, if I can learn it, anyone can. I have actually become somewhat obsessed with learning new classical piano pieces and have accumulated a ton of piano music books. I love it. And the really cool part is...I'll often make a mistake in a classical piece, and it instantly inspires a new musical idea.


----------



## chimuelo

All part of the discipline leading to Comprehension.


----------



## mikeh-375

_All part of the discipline leading to Comprehension._

And...self awareness.


----------



## robgb

Everyone has a different path. For some, music theory is a must. For others, working on instinct and by ear is the only way they can be productive. Some take a hybrid approach. No path is superior to the other. All that counts is the final product. How the composer got there is irrelevant.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

robgb said:


> Everyone has a different path. For some, music theory is a must. For others, working on instinct and by ear is the only way they can be productive. Some take a hybrid approach. No path is superior to the other. All that counts is the final product. How the composer got there is irrelevant.



Absolutely. However, formally learning your primary instrument (and theory) is like getting a passport to "travel"....it opens up a whole new world of possibilities. Otherwise, you keep going around in an endless cycle of monotony. It doesn't even have to be over-the-top formal. For example, my NI S88 controller has taught me a s++tload about different scale/chord modes with its light guide feature.


----------



## mikeh-375

Actually Rob, I respectfully disagree there. Not really on a musical level as that is a pointless subjective debate, but on an inner growth sort of thing level. I believe a deeper understanding of your craft will draw out more of whatever is in you - I mean, how can it not? That's not to say you can't find yourself without theoretical knowledge, of course you can. It's a sure thing though that once you learn stuff, it changes you and in this particular instance, will alter the way you create.
I will caveat that with the fact that we are all different (and I am not dissing anyone's methodology), but no one actually got worse for knowing how to do stuff at a deep level, not to mention the rapid improvement in ability and especially breadth of musical cognition due to a more profound understanding.
No fight here, just the alternative pov....


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

mikeh-375 said:


> It's a sure thing though that once you learn stuff, it changes you and in this particular instance, will alter the way you create.



For me, this is precisely what happened when I began lessons. It has completely changed my writing style. For once, I can sit at my piano and write music before even opening the sequencer.


----------



## GtrString

I find, quite contrary to popular belief, that with knowledge of music theory it is easier to be innovative and re-write your music to have some merit. if you don't have any buttons to turn, you are stuck in your own mind, social relations and cultural ways. Theory is like going from local to global.


----------



## agarner32

Although I’ve seen these debates about the merits of music theory, it’s always interesting to read various opinions.

I head an undergraduate music theory program and I can tell you my students are transformed after 4 semesters of theory. Many of them start off barely able to compose a simple melody with 3 chords and by the end, they are composing pretty sophisticated pieces that are quite musical. They also have pretty sophisticate ears because we do a ton of listening and analysis.

This last semester we studied in depth various ways to modulate to any key using a variety of pivot chords. The students were amazed that they could modulate from a given key to any other key by using just one diminished 7th chord. This includes the most remote keys. It’s just one of dozens of concepts that opened doors very quickly for them. I could give many more examples, but I think the point is made.

I absolutely believe that you don’t need formal training to be a great composer or musician, but for many (maybe most) it can make a huge difference. Formal training can really accelerate the learning process for sure. Most of the great composers we admire went through whatever rigorous training process was available during their era. There will always be extremely gifted composers/musicians who can play or compose with effortless mastery, but for most I think formal training of some sort is a huge plus for the rest of us - even those with talent.

Aaron


----------



## Pantonal

I suspect anyone who would deny the value of learning theory after reading through this thread is at the very least a rebel. Frankly, I believe the training should go much farther than just learning theory, ear training, singing including sight singing and ensemble work are valuable additions to simply learning theory. Can you get that outside of an academic setting? I believe so, but you have to look for it. Playing in a band may substitute for ensemble work if at least one member really knows what they're doing (and is willing to share). Otherwise it can be the blind leading the blind. Add on top that production and recording expertise and you've got a complete package. Isn't that what any composer would want?


----------



## ReelToLogic

If anyone wants to learn some more music theory, I highly recommend the YouTube video series "Music Matters" (see link below). It covers a tremendous range of topics in short, very easy to understand lectures with excellent visuals and examples. I had some formal music training when I was younger but still found many of his lectures extremely helpful.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8yI8P7Zi3yYTsypera-IQg/videos


----------



## JohnG

Dewdman42 said:


> Without understanding their language you can only just point and grunt and smile and frown and try to appeal to a few very crude basic human expressions



That's how I used to meet girls.


----------



## RAdu

JohnG said:


> That's how I used to meet girls.


hahahaha


----------



## robgb

Paul McCartney just said on 60 Minutes that he has never learned to read and write music. And he feels ashamed because of it. Paul McCartney, the richest musician in the world and probably in history (he's a billionaire), the guy who has written countless melodies that will be remembered for generations and probably centuries, feels ashamed because he can't read and write music. Says his brain doesn't work that way. There is no reason for this man to feel ashamed. He should feel the exact opposite of ashamed. But it's people who insist you can't make meaningful music without learning to read and write (and the theory that goes with it) that make him (and countless others) feel that way.


----------



## Dewdman42

The reason he feels ashamed is not because of poor music, its because he knows he could have easily learned to read and write music and he knows it possibly could have enabled him to do even MORE then he did. He's ashamed because he chose laziness.


----------



## muk

Comments about somebody else being able or not able to read music always sound like being about oneself to me. Paul McCartney isn't able to read music? Certainly _I_ don't need to learn it either. But if you think about it, one has nothing to do without the other. The fact that Paul McCarthey does not read music has not the slightest bearings on yourself.

If you look at it analytically:

downsides of learning to read music: it takes a bit of time; it may cost a bit of money; you need to overcome whatever kept you from learning it so far. Nothing else comes to mind.

upsides: learned a whole new way to study and look at music; ability to grasp longer form structures; don't have to memorize all the music you want to play on an instrument; ability to analyze music on a whole new level than just from listening; quickly notate anything you want with only paper and pen; important tool for communication between musicians; not dependent on technical devices to produce music; make annotations in a score; and more.

The difference between reading music and listening to music is similar as reading a book vs having it read to you/listening to an audiobook. Both are nice, both do very different things.

Everybody decides for themselves if the downsides or the upsides outweighs the other. Do you _need_ to be able to read music? It depends on what you want to do. You don't _need_ it to write and study popular music, trailer music, film music. But it can be a helpful tool for that.

You _do need_ to read music to write and analyze concert music. It is nigh on impossible to create a sonata form, or a fugue, or similar without being able to read/write music notation. Certainly I've never seen anybody doing it. If you want to play a long form piece on an instrument it is a tremendous help, because you don't have to learn everything by heart. And it is a tremendous help when studying and analyzing music. In fact, I would say it is extremely difficult to study classical music without the help of written scores. Analyzing a Beethoven sonata, or symphony without a score? It would take me ages, and I wouldn't be able to discover even half of all the subtle references and relations between parts. Nor would I be able to get a real grasp on the structure of the piece.

So, do you absolutely _need_ to be able to read music? No, at least not for everything. Does it take much to learn it? No. Does it offer advantages over not being able to read music? You bet. Countless advantages.


----------



## mikeh-375

I agree with RobG that meaningful music can be written by a non reading/no theory composer and I love lots of it (especially McCartney). But the power of technical work and study is in a different league when it comes to searching for one's unique voice with which to compose.


----------



## robgb

Thank you all for proving my point.


----------



## mikeh-375

sigh....it's as divided here as we are over Brexit.
Rob, I'm not really advocating one over the other paradigm for composing as both can and do work in media, although orchestrally, to do it well (and to state the bleedin' obvious), you need to know or have a very good understanding about what you are doing, (or you get someone in who does, I suppose). But surely knowing about a subject will lead to a deeper understanding and the tools learnt can yield music more personal - after all technique and it's learning is all about finding oneself and facilitating composing - it is not some dry academia that switches off the creative spark, which often seems to be the impression it gives around here.
As a classically trained composer I can honestly say my tastes are liberal and I am respectful to non trained composers (even wishing I'd written some music I hear - shit, I've even been beaten at the demo stage by said composers)). But it is precisely because I am trained that I want those folk to know the power and exhilaration experienced when one has control and options whilst writing. This can be anyones to find and use, as Muk says...put the effort in and the rewards can be immense.


----------



## ism

Paul McCartney has actually written some (occasionally) very nice classical music. 

But he does it by sitting down at a piano with an eminent composer and collaborating.

So if you can afford your own eminent composer, this is certainly another alternative to learning theory.


----------



## elfman

There are mediocre musicians who are theory experts and brilliant musicians who know very little. How do we define musical literacy anyway? Is it simply being able to read and write music? I know people who can read and write music but don't understand the deeper underlying theory, similar to people who can read and write in their language but don't possess a pedantic understanding of its grammar, which is probably most people.

I think the most important aspect of understanding music is intuition, which is developed by studying and absorbing music that came before you. This builds technique, even if that technique is not conscious. I think this is most important because, even without training, a talented person can create technically legitimate music. Irwin Kostal, probably the greatest Broadway arranger of all time learned his craft by reading scores from his local library. Did he have an understanding of theory? I'm sure. To what degree? I'm not sure.

There are multiple levels of theoretical understanding in music, from a basic working knowledge to some rather heavy, academic stuff. Any amount of study is good. The more, the better, but it isn't necessary to be a master of every concept from Bach to Boulez.

My two cents.


----------



## Akarin

ism said:


> Paul McCartney has actually written some (occasionally) very nice classical music.
> 
> But he does it by sitting down at a piano with an eminent composer and collaborating.
> 
> So if you can afford your own eminent composer, this is certainly another alternative to learning theory.



Without going that far as hiring an eminent composer to sit with you, technology has also come a long way to serve as a crutch for those who are not well versed into theory. And no, I'm not talking about AI or things like that. Just some little tools like the Cubase Chord Track that can propose you your next chord and take care of inversions for you. Like in any field, I believe that tools come up to let us focus on what's more important.


----------



## muk

Albert Einstein got bad grades in school. Would you therefor advice your children to learn as little as possible in school to become the next Einstein?
Truth is, noone of us is an Albert Einstein, nor a Paul McCartney. We all profit from as much knowledge as possible.

Learning to read music doesn't take much. It doesn't cost much, it doesn't hurt. Everyone who wants to can do it. Ask 1000 people who can read music whether they think it was a waste of time, or whether they think it was worth it. I'm pretty sure exactly zero persons would say the former.

Make of that what you will. Do you need it to write great music? No. Does it help? Yes. So if you are discouraging people from learning it I call bullshit on that. It is neither absolutely necessary nor sufficient to write great music. I think you are right abouth that Rob. But your conclusion that therefor nobody needs to learn it is, in my opinion, completely wrong.

My point is: it is simple to learn, it costs little, it helps a lot. Therefor if anybody asks me if they should learn it, I say yes. Beyond that I am completely fine with anybody taking their own decisions, and if I like some music I don't care in the least if the composer was able to read music or not.


----------



## Vik

robgb said:


> Paul McCartney just said on 60 Minutes that he has never learned to read and write music. And he feels ashamed because of it.


I don't blame him for that, but rather those responsible for our musical alphabet ending up the way it it did. It simply doesn't make sense to use this "letter" and have it mean both D and B. 






Here in Europe it's even sillier than that, we use AHCDEFG instead of ABCDEFG, and teach kids to start the alphabet from C, and not A.


----------



## mikeh-375

Akarin said:


> Without going that far as hiring an eminent composer to sit with you, technology has also come a long way to serve as a crutch for those who are not well versed into theory. And no, I'm not talking about AI or things like that. Just some little tools like the Cubase Chord Track that can propose you your next chord and take care of inversions for you. Like in any field, I believe that tools come up to let us focus on what's more important.



Interesting Akarin, but it means more somehow to me if you think it up all on your lonesome. Remember any man and his dog can use that chord finder, especially the competition.


----------



## RAdu

muk said:


> Albert Einstein got bad grades in school


nope... he got excellent grades. he only hated french


----------



## ism

I believe the myth that Einstein got bad grades stems from a moment in his undergrad studies where he became deeply interested in ideas that were well beyond the mathematics the traditional curriculum that he set out on his own reading well beyond what he was supposed to be studying, blowing off his lecturers in the process.

So once again, history doesn't exactly bear out the myth, especially when its deployed in logic that that sets up premises in the style of "Oh yeah, well Einstein got bad grades, and mine are even worse .... ", or: "Oh yeah, well Paul McCartney was terrible at theory and I'm even worst ..." . It's the whole correlation vs causation snafu.


----------



## dgburns

Lot’s o great agruments/comments posted. What a great forum.

My two cents-

You can’t fake knowing because a great arrangement says it all. Knowing the rules allows you to break them with authority.

Culture plays such a big part of music appreciation. It strikes me that I simply can’t control the fact that the listening audience has their own musical lexicon that they use to decide what works for them or not.

Music is indefensible. I live with that quote pretty much everyday, I am grateful to have learned it here. It saves me alot of heartache.

Music is a personal journey, until such time as you share it, either in media composing or otherwise. I think we all wonder where the hate comments come from, as we toil over our creations with love. 

A well crafted arrangement, it is like a fine wine. It must be discovered by attaining enlightenment. There really aren’t any shortcuts, only opinions from those on the path to attainment.

peace and love


----------



## ed buller

mikeh-375 said:


> Interesting Akarin, but it means more somehow to me if you think it up all on your lonesome. Remember any man and his dog can use that chord finder, especially the competition.


And you will never understand why it sounds good and why you like it.......you'll be at the mercy of the machine !

best

ed


----------



## Akarin

mikeh-375 said:


> Interesting Akarin, but it means more somehow to me if you think it up all on your lonesome. Remember any man and his dog can use that chord finder, especially the competition.



It's just a tool. Anyone can use the same theory books everyone is using and get to that same chord. Especially the competition. (What competition, by the way? Since when art became a competition?)

It's like saying "I plant nails with my fists because anyone can use a hammer to do it."

Not saying I'm against theory (hell, I'm even trying to teach some of it in a disguised way, see here: https://link.medium.com/iwpvIAZigT), just that tools can help get you to a good result faster. I can drive without understanding how a motor works, it doesn't make me a bad driver. But I can't become a mechanic.


----------



## mikeh-375

Akarin said:


> It's just a tool. Anyone can use the same theory books everyone is using and get to that same chord. Especially the competition. (What competition, by the way? Since when art became a competition?)
> 
> It's like saying "I plant nails with my fists because anyone can use a hammer to do it."
> 
> Not saying I'm against theory (hell, I'm even trying to teach some of it in a disguised way, see here: https://link.medium.com/iwpvIAZigT), just that tools can help get you to a good result faster. I can drive without understanding how a motor works, it doesn't make me a bad driver. But I can't become a mechanic.



Sorry, I should have said media competition, Good points ,however you may have missed the most important raison d'etre for theory. If you put yourself through the rigour of theory in the correct manner, you can come out at the other end with a deeper understanding of your own creative self and will undoubtedly have the potential to write even more potent music. What you say ignores or is not aware of this essential and primary reason for study. One then uses theory whilst composing the way a player uses scales, arpeggios etc whilst performing - if you can't play those technicalities, you'll never play concertos (metaphor). One also uses theoretical processes as a search tool too - there is hardly a need to get to stuck when the creative options are only limited by one's imagination.

It's also a personal journey to self-discovery and there will be more meaningful art and self-awareness found in rigour than button/preset pushing imv.


----------



## KallumS

ed buller said:


> at the mercy of the machine !



There's a song title right there. Perhaps a Metropolis inspired piece.

Damn, now I got myself all inspired while I'm stuck at my day job.


----------



## Alex Niedt

When I try to stomach a bit of it, I find theory amusing in the sense that I learn the names of some of the chords, scales, etc. I use. That's about the extent of my interest in it. It's funny to me that the same people who offer me compliments on chord progressions would turn around and tell me how limited I am if they knew that I only know the chords by sound rather than name, as if it makes any difference whatsoever in the finished product.


----------



## tokatila

I would think that it would be foolhardy to argue that the musical theory is pointless. However, since no-one has unlimited time on their hands, it's important to consider if learning music theory is the best use of one's time.

Personally, I have no idea.


----------



## Akarin

Alex Niedt said:


> When I try to stomach a bit of it, I find theory amusing in the sense that I learn the names of some of the chords, scales, etc. I use. That's about the extent of my interest in it. It's funny to me that the same people who offer me compliments on chord progressions would turn around and tell me how limited I am if they knew that I only know the chords by sound rather than name, as if it makes any difference whatsoever in the finished product.



I've noticed that this is mostly due to bias. Some have invested so much time in learning about theory, it can sometimes sting to hear a great piece from someone who has not, so the "you are limited" comment most often comes as a first line of defense :-p


----------



## JohnG

speed

I could never meet the deadlines I have faced in media if I didn't have the ability, almost instantly, to analyze and extend the "happy accidents" of composing that I stumble over when noodling around.

If you have a week to write three minutes, great. If you have to write 20-30 minutes a week (or more) it's different, especially when you have a committee of, sometimes, half a dozen people to satisfy.

Most -- but not all -- of my best ideas I just jot down or bump into while improvising. After that, analysis is handy.


----------



## mikeh-375

Yes John, that is the big pay off in a pressured environment. I had to tweak at Abbey Rd once with the clock ticking, did it almost without thinking and saved the day for the music company, my bank balance and the client. Mind you, blew a lot of it later in the bar...bloody musos can't half drink.


----------



## Ashermusic

Akarin said:


> I've noticed that this is mostly due to bias. Some have invested so much time in learning about theory, it can sometimes sting to hear a great piece from someone who has not, so the "you are limited" comment most often comes as a first line of defense :-p



And then you hear the opposite: because you are trained you think too conventionally and therefore cannot approach music innovatively.


----------



## ed buller

I guess I just think a lot of the music I really love was written by composers who where taught by other composers !...Stravinsky via Rimsky Korsakov, Debussy Via Cesar Frank, Wagner via Christian Theodar Weinlig , Beethoven via Haydn , Ravel via Faure....etc.....................

best

ed


----------



## Wally Garten

mikeh-375 said:


> It's also a personal journey to self-discovery and there will be more meaningful art and self-awareness





JohnG said:


> speed



These are two great reasons to want to know what you're doing, though I'm not sure I believe there's a one-size-fits-all _method_ of coming to understand what you're doing. I also think it might be helpful to think of it as "musical knowledge," rather than "theory," which tends to evoke a specific subset of musical knowledge and a specific set of practices for learning it.

As someone said above, you don't need to know how a motor works to drive a car. On the other hand, if you don't understand which pedal makes you go fast and which pedal slows you down, you're in trouble. You don't need to be able to diagram a gearbox, but you do need to understand what lower and higher gears are for, and how to shift between them. With the increasing popularity of automatic transmissions, of course, a lot of people just need to know Drive and Reverse... _until_ maybe they end up on a steep mountain, and it would have been better to have understood what low gears do before starting out. And if you're routinely driving at a very intense level, like a racecar driver or a long haul trucker, maybe it's helpful to know a bit more than the average commuter, right?

So there's a gradient as to how much and what kind of theory each person needs -- and there are different ways of knowing it. Someone who wants to learn a little guitar to sing campfire songs with children needs hardly any theory -- "put your hand here, then here." Someone who wants to create beats and dance songs with a laptop, or be a singer-songwriter, needs a little more: basic understanding of keys and chord structures would certainly be helpful. (And some things are very genre-specific -- if you're making trap music, you _have_ to understand the specifics of trap high-hat patterns -- a little bit of "theory" or knowledge that might never come up in any other genre!) 

Someone who wants to create complex works of jazz or classical music probably needs a great deal more academic knowledge -- but (a) the theory concepts of those two genres go in very different directions, even though they both use the same pitch classes, intervals, chords, etc.; and (b) the way composers come to that knowledge may be quite unusual: some great jazz composers had _very_ idiosyncratic approaches to theory. Which is not to say they weren't doing theory! But it is to say that by _not_ approaching things through the lens of a classical, academic view of theory, they created wholly unusual, compelling works of art. (Also true of Paul McCartney.)

And then there are whole other kinds of theory, too, right? If you were a drummer in certain African cultures, you might never in your life have heard a major scale, but you might have had a very complex and profound knowledge of culturally-specific polyrhythms -- which you would have learned through a combination of oral tradition, picking it up by ear, and the kinesthetic knowledge gained with practice. In that musical tradition, is there music theory? Certainly, but it's learned differently, and emphasizes different things, than Western classical theory.

If you're an Arab classical musician, on the other hand, you have to know a _lot_ about tonality and harmony -- but revolving around scales that would be considered unusual and nonstandard in Western music, and with the added element of quarter tones.

The point is, "theory" is just a set of tools (as others have said) -- and the tools needed, and the means of acquiring them, are unique to every individual. You can certainly take university courses to study theory in the standard, academic, common-practice-and-onward sense, and that may be very useful and certainly mind-expanding. But it might be useful and mind-expanding to study African polyrhythm or Middle Eastern microtonality, too. Or to try to analyze and imitate a great rock guitar solo. It could even be useful and mind-expanding to just play enough that you come to your own understanding of what's happening in music, whether intuitive or intellectual or some of each. You can't do everything, and you can't follow someone else's path. The point should always just be to acquire more knowledge and try new things. 

(And, as John says, get faster with whatever tools you use.)


----------



## elfman

Ashermusic said:


> And then you hear the opposite: because you are trained you think too conventionally and therefore cannot approach music innovatively.


I think there's some truth in both.


----------



## Ethos

I teach college, so I see this argument time and time again. Those who throw music theory by the wayside do so because they want to follow their ear and write what sounds good _to them_. And to those people, I say: Trust me, you are not inventing anything knew. No matter how avant garde you think your style is, somebody has done it before you - and they've done it better. What sounds good to you, sounds good to others as well. And if what sounds good to you _doesn't_ sound good to others... well, then maybe you're in it for a different reason. 

Listen and learn from what's been done before. You are not going suddenly create a new "fork" in the development of musical style. Those composers who _have_ created so-called forks in the road, did so because they were diligent, found a place that needed something new, and very purposefully changed people's thinking (for better, or worse). If you're a hobbyist, then do whatever. Otherwise, ignoring the mistakes and triumphs of composers, philosophers, and musical thinkers before you is just lazy and presumptuous. There.. I said it.


----------



## Ashermusic

elfman said:


> I think there's some truth in both.



Nonsense. Do I really have to list all the innovators who were trained composers?


----------



## ed buller

elfman said:


> I think there's some truth in both.


yes there really is. Many years ago my father ( himself a composer ) caught me reading Pistons 'Harmony" and was appalled !...it was if i'd been reading Hustler or something. He was particularly upset at me doing the voice leading lessons I seem to remember. Piston can be dreadfully old fashioned. He gave me a copy of Bach's chorales saying learn from this instead. He was the same when I started doing transcriptions from North By Northwest ( a score he loved ). His argument was " if you start to analyse too much you end up imitating too much " . All true .

Best Ed


----------



## ghostnote

Thank you Ed, finally someone who isn't close minded and drawn by this dogmatism of studying the old. Yeah it's all true... you must know the rules in order to break them, but someone who really has a voice and understands, knows that it's just a tool.

Studying all the greats won't make you a great composer if you have no distinguishable voice, it just will make you one in a line of many.


----------



## ism

I don’t doubt that theory can lead to a lack of imagination and composition through imitation ... but this isn’t the point. I mean surely ‘hands on learning’ learning through initiation also carries the risk of being stuck in ruts of imitation?

Surely giving one’s permission to go free form and not worry about the theory at a particular moment is one one to get out of a particular compositional rut.

Just as sitting down to think about you way out of a rut through the lens of theory abstracted over generations from studying and absorbing of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of pervious compositions, is another equally valid way to get out of a rut. 

Which is the hard part of compsoing - it’s easy to sit down and hack together some perfectly pleasant completely unoriginal bit of hackers. It’s getting out of the too easy and too predictable and too unoriginal ruts and finding something new and interesting that’s hard. 


No advocate of theory ever argued that theory was the only way to do this.


----------



## Ashermusic

ed buller said:


> yes there really is. Many years ago my father ( himself a composer ) caught me reading Pistons 'Harmony" and was appalled !...it was if i'd been reading Hustler or something. He was particularly upset at me doing the voice leading lessons I seem to remember. Piston can be dreadfully old fashioned. He gave me a copy of Bach's chorales saying learn from this instead. He was the same when I started doing transcriptions from North By Northwest ( a score he loved ). His argument was " if you start to analyse too much you end up imitating too much " . All true .
> 
> Best Ed



(Sigh) Sometimes the only way to deal with silliness is head on.

Let’s start with twentieth century composers who are widely acknowledged to be among the most innovative: Wagner, Debussy, Ravel, Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Varese, Stockhausen, Boulez, Berlin, Adams, Reich, yardages yadda. ALL trained composers.

Film? Herman, North, Goldsmith, Williams, Thomas Newman, Desplat, yadda yadda. ALL trained composers.

Games and trailers? Salta, Bergerson, Phoenix, Giacchino, ALL trained composers.


----------



## ed buller

Ashermusic said:


> (Sigh) Sometimes the only way to deal with silliness is head on.
> 
> Let’s start with twentieth century composers who are widely acknowledged to be among the most innovative: Wagner, Debussy, Ravel, Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Varese, Stockhausen, Boulez, Berlin, Adams, Reich, yardages yadda. ALL trained composers.
> 
> Film? Herman, North, Goldsmith, Williams, Thomas Newman, Desplat, yadda yadda. ALL trained composers.
> 
> Games and trailers? Salta, Bergerson, Phoenix, Giacchino, ALL trained composers.



I do wish you read posts a little more carefully Jay, you are want to fly off the handle occasionally ,


from my earlier post:

"I guess I just think a lot of the music I really love was written by composers who where taught by other composers !...Stravinsky via Rimsky Korsakov, Debussy Via Cesar Frank, Wagner via Christian Theodar Weinlig , Beethoven via Haydn , Ravel via Faure....etc....................."

It's a question of extremes. One can be a slave to discipline and correctness. The art world is littered with such casualties .

best

ed


----------



## Ashermusic

ed buller said:


> I do wish you read posts a little more carefully Jay, you are want to fly off the handle occasionally ,
> 
> 
> from my earlier post:
> 
> "I guess I just think a lot of the music I really love was written by composers who where taught by other composers !...Stravinsky via Rimsky Korsakov, Debussy Via Cesar Frank, Wagner via Christian Theodar Weinlig , Beethoven via Haydn , Ravel via Faure....etc....................."
> 
> It's a question of extremes. One can be a slave to discipline and correctness. The art world is littered with such casualties .
> 
> best
> 
> ed



Right and because some people trained in martial arts may not have their heads on straight and hurt people, people shouldn’t get trained. 

There will always be more mediocrity than great music. It has zero to do with the level of training. The difference is that the music by the trained composers is more likely to at least be competent.


----------



## ghostnote

Jay, there are also a lot of musicians who are not trained in reading music like: Irving Berlin, Eddie Van Halen, Lionel Bart, Jerry Herman, Anthony Newly and a lot of successful guitarists including Jimmy Hendrix.

May I ask, what is musical competence? Never heard any more nonsense than this. In which context? Please Jay be more specific.


----------



## elfman

Ashermusic said:


> Nonsense. Do I really have to list all the innovators who were trained composers?


Since when is trained the same thing as literate? One can become literate on their own. And if you're going to make the argument that most of the greats were trained, then you must consider the time that they were alive. Before the internet, it was much more difficult to learn a particular skill on your own. You most likely had to be trained, to a point, by someone else. Besides, autodidacticism is far more rare than common, so it only makes sense that we see what we do. 

While you certainly have numbers on your side, I can provide enough counter examples that show that formal training is not necessary for creativity. And I'm not talking about Paul McCartney.

The reason why I said there is some truth in both, half-jokingly by the way, is that there are people who are theory experts who aren't very creative, who aren't open to anything outside the "rules" of theory. The same kind of thinking held by the musical intelligentsia who condemned Debussy's harmonic techniques at the time. It's not that learning the "rules" _makes_ you closed-minded, it's that there is a certain kind of hyper-conservative personality which often gravitates to this way of thinking. That's why I said there is _some_ truth in it, not all truth. Creative people will be creative whether they are formally trained or not.


----------



## averystemmler

Complex abstract thought, in my experience, happens through language. Music theory assigns words to entirely abstract constructs, which lets you consider them, codify them, and even discuss them. If you think "apple", you can immediately turn it around in your head, imagine it's weight, taste, and what the result would be if you threw it at the president. You can compare it to, say, a bouquet of flowers, and do the same.

If you don't have that linguistic handle in your brain, though, it takes so much more mental energy to arrive at the same point. And, if you want to discuss an apple with a colleague, you have to rummage around in your refrigerator or describe it by its properties.

Music theory is useful in that same way. If you know the movement of the b6 down to the 5, you can run that through your mental simulations before you express it audibly. You can predict, analyze, and invent through more than just chance and the mechanics of your fingers.

I believe in experimentation too, but I remember the frustration of not being able to put words to the sounds.


----------



## ghostnote

averystemmler said:


> Complex abstract thought, in my experience, happens through language. Music theory assigns words to entirely abstract constructs, which lets you consider them, codify them, and even discuss them. If you think "apple", you can immediately turn it around in your head, imagine it's weight, taste, and what the result would be if you threw it at the president. You can compare it to, say, a bouquet of flowers, and do the same.


So what exactly is the language here? Notation or the piano, the oboe, the violin? We're talking about understanding the act of composing. Not a piece of paper, nor every instrument in its detail. We're talking about creation, color, emotion which are perceived by ear, not by hand.


----------



## jbuhler

ism said:


> I don’t doubt that theory can lead to a lack of imagination and composition through imitation ... but this isn’t the point. I mean surely ‘hands on learning’ learning through initiation also carries the risk of being stuck in ruts of imitation?
> 
> Surely giving one’s permission to go free form and not worry about the theory at a particular moment is one one to get out of a particular compositional rut.
> 
> Just as sitting down to think about you way out of a rut through the lens of theory abstracted over generations from studying and absorbing of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of pervious compositions, is another equally valid way to get out of a rut.
> 
> Which is the hard part of compsoing - it’s easy to sit down and hack together some perfectly pleasant completely unoriginal bit of hackers. It’s getting out of the too easy and too predictable and too unoriginal ruts and finding something new and interesting that’s hard.
> 
> 
> No advocate of theory ever argued that theory was the only way to do this.


Then, too, something like neo-Riemannian theory can be mind opening if you have been trained in traditional diatonic and chromatic harmony, as can learning about extended harmonies, modalism, octatonicism, etc., etc. Theory can certainly also lead to pedanticism or reification, mistaking the theory for the music. It can give you weird taboos, if you internalize the rules of thumb and guidelines for practice as absolutes.


----------



## ghostnote

I'm not talking about the fear subliminal copying by studying scores. I'm also not talking about not knowing music theory, for gods sake you really have to know your theory... I'm talking just for the fact that the act of composing itself has no root in notation whatsoever. It's merely a tool to communicate with other musicians. If you want to learn by reading it, perfectly fine, but please don't look down on others simply because they think they don't need it. Let their results speak.


----------



## ghostnote

Ethos said:


> like reinventing the wheel time and time again.


Just for a fact, the Mayans built their society without the invention of a wheel.


----------



## averystemmler

ghostnote said:


> So what exactly is the language here? Notation or the piano, the oboe, the violin? We're talking about understanding the act of composing. Not a piece of paper, nor every instrument in its detail. We're talking about creation, color, emotion which are perceived by ear, not by hand.



Color, and emotion are perceived by the brain. The ear just gets it there.

As for "creation," that happens in the brain too. My point is that the language of music theory gives your brain something to hold on to.


----------



## ghostnote

averystemmler said:


> Color, and emotion are perceived by the brain. The ear just gets it there.



I was talking peotically... jeez...


----------



## mikeh-375

ghostnote, I can't disagree but will just say that if you learn theory, you are opening yourself up to even greater fluency in writing and therefore personal expression. It saddens me to think a lot of great music is never written because folk do not approach and then use theory in the right way and may never reach their fullest potential. But as I


ghostnote said:


> I'm not talking about the fear subliminal copying by studying scores. I'm also not talking about not knowing music theory, for gods sake you really have to know your theory... I'm talking just for the fact that the act of composing itself has no root in notation whatsoever. It's merely a tool to communicate with other musicians. If you want to learn by reading it, perfectly fine, but please don't look down on others simply because they think they don't need it. Let their results speak.



've acknowledged many times before, a great piece of music can and has been written many times over by non readers.


----------



## mventura

Wow this thread rocks! I love all the great comments here. The thread has begun to morph into what makes a good composer. To me its listening to lots and lots of different genres of music. Whether you know the theory of not it can help to dive creativity by either trying to semi-replicate this music or trying to diverge from it.


----------



## averystemmler

ghostnote said:


> I was talking peotically... jeez...



I really have no idea what we're discussing then. To your other point, I didn't mention notation at all. In fact, I'm a terrible sight reader and only deal with it when absolutely necessary.

I don't think it much matters what things are called, so long as they're called something.


----------



## ghostnote

Mikeh look, I can read music. It's been a while tough, because I simply can't stand it. It's not my cup of coffee. I love classical music and try to see/hear at least a concert a month. I found out that I can learn this way better as with any piece of paper. But the dogma of the necessity of writing/reading music is something that shudders me. Can I pay somebody to transcribe my scores? No problem, but that's not the point.

The point is simply that you can read every score on earth and let's say write your stuff blindly in minutes, if it has no meaning, no personality, no character, or not even a chance to get into a credibly library, then you might want to overthink your situation.


----------



## elfman

mikeh-375 said:


> ghostnote, I can't disagree but will just say that if you learn theory, you are opening yourself up to even greater fluency in writing and therefore personal expression. It saddens me to think a lot of great music is never written because folk do not approach and then use theory in the right way and may never reach their fullest potential.


No offense to you, but I find this kind of sentiment laughable. What you're describing is low levels of talent, which can be improved by training, but not significantly. Really talented people become great no matter what. It's in their brain wiring to be hyper sensitive to musical quality, and thus develop high levels of skill intuitively. Richard Rodgers went to Juilliard after he already had shows on Broadway, and in his own words "I wanted to learn the names of the things I had been doing". Paul McCartney is relatively clueless about music academically. Are you telling me he would have written better songs if he had only taken a few college courses? It's nonsense. Same goes for Jerry Herman, who I saw mentioned earlier. Frederic Chopin, though formally trained in conservatory in his mid-late teens, was already a unique genius and basically completely self-taught before he ever started taking lessons with Elsner. And let's face it, whatever he learned from him I'm sure he could have learned from a few books.

The whole argument is really the notion that without training, one cannot acquire technique, which is just plain wrong.


----------



## ghostnote

mikeh-375 said:


> ghostnote, I can't disagree but will just say that...


Because there are two sides of the coin.

Like Jimmy Hellfire said:


Jimmy Hellfire said:


> These are tools. There are situations where you use tools unconventionally, divert them or put them aside. Tools are one part of the equation - instincts, imagination, identity and a bit of faith in chaos are the other. That's what makes things an art, as opposed to a craft.


Art and craft.


----------



## averystemmler

Alex Niedt said:


> For me, the importance of what things are called extends to talking about music rather than writing it. And I know it's simplistic, but I've always connected with, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture.



And I agree, but for the point that language is only useful for communication. Maybe I have a stranger brain than I thought, but language is a tool for the conception and development of ideas to me too. It's a way of storing information in memory while my brain spins on to the next thought. Without some kind of word to cling to, the idea fades quickly.

Maybe I need to see a neurologist.


----------



## Craig Duke

ed buller said:


> yes there really is. Many years ago my father ( himself a composer ) caught me reading Pistons 'Harmony" and was appalled !...it was if i'd been reading Hustler or something. He was particularly upset at me doing the voice leading lessons I seem to remember. Piston can be dreadfully old fashioned. He gave me a copy of Bach's chorales saying learn from this instead. He was the same when I started doing transcriptions from North By Northwest ( a score he loved ). His argument was " if you start to analyse too much you end up imitating too much " . All true .
> Best Ed


How would someone study Bach when that person had no knowledge music theory? (I'm not talking about you, just in general). Let say the person could at least read music, would they have to re-discover tonic-dominant relationships etc. on their own or would it be just a listening exercise?

BTW, I've heard your fathers music, which I like. Did he compose using some kind of set theory?


----------



## CT

I believe...

...it is possible to do great music without an ounce of theoretical knowledge.

...having theoretical knowledge will make doing great music easier, and will increase the level of greatness that what you do can potentially reach.

...having theoretical knowledge can stifle your creative thinking, but if you're falling into that trap, you have other things to work out. That's on you, not theory. You *don't* want be ruled by tools or technique, only imagination. You *do* want your imagination to be very well-informed.

...that's all that can be said on the subject, and the thread can now be closed.


----------



## Alex Niedt

Craig Duke said:


> How would someone study Bach when that person had no knowledge music theory? (I'm not talking about you, just in general). Let say the person could at least read music, would they have to re-discover tonic-dominant relationships etc. on their own or would it be just a listening exercise?


Much in the way I'd prefer to study painting with my eyes, I'd prefer to study music with my ears.


----------



## Ashermusic

ghostnote said:


> Jay, there are also a lot of musicians who are not trained in reading music like: Irving Berlin, Eddie Van Halen, Lionel Bart, Jerry Herman, Anthony Newly and a lot of successful guitarists including Jimmy Hendrix.
> 
> May I ask, what is musical competence? Never heard any more nonsense than this. In which context? Please Jay be more specific.




Pop music requires a different skill set from concert hall composing. Certainly as many great songwriters and performers are not trained while others are. Gershwin Arlen, Bacharach, Carole King, all were while as you say The Beatles were not.Anthony Newley however is a bad example because he was a lyricists who write with composers.

Compositional competence? How about knowing that if you write two flutes in your composition at mp against a single trumpet at f the flutes will be drowned out?

How about knowing that if you write a Bb for slide trombone to B natural there will be a slide because one is in seventh position and the other in first position? And don't reply, "that is orchestration not composition" because virtually all trained composers have some orchestration knowledge.


----------



## Ashermusic

elfman said:


> Ahem. Since when is trained the same thing as literate? One can become literate on their own. And if you're going to make the argument that most of the greats were trained, then you must consider the time that they were alive. Before the internet, it was much more difficult to learn a particular skill on your own. You had to be "trained" as it were, by someone else. Learning a skill on one's own is also a personality type which is far more rare than common. So it only makes sense.
> 
> While you certainly have numbers on your side, I can provide enough counter examples that show that "formal training" is not necessary for creativity in principle. And I'm not talking about Paul McCartney.
> 
> The reason why I said there is some truth in both, half-jokingly by the way, is that I have friends who are theory experts who are only mildly creative, and who are stuck in their ways and not open to anything outside the "rules" of theory. The same kind of thinking held by the musical intelligentsia who condemned Debussy's harmonic techniques at the time. It's not that learning the "rules" _makes_ you closed minded, it's that there is a certain kind of hyper-conservative personality which often gravitates to this way of thinking. That's why I said there is _some_ truth in it, not all truth. Creative people will be creative whether they are formally trained or not.




I don't disagree with that. What I am pushing back is the erroneous idea that training will take an innovative creator and make him less innovative. If he is not innovative with training, he would almost assuredly not be without training.


----------



## Ashermusic

ghostnote said:


> Mikeh look, I can read music. It's been a while tough, because I simply can't stand it. It's not my cup of coffee. I love classical music and try to see/hear at least a concert a month. I found out that I can learn this way better as with any piece of paper. But the dogma of the necessity of writing/reading music is something that shudders me. Can I pay somebody to transcribe my scores? No problem, but that's not the point.



So you can analyze and write fifth species style contrapuntal passages if you want to without reading music? I tip my hat to you because you have way better ears and intellect than I ever had.


----------



## ghostnote

Ashermusic said:


> And don't reply, "that is orchestration not composition" because virtually all trained composers have some orchestration knowledge.


Yes and no. All Jacuzzis are hot tubs, but not all hot tubs are Jacuzzis.


----------



## Ashermusic

ghostnote said:


> Yes and no. All Jacuzzis are hot tubs, but not all hot tubs are Jacuzzis.



Please name me even _one_ trained composer who does not have at least a rudimentary knowledge of orchestration.I literally don't know one. Some are better orchestrators than others but I have never met one who would not know what I described while an engineer once related to me an experience he had with a composer he worked with, untrained. He wrote those trombone notes and said to the player" don't slide." The player said, "I can't help that." The composer said, "Why not, it doesn't happen with my samples?"


----------



## ghostnote

Look Jay, you're still thinking in your basic terms, which is OK, I get this all the time from men who are older than me: _"How did you do this?" or "This is impossible!"
_
It's not that I'm saying screw hundreds of years of musical knowledge, it's important, it led us where we are now. People used to wear pocketwatches, then wristwatches, now they look on their phones. The point here is that there are methods which are auto didactic and based on pragmatism, which you may not be willing to accept as appropriate when it comes to creating music. Do believe whatever you want, but by sticking to the doctrine, you may become redundant over time.


----------



## Polkasound

elfman said:


> It's in their brain wiring to be hyper sensitive to musical quality, and thus develop high levels of skill intuitively.



I believe this is absolutely true. It all depends on how a person is wired. Some people are built to be mathematicians from birth, just as some people are built to be musicians. A wannabe rock star can study all the theory he wants, but that doesn't guarantee he'll be able to compose songs as good as Prince, who simply "got" music because that's how his brain was wired.



Ashermusic said:


> So you can analyze and write fifth species style contrapuntal passages if you want to without reading music?



I believe there are people who can do that, because their brains are wired to hear how music is composed. The only difference is that they can't explain in musical terms what the heck they're writing.


----------



## Chr!s

Ashermusic said:


> He wrote those trombone notes and said to the player" don't slide." The player said, "I can't help that." The composer said, "Why not, it doesn't happen with my samples?"


----------



## Ashermusic

ghostnote said:


> Look Jay, you're still thinking in your basic terms, which is OK, I get this all the time from men who are older than me: _"How did you do this?" or "This is impossible!"
> _
> It's not that I'm saying screw hundreds of years of musical knowledge, it's important, it led us where we are now. People used to wear pocketwatches, then wristwatches, now they look on their phones. The point here is that there are methods which are auto didiactic and based on pragmatism, which you may not be willing to accept as appropriate inm terms of craeting music. Do believe whatever you want, but by defending the doctrine, you may become redundant over time.



I accept quite willingly that people can be creative and make great music without training. I reject wholeheartedly the idea that having training somehow diminishes a person’s ability to be creative who otherwise would be.


----------



## elfman

Polkasound said:


> I believe this is absolutely true. It all depends on how a person is wired. Some people are built to be mathematicians from birth, just as some people are built to be musicians. A wannabe rock star can study all the theory he wants, but that doesn't guarantee he'll be able to compose songs as good as Prince, who simply "got" music because that's how his brain was wired.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there are people who can do that, because their brains are wired to hear how music is composed. The only difference is that they can't explain in musical terms what the heck they're writing.


That's actually a rather advanced, very specific skill with very strict rules. There have been great geniuses who never mastered fugal writing. Serious conscious study is definitely required, but obviously some people are more naturally adept at it than others, even people of generally equal talent.


----------



## RAdu

some people say that the universe is infinite...we don't know...but this thread is going in that direction. one thing that i've learned on the internet is that is very hard to change someone's opinion here(me included,i'm not the most open minded guy on earth)...but i'll try anyway asking my first and last question to those who say that music theory limits creativity.....do you remeber when you first started making music? at first was all crap...after a while you learned the basics of "MUSIC THEORY" scales,chords,how to built a nice chord progression and so on....your creativity was limited after applying "MUSIC THEORY" to your music? or you started to write better composions? now explain me how and why going deeper into the architecture of music limits you.....why beying able to study all the great composers before us is such a treath to creativity? 
Honestly i think this way of thinking comes from a place of ignorance and lazines,I can say that beacause i'm lazy too,i'm not a guru of theory...but everything I learn everyday about it helps so,so much improving my work...i really cannot understand why you guys think like that...but as i said erlier maybe i'm just stupid


----------



## ghostnote

Ashermusic said:


> I accept quite willingly that people can be creative and make great music without training. I reject wholeheartedly the idea that having training somehow diminishes a person’s ability to be creative who otherwise would be.


And I wholeheartedly agree quite willingly that I have never said that having training diminishes a person's ability to be creative.

I just merely defend the standpoint, and without trying to provoke anybody, that there is a way to understand writing music without formal training. If this person then comes into the situation to be able to work with an orchestra and he then manages to communicate by learning notation, is the other question. Will it make him a better composer by doing so? Maybe. Will it define his talent? Most probably not.


----------



## Wally Garten

Ashermusic said:


> How about knowing that if you write two flutes in your composition at mp against a single trumpet at f the flutes will be drowned out?



Hey, no problem. Just slap a compressor on those flutes and Pump.Up.That.Gain.

(I make a lot of music on the computer -- does it show?)


----------



## Dewdman42

The logical fallacies are flying...

Receiving training will not and cannot ruin a truly creative person, for the same reason that creative person will"create" some kind of interesting and creative things, even without the training. The sensibilities are there. The training cannot ruin that person. however, it can definitely expand that person's ability to realize creative ideas they have in their mind. Creative individuals that never get training or at least pursue on their own serious music studies will tend to create many things that sound a lot the same...creative and lovely no doubt...but still they are limited by what they don't even know that they don't know. Expanding their knowledge, understanding and literacy can only increase their ability to realize their creative musical ideas.

yes its true there are people with lots of training and very little innate talent that will never create anything worthwhile, but that does not mean the education is useless or lacking value, not for them, and not for creative individuals either.

Trying to justify lack of musical education is pure ignorance. Any musician that has taken that attitude is being lazy and scared of the unknown, they don't know what they don't know and will miss out on opportunities they might have realized should they have expanded their mind with it.


----------



## Chr!s

RAdu said:


> i really cannot understand why you guys think like that



Because music, like all art, is concerned with the immaterial. Things like music theory, which explain it, seem to reduce the experience to just more materialism. It threatens to take the wonder out of it.

I get it. I understand why someone wouldn't want that. From the enlightenment onward, we were told accepting 100% logic, reason, and the material would make our lives better. We know now that it definitely had the opposite affect.

Artists don't want that to affect their art, either. They especially don't want that, as it is ultimately artwork and tradition that defines human cultures; not scientific discovery (to an extent) and mathematics.

The good news is, you can still utilize music theory to maximum effect and remain just as enchanted by music as you ever were, if you're open to it. Increased understanding of music, and the physics regarding it, has been responsible for its evolution.


----------



## ism

Chr!s said:


> Because music, like all art, is concerned with the immaterial. Things like music theory, which explain it, seem to reduce the experience to just more materialism. It threatens to take the wonder out of it.
> 
> I get it. I understand why someone wouldn't want that. From the enlightenment onward, we were told accepting 100% logic, reason, and the material would make our lives better. We know now that it definitely had the opposite affect.
> 
> Artists don't want that to affect their art, either. They especially don't want that, as it is ultimately artwork and tradition that defines human cultures; not scientific discovery (to an extent) and mathematics.
> 
> The good news is, you can still utilize music theory to maximum effect and remain just as enchanted by music as you ever were, if you're open to it. Increased understanding of music, and the physics regarding it, has been responsible for its evolution.




This is pure romanticism. I’m sympathetic to the notion, but creation is never pure inspiration. There’s always mechanic to be mastered.

Even stilling at a keyboard has a layer of theory always already present - a geometry that privileges a single major scale.


----------



## elfman

Ashermusic said:


> Nonsense. Do I really have to list all the innovators who were trained composers?


Jay, I do apologize. I completely misunderstood what you meant earlier when you said this. I thought your point was that one can't be an innovator without training. I now realize you simply meant that formal education does not stifle creativity, which I completely agree with.


----------



## Chr!s

ism said:


> This is pure romanticism. I’m sympathetic to the notion, but creation is never pure inspiration. There’s always mechanic to be mastered.
> 
> Even stilling at a keyboard has a layer of theory always already present - a geometry that privileges a single major scale.



Did you even read the post you quoted?


----------



## Ashermusic

elfman said:


> Jay, I do apologize. I completely misunderstood what you meant earlier when you said this. I thought your point was that one can't be an innovator without training. I now realize you simply meant that formal education does not stifle creativity, which I completely agree with.



Good.


----------



## elfman

Not going to name names, but I'm a little shocked at the number of people here who refuse to gain at least some understanding of theory. I'm not an expert, but I found pleasure in studying the basics. Lifting one's self out of complete ignorance is enlightening and gratifying. There's a pleasure in being able to write your music down on real paper.


----------



## ghostnote

elfman said:


> who refuse to gain at least some understanding of theory


Music theory is what? Is that just notation or beeing able to write music, knowing chords, signatures, modulations, etc. I think you and some people in this thread are switching things up here.

BTW. Am I the only one who thinks that using the name and picture of a famous composer on these forums is inappropriate?


----------



## Polkasound

elfman said:


> That's actually a rather advanced, very specific skill with very strict rules. There have been great geniuses who never mastered fugal writing. Serious conscious study is definitely required, but obviously some people are more naturally adept at it than others.



Yes, if one is asked to compose a fugue, then they'll need to understand what a fugue is. What I was trying to convey is a broader idea that relates to elements of compositional techniques which can be heard, absorbed, and applied (though perhaps not understood) by gifted musicians without theoretical instruction.

--

On a general note, I think there are some people who perceive music as entirely right-brained, and theory as left-brained, so any study of theory would tap brainpower otherwise used for creativity. Personally, I don't think studying theory would affect one's creativity at all, but rather the increase in knowledge would embellish it.

Great music will forever be composed with and without theory. Let's enjoy it all.


----------



## ism

Chr!s said:


> Did you even read the post you quoted?



You’re right - I read your last paragraph a bit too quickly, so apologies if my reply caricatures what you’re actually saying.

So instead, i’ll reframe my above comment and argue don’t your don’t go nearly far enough in critiquing the romantic nonsense of the picture you paint. I feel it’s not merely good news that form and ideas and though don’t have to reductively destroy true creativity, it’s that the dichotomy between the two was always a very damaging, western pathology, most acute in in the 19th century.


The said, I really love Romanticism as an artistic and philosophical moment on the whole, and consider it a wholly necessary correction to the reductivism of the Enlightenment. ( Until it’s co-opted to the commodification of art, beginning, not coincidentally around the same moment that intellectual propertiey law begins to be strengthened and publishing becomes a lucrative industry.)

I suppose I just really strongly reject the soul destroying dichotomy of the “two cultures” divide. I think it does immeasurable damage to both art and science, not to mention society as a whole.


----------



## elfman

ghostnote said:


> Music theory is what? Is that just notation or beeing able to write music, knowing chords, signatures, modulations, etc.


For me, yes. Try notating a piece without understanding your chord types and why those chords are spelled the way they are, or not knowing when to use double accidentals. You won't know how to spell anything and anyone trying to play your music won't be able to read it. I went through that phase. It sucks.

There's a certain working knowledge of theory that I think is important to have for anyone who is serious about composing. It isn't absolutely necessary to make music, but it's not difficult to acquire and can be very useful. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## jonathanparham

Chr!s said:


>


OT is this meme from Lee Majors in the 6M dollar man


----------



## Chr!s

jonathanparham said:


> OT is this meme from Lee Majors in the 6M dollar man



Charlton Heston in Planet of The Apes, I think


----------



## jonathanparham

Chr!s said:


> Charlton Heston in Planet of The Apes, I think


oh I'm daft. Thought I fund some cool 70s obscure tv scene


----------



## mikeh-375

elfman said:


> No offense to you, but I find this kind of sentiment laughable. What you're describing is low levels of talent, which can be improved by training, but not significantly. Really talented people become great no matter what. It's in their brain wiring to be hyper sensitive to musical quality, and thus develop high levels of skill intuitively. Richard Rodgers went to Juilliard after he already had shows on Broadway, and in his own words "I wanted to learn the names of the things I had been doing". Paul McCartney is relatively clueless about music academically. Are you telling me he would have written better songs if he had only taken a few college courses? It's nonsense. Same goes for Jerry Herman, who I saw mentioned earlier. Frederic Chopin, though formally trained in conservatory in his mid-late teens, was already a unique genius and basically completely self-taught before he ever started taking lessons with Elsner. And let's face it, whatever he learned from him I'm sure he could have learned from a few books.
> 
> The whole argument is really the notion that without training, one cannot acquire technique, which is just plain wrong.



HI Elfman,
I'm not describing low level talent in that way, I have made clear my position on composers who have no training earlier in this thread and also agree that theory could well be the demise of some (I know this because i have had deep conversations with talented composers who have no technique beyond the binary realm). My _'laughable sentiment'_ is a genuine reaction because almost daily you read on this forum , threads about how to do this?, why can't I do this?, what should I do now?, all asked by novices who are don't know or seem to want to know the craft if it lies outside a computer. I and others know the freeing answers to these questions. btw, I am talking about orchestral media and art music only, just to clarify my stance.

The other part of my 'laughable sentiment' is also genuine because not learning at least as much theory as you feel able or are naturally happy with as a footing is denying you a deeper understanding of your own creative psyche - you get this or you don't, either way it is a lost opportunity to develop a voice that has even more uniqueness if it is already there. My apologies about the oracular tone, but there is no other way to say these things.
Like it or not though, theory is a good bet to improve your composing ability even if marginally as you say and that might rankle with some, but it is true to say the more you know about something, the better you will be at it. Besides Jay's list above is the standard of the competition in media, probably wisest to acquire some good weapons if you get a chance to do battle with those bad boys.


----------



## muk

The dissent comes from talking different things I guess. If you want to study and write classical music, theoretical knowledge is indispensable. You need to study music theory (harmony, counterpoint, form, orchestration…) to fully understand it, to be able to write it, and to be able to communicate with others about it.

For popular music, you need to study different things. Musical theory can still help, but it is not as necessary as for classical music. Other things will be more important. Music notation plays a much smaller part - playing skills and improvisation are more important.

If you want to be an artist painter you need a certain knowledge of the techniques and history of painting. If you paint comic strips, having studied Rembrandt, Cézanne, Picasso etc. etc. is not required. But you should have studied the important and influential comic strips.

In film music the classical orchestra is still widely in use. The musical styles are pretty varied. I’m no expert on film music, but to me it feels like nowadays most of these styles are closer to popular music than to classical. Thus, studying orchestration is something that should pay off for film music. But classical music theory might not be as important anymore as it has been. Synth/sound design and production play important roles it seems to me. And that’s two fields young film composers should have knowledge about.

So I guess nobody is saying that studying per se is not necessary. I hope we all can agree that it is paramount for personal growth, both as an artist and a human being. But what exactly we think one should study, it’s here that opinions differ depending on our backgrounds.

As Robert Schumann wrote: ‘Don’t be afraid of the words: theory, thorough-bass, counterpoint, etc. They will meet you friendly if you meet them so.’ I think that is very true. But again, depending on what you want to do studying classical music theory might be more pertinent or less pertinent to you. But studying per se (and I am not talking academic courses here, but the act of looking at something in depth, analysing it, and thinking about it) - the importance of that cannot be overestimated in my opinion.


----------



## mikeh-375

muk said:


> The dissent comes from talking different things I guess. If you want to study and write classical music, theoretical knowledge is indispensable. You need to study music theory (harmony, counterpoint, form, orchestration…) to fully understand it, to be able to write it, and to be able to communicate with others about it.
> 
> For popular music, you need to study different things. Musical theory can still help, but it is not as necessary as for classical music. Other things will be more important. Music notation plays a much smaller part - playing skills and improvisation are more important.
> 
> If you want to be an artist painter you need a certain knowledge of the techniques and history of painting. If you paint comic strips, having studied Rembrandt, Cézanne, Picasso etc. etc. is not required. But you should have studied the important and influential comic strips.
> 
> In film music the classical orchestra is still widely in use. The musical styles are pretty varied. I’m no expert on film music, but to me it feels like nowadays most these styles are closer to popular music than to classical. Thus, studying orchestration is something that should pay off for film music. But classical music theory might not be as important anymore as it has been. Synth/sound design and production play important roles it seems to me. And that’s two fields young film composers should have knowledge about.
> 
> So I guess nobody is saying that studying per se is not necessary. I hope we all can agree that it is paramount for personal growth, both as an artist and a human being. But what exactly we think one should study, it’s here that opinions differ depending on our backgrounds.
> 
> As Robert Schumann wrote: ‘Don’t be afraid of the words: theory, thorough-bass, counterpoint, etc. They will meet you friendly if you meet them so.’ I think that is very true. But again, depending on what you want to do studying classical music theory might be more pertinent or less pertinent to you. But studying per se (and I am not talking academic courses here, but the act of looking at something in depth, analysing it, and thinking about it) - the importance of that cannot be overestimated in my opinion.





Good post Muk. I would say though, that a knowledge of atonal and/or serial principles would be beneficial to media composers not only to easily and quickly find dissonance, but more importantly to control it and to utilise it with conviction and musicality - to manipulate the material to the whims of a cue say. - see John Williams...there aint no hands down and hoping for the best there...(btw before I get slammed because some might perceive the 'hands down' comment as pejorative, I did it too occasionally, but that doesn't mean to say it is better than total control of what you do and where you want to go with it, and besides, I was guided by instincts honed through practising theory as one would learning an instrument - another often mis-understood benefit of learning.).


----------



## mikeh-375

ghostnote said:


> .............................
> The point is simply that you can read every score on earth and let's say write your stuff blindly in minutes, if it has no meaning, no personality, no character, or not even a chance to get into a credibly library, then you might want to overthink your situation.




Ghost,

I get your personal proclivities and that's cool we all need to find our way. However, here again is the biggest lie about theory. If done and utilised properly theory is the way to finding your creative personality,_ not_ oppressing it in a creative sense - fact, sorry. (don't mean to be preachy, but the slanderous myths around technique are just that). By the very act of learning and _especially practising _technique, you start finding that you will naturally make instinctive decisions about whether or not a particular technique suits your personality and a feedback process begins because when you make that decision you are delving more into what you are as a composer and so your natural tendencies come to the fore, which then will choose their own preferred methods - its a bit like natural selection. You then hone with practice what comes and feels natural to you.
Of course one can't account for ability, but learning is one hell of a way to see if you have something to say, especially because if you do, you can then dress it up properly for audience consumption.
Oh and have mentioned its function as a search tool at the beginning of the writing process..and....the way it hones your musical instinct after much study and gives you a firm foundation with which to explore and open the door for inspiration. Its a bit like a concert pianist not being bothered about the horrendous scale passage coming up because he can play it, he just focuses on making it musical....etc. etc. etc....

I am as always just, in the main, talking about orchestral media and art music btw..I feel as though I need to keep saying that to stave off any broadsides from aficianados of other musical paradigms.


----------



## Vik

muk said:


> If you want to study and write classical music, theoretical knowledge is indispensable. You need to study music theory (harmony, counterpoint, form, orchestration…) to fully understand it, to be able to write it, and to be able to communicate with others about it.
> 
> For popular music, you need to study different things. Musical theory can still help, but it is not as necessary as for classical music. Other things will be more important. Music notation plays a much smaller part - playing skills and improvisation are more important.
> 
> If you want to be an artist painter you need a certain knowledge of the techniques and history of painting. If you paint comic strips, having studied Rembrandt, Cézanne, Picasso etc. etc. is not required.


What you write makes sense, as usual. Two comments: it would actually be interesting to see a comic strip influenced by these painters. Or what about a combination of Klee und Hundertwasser? Miro and Gaugin? 

Regarding the first part I quoted, we should also not forget that those who created the first chapters written about music theory never had read any books about music theory. They wrote the theory based on what they heard; there was no literature, anywhere, which eg would suggest "Don't double the third in the bass" etc. So even without having studied music theory, they 'knew' it. That will to some degree work for others as well. And as a third comment: creating something new often comes out of a meeting between two different elements. So maybe those who write pop music would make a lot better music if they studied harmony, dived into counterpoint etc. I think (I'm sure!) they would. And likewise, maybe some of those who haven't studied music theory can come up with stuff which may not be 'correct' or sound like traditional orchestral music which most of those who have studied it in depth would have a hard time creating.
Personally, I don't see why anyone - in any genre - wouldn't want to learn notation, harmony etc, but I also have some belief in the rule breakers. Occasionally, something good comes out of it.


----------



## elfman

mikeh-375 said:


> The other part of my 'laughable sentiment' is also genuine because not learning at least as much theory as you feel able or are naturally happy with as a footing is denying you a deeper understanding of your own creative psyche - you get this or you don't, either way it is a lost opportunity to develop a voice that has even more uniqueness if it is already there. My apologies about the oracular tone, but there is no other way to say these things.
> Like it or not though, theory is a good bet to improve your composing ability even if marginally as you say and that might rankle with some, but it is true to say the more you know about something, the better you will be at it. Besides Jay's list above is the standard of the competition in media, probably wisest to acquire some good weapons if you get a chance to do battle with those bad boys.


I get the impression that you only read that one post of mine.


----------



## mikeh-375

my apologies Elfman...rectified now. I was responding directly to your reaction to my post. I see we are on the same page...way hey....


----------



## elfman

mikeh-375 said:


> my apologies Elfman...rectified now. I was responding directly to your reaction to my post. I see we are on the same page...way hey....


No harm done.


----------



## ism

I recently rewatched Sense and Sensibility, which is such a great film.

And the whole point of it is of course that Emma Thompson sister and the Kate Winslet sister realize by the end that they're really not nearly so different as they thought. (Via an impressively presciently proto-feminist deconstruction of the false of 'sense' vs 'sensibility' binary).


Which for some reason is reminding me of this thread.


----------



## Craig Duke

ism said:


> I recently rewatched Sense and Sensibility, which is such a great film.
> 
> And the whole point of it is of course that Emma Thompson sister and the Kate Winslet sister realize by the end that they're really not nearly so different as they thought. (Via an impressively presciently proto-feminist deconstruction of the false of 'sense' vs 'sensibility' binary).
> Which for some reason is reminding me of this thread.


Marrying a rich landowner (Col. Brandon) will do that to you. 

With all of the Persuasion going on, there may be some Pride and Prejudice involved.


----------



## ed buller

Craig Duke said:


> BTW, I've heard your fathers music, which I like. Did he compose using some kind of set theory?



I wish I knew. I think spent a long time "preparing material ". O lot of this was scalic . Usually over 3 octaves .

best

ed


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

jonathanparham said:


> oh I'm daft. Thought I fund some cool 70s obscure tv scene



Hardly obscure! It was huge in the '70s.


----------



## jonathanparham

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Hardly obscure! It was huge in the '70s.


lol thanks


----------

