# Music Theory - is there ever a point where you have everything in your composition under control?



## ein fisch

So this is a question for all the composers here that did learn music theory for a long time (5+ years), including ear training and all that good stuff;

Are your compositions still a try-and-fail sometimes or can you make faster decisions due to it (well i bet you can, but was that speed-up worth the hours/years of practice?)? Like knowing exactly if you're gonna use this voicing after the other voicing?

When i think of me after learning and practicing music theory for a couple years my goal would be to gain more control and not having to try and fail all the time. Like sitting down, listening to a piece of mozart and be able to sit down and instantly remake it in my daw without trying around like "hmm, did he use a 7th or normal chord there?".. am i hunting for something there which can be achieved?

Have a good day


----------



## Parsifal666

Theory is super for getting you out of the 12-bar sample loop rut that a lot of young composers get into. It can help you with making your compositions longer, shorter; throw out music that just isn't working out, give you confidence in more out-there compositional choices...it helps in so many ways it's ridiculous.

I often incorporate a freewheeling approach to composition (which in part means I'm not worrying too much about theory), but that happens mostly in the sketching stage (which is where it generally belongs). When I'm editing my graduate's degree in music really helps, no question there.

All that said, there are great musicians/songwriters who wrote many of their masterpieces knowing only a modicum of theory. The Beatles, mid-60s Beach Boys.

Heck, for an example of an album obviously bereft of any real theoretical-allegiance pick up Slayer's "Reign in Blood". They threw away the rules for the most part and instead went for whatever sounded good (in this case blisteringly eeevilll). And I believe that album is multi-platinum (probably better than that).

I think it's all about context, once again. I just know I'm so glad I studied theory, and use it (or consciously avoid it, which is still using it I suppose) every day.

I can't go without mentioned the invaluable factor of happy mistakes...


----------



## mikeh-375

yes it can be achieved, except when it can't.


----------



## Saxer

Theory and ear training helps a lot to get more possibilities and recognizing good desicions. Also good for transcribing/arranging jobs. 
But composing interesting stuff is like inventing good new jokes. New good jokes are hard to find and even harder to create. It remains hard if you don't just repeat standard things (which is mostly enough for media composing). Since 45 years I think I'm just starting...


----------



## ism

I call it the 'dolphin metaphor' (although I originally came up with it to describe the experience of doing theoretical physics).

Imagine you're a dolphin swimming and leaping out to the water in flights of intuitive leap - temporarily rising above the technical details of water speed and swishing your tail in order to get maximal efficiency in your propulsion.

Eventually you need to come back into the water and immerse yourself in these details and technicalities of the medium of water and build up some more momentum for your next leap of intuition.

But while you're in the air, other that making sure that you don't land with a belly flop, you have a certain freedom to take in things from a larger perspective unhindered by the grindingly literal technical details.


I'd argue that this metaphor works for listening to music to. A (well composed) piece sets up recognizable, absorbable sets of structure grounded in pattern recognition and harmonic theory such, but then once in a while it's ok to ask the listener to leap out of in off in some crazy direction.


----------



## eph221

I was lucky to have learned most theory before I even got to college age, it's really second nature. There are three things I'm really glad I did (y) 1. learn theory 2. learn some instruments to the point of mastery and 3. learn how to teach. The latter is overlooked by some but it really takes you out of the egocentricism and into the world of others POV's. With that arsenal you can compose from 360 degrees...performers, composers, and audience. Just take jazz piano lessons and ask the teacher to explain theory to you, it's easier when there's a con-text. It's not hard to apply jazz theory to classical music.


----------



## Parsifal666

I should add that ear training to me is so obviously mandatory as to be compulsive. A tone deaf composer isn't going to get very far in practically _*any*_ musical context.

Uhhh, unless you're under the auspices of one of those the-producer-basically-does-everything projects (kinda like what Beyoncé, Madonna, Bieber, etc. do...excuse me,_* don't*_). 

That is, (and this probably should go without saying) if you have the youth, looks, openness to current trends and fashion, elite agent, etc. then you really don't have to know much about music at all (or even be in tune, on time...we could go on).


----------



## eph221

It's an extremely large Pie now that the business is international. please don't poo poo madonna's talent. She really is a very talented person, as is beyonce. :D:D


----------



## Parsifal666

eph221 said:


> It's an extremely large Pie now that the business is international. please don't poo poo madonna's talent. She really is a very talented person, as is beyonce. :D:D


I'll poo where I please. And a special poo 'pon your poo-pooing indignity.


----------



## JohnG

"Try and fail" is not an option if you have a merciless deadline, which is most of the time if you are on a job. In that case, knowing how to make the brass "just do their thing" without having to peck at the keyboard for an hour is indispensable.

Put another way, I've often attended scoring sessions and can hear what a composer is reaching for -- but he doesn't really know how to get there. Sometimes it's hopeless -- too many changes are needed. But, more often, a few revoicings of chords, or maybe a judicious doubling or even octave change can bring the music where he intended.


----------



## ein fisch

JohnG said:


> "Try and fail" is not an option if you have a merciless deadline, which is most of the time if you are on a job. In that case, knowing how to make the brass "just do their thing" without having to peck at the keyboard for an hour is indispensable.
> 
> Put another way, I've often attended scoring sessions and can hear what a composer is reaching for -- but he doesn't really know how to get there. Sometimes it's hopeless -- too many changes are needed. But, more often, a few revoicings of chords, or maybe a judicious doubling or even octave change can bring the music where he intended.



Interesting. But is that really due to theory knowledge? I thought the awareness of "what works" comes with years of practical experience. As i got often told - even by people which learned music theory - that i should just go with what sounds best (as long as im not writing complex classical counterpoint stuff).. this made me think of music theory to be kind of a waste of time for me (like learning rules which doesnt even have practical use later on in music unless the very basic ones), and i thought i rather jump straight into my daw and try and fail for a long long time until im aware of whats going on.

Or did i miss something?

Thanks everyone for the replies so far


----------



## ein fisch

Parsifal666 said:


> I should add that ear training to me is so obviously mandatory as to be compulsive. A tone deaf composer isn't going to get very far in practically _*any*_ musical context.
> 
> Uhhh, unless you're under the auspices of one of those the-producer-basically-does-everything projects (kinda like what Beyoncé, Madonna, Bieber, etc. do...excuse me,_* don't*_).
> 
> That is, (and this probably should go without saying) if you have the youth, looks, openness to current trends and fashion, elite agent, etc. then you really don't have to know much about music at all (or even be in tune, on time...we could go on).



I wish i had that trendy teenager voice which i could smash onto my productions and make them shine without even knowing whats going on compositionally.
Sadly i dont.
Is there an online application which you'd recommend for practicing ear training on a daily basis?


----------



## Leon Willett

ein fisch said:


> Interesting. But is that really due to theory knowledge? I thought the awareness of "what works" comes with years of practical experience. As i got often told - even by people which learned music theory - that i should just go with what sounds best (as long as im not writing complex classical counterpoint stuff).. this made me think of music theory to be kind of a waste of time for me (like learning rules which doesnt even have practical use later on in music unless the very basic ones), and i thought i rather jump straight into my daw and try and fail for a long long time until im aware of whats going on.
> 
> Or did i miss something?
> 
> Thanks everyone for the replies so far



Theory, *when done right* (and more often than not it isn't!) is a tool that helps you get to get your music to sound exactly the way you want. 

Theory, *when done wrong* (most books, most courses) is a set of dogmas that have little or nothing to do with how your music sounds -- which is why theory gets the bad reputation to which you're referring. 

"What works", as you put it, is synonymous with, simply: "how you, the composer, want it to sound". So, if theory helps you sound the way you want, it isn't something different to "what works"; it is one and the same thing. Theory = what works. 

... if theory is done right, of course


----------



## visiblenoise

I'd sooner attribute speed/intuitiveness while composing to organized and conscious experimentation/practice, rather than learning theory. It's entirely possible to learn theory without having it help much with composing... I managed it for years when I studied piano as a kid who didn't particularly even like music.

I think the only invaluable part of learning theory lies in the awareness of the principles that people stick to, but even that in itself is worthless until you play with those ideas yourself. If you had an amazing ear, you could figure it all out by yourself and it would be just as good, except you just wouldn't know the names of those ideas.


----------



## Parsifal666

visiblenoise said:


> I'd sooner attribute speed/intuitiveness while composing to organized and conscious experimentation/practice, rather than learning theory. It's entirely possible to learn theory without having it help much with composing... I managed it for years when I studied piano as a kid who didn't particularly even like music.
> 
> I think the only invaluable part of learning theory lies in the awareness of the principles that people stick to, but even that in itself is worthless until you play with those ideas yourself. If you had an amazing ear, you could figure it all out by yourself and it would be just as good, except you just wouldn't know the names of those ideas.


This lends hope to folks who don't want the tools first, but there's no replacing foreknowledge. Without that things are going to be harder, only a fool would deny that. Get the tools and then you get to where you want faster. You can't spend your time starting with nothing and reverse engineering without stymying yourself now and again. Get the tools straight, then you know the options involved whenever you inevitably get stuck. Endlessly trying to tutor oneself on the web can lead to confusion due to too mamy opinions. If you wish to be a part of the vanguard, being relatively undereducated is your stumbling block. And it will haunt you.


----------



## CT

I know theory and I'm still an absolutely dreadful composer. Your mileage may vary....


----------



## Sean

Sure theory will not necessarily help you find a really cool melody you like, but knowing how chords work and how to make them "make sense" theory wise is an invaluable tool. With theory there are chords that lead to each other and this helps create a good progression. Sure you can find these chord progressions without the theory knowledge, but it takes longer.

This is just one example of how music theory "can" help. Obviously it will not make you an award winning composer, but I believe it can certainly help.


----------



## visiblenoise

Parsifal666 said:


> This lends hope to folks who don't want the tools first, but there's no replacing foreknowledge. Without that things are going to be harder, only a fool would deny that. Get the tools and then you get to where you want faster. You can't spend your time starting with nothing and reverse engineering without stymying yourself now and again. Get the tools straight, then you know the options involved whenever you inevitably get stuck. Endlessly trying to tutor oneself on the web can lead to confusion due to too mamy opinions. If you wish to be a part of the vanguard, being relatively undereducated is your stumbling block. And it will haunt you.



I agree to some degree, maybe I take my earlier studying for granted and am unwilling to give it credit because I see that part of my life as a waste of opportunity. However, I've spent a lot of time only enjoying listening to relatively inscrutable music (you seem to know metal, I'm referring to Deathspell Omega and the like), and being frustrated at not being able to figure out what exactly they're doing on guitar (with no obvious music theory to guide me), yet I'm still able to incorporate a bit of those influences into original material, with some logical thought and experimentation. Then again it may be a poor imitation so I may be talking out of my ass.

Also I just realized I am only talking from the perspective of an only-for-me sort of artist... if someone is commissioning you, I imagine that things change a lot!


----------



## Leon Portelance

I spent 4 years learning theory and composition in the beginning of the 70’s. I really don’t think about it much anymore, it is ingrained in me. A lot of my rock and pop tunes have a lot of classical influences in them.


----------



## mikeh-375

Clearly theory is technique too and if you have to use technique to play an instrument, or use knowledge of techniques to mix a track, then you should be using it to aid composing - it is not a separate discipline. Once learnt and applied to your work correctly, it should be as Leon says, instinctive.
Theory is your guiding hand and if learnt properly will give you insight and help you find your own artistry....it's also bloody marvellous when the clock is ticking, because there is no need to flounce around in your silk dressing gown throwing tantrums and imploring inspiration to show up....you just go with the _flow_ and get it done to a high standard....


----------



## Montisquirrel

It depends on what you want to do. Music Theory is a way to describe what you hear with words. There maybe parts in this theroy which will help you alot, there will be parts, which you think sound aweful and are useless.

For me, it is really helpful now, after many years of "just doing it". It is not necessary for doing a good job or making music which you like. For example, when I did my first feature lenght film, I used just a very common 4-chord-progression in A-minor over the whole film, and you now what? People loved it. I didn't even think about it, didn't even knew the word "chord-progression". I just let the pictures and the emotions lead me to decide, which instruments, which tempi, etc... (And now when I think about it, I also didn't even used a reverb-plugin).
It took me a very long time to finish that job and I was full of self-doubt and I was never sure, if the music is good or not.

So, No, you don't need any theory.

BUT

After all this years, I love digging deep into theory right now. I really enjoy it. It is fun to learn some tricks which other composers before you found out about. I am still at the very beginning, but it definetly helps with composing (of course). 

An Example: I am sitting on a job right now. It is a very short film (3min) which had a dramatic change in the middle, and because learning about modulations technics in the last weeks I was able to write something satisfiying in a few minutes, without self-doubt, because I know it will work. Some theory-knowledge is so powerfull. This job will not give me any awards and it will maybe only be seen/heard by a very few people, but it feeds my family.

And never learn theory without doing it. Don't read a 500 pages theory book without practising each page of it.


----------



## Illico

With Theory, you'll stay in standard but confortable and faster highway of composition.
With Try and Fail, sometime you'll find a beautifull land with valley of emotions.


----------



## mikeh-375

but @Illico, technique and beauty also can go hand in hand as evidenced by the greatest pieces of music in the concert world (and films for that matter). True enough though that beauty isn't the exclusive domain of training.

@Montisquirrel says it in the last line of his post above. Practise the way you would scales and you will get to know your inner voice because in the doing of it, you will come to see what feels right for you and what isn't...it becomes a bespoke path to achieving your full potential, based on your own instincts, for which it will then hone.


----------



## DANIELE

I found myself to be a "composer" many years ago (I think 18 actually), I started composing only with my ears, trying to reverse engineering the music I liked. I started with electronic music, dance music, house music but after some years I started to feel the need for orchestral music.
After some other years of progresses I began to feel stuck, I was no more able to reach higher steps. I started to do some piano lessons and after some piano practice I asked my master for a theory course instead of a piano one. In the mean time I was studying engineering at university and I graduated two times, once for the three years study path and once for the two year one.
Theory is a great thing, some times I feel blocked from it, some other I feel lifted.

Sometime it is useful to limit yourself with some rules because it teach you how to achieve the maximum by using only few rules (for example first species counterpoint with classical rules, then the practical one and so on).

I still feel divided between practice and theory. When I try to write something I start with all good intentions and I often end with using my ear more than rules. Some basic rules anyway are part of my process by now and I use them without thinking about.

I don't have time, I work all day long and I desperately need for all the rules to be part of my automatic process but the only think I could do it is to try and try again until I reach what I want. There's no worst thing than having a lot of ideas and not being able to write them.
Try to approach the theory with a practical point of view, then you'll be able to get what rules sounds good and what are more rules than music, and then where breaking them it results in something great.


----------



## JohnG

ein fisch said:


> I thought the awareness of "what works" comes with years of practical experience



Well, that is the slow path. It can work. But why not buy a few scores by people who really know how to drive the orchestra and learn from them? Puccini, Wagner, Strauss, etc. plus some of the film scores you can get. Alan Silvestri, John Williams -- those guys. 

They know what they are doing; consequently, you can use their register choices, chord voicings and balances with some degree of confidence. They also offer a window to just how far you can push professional players -- quite far!


----------



## Parsifal666

Goldsmith's fabulous Total Recall is available in full score, which is about as vanguard and relevant today as it was nearly three decades ago. His blending of orchestral and electronic was simply masterful: forward-looking, and sensationally inspiring.


----------



## Saxer

ein fisch said:


> Interesting. But is that really due to theory knowledge? I thought the awareness of "what works" comes with years of practical experience.


I think this "theory thing" is often misunderstood. It's not a formula of what to do next or what is allowed or right or wrong. It's more or less a description and analysis of what happens. If you hear a part and think 'wow, that sounds great' you can transcribe it and and add exactly this part to your arsenal. Done. That's practical experience. If you go into this same part and look what happens you can separate it into single steps. Rhythmic structure, harmonic structure, melodic structure, instrumentation, style, historic background, sound, room, mix... and you can play with this elements. What if I use the same harmonic structure on another scale? What if I use the same orchestration with different rhythms? What if I replace the instrumentation? If you understand the single elements you have a lot more layers to play with. I you want to build intensity you have all this elements to choose from. Dynamic, modulation, rhythmic compression, ranges, instrumentation, playing styles, stretching intervals... and a lot of possibilities how to get 'from here to there'.


----------



## ed buller

ein fisch said:


> So this is a question for all the composers here that did learn music theory for a long time (5+ years), including ear training and all that good stuff;
> 
> Are your compositions still a try-and-fail sometimes or can you make faster decisions due to it (well i bet you can, but was that speed-up worth the hours/years of practice?)? Like knowing exactly if you're gonna use this voicing after the other voicing?
> 
> When i think of me after learning and practicing music theory for a couple years my goal would be to gain more control and not having to try and fail all the time. Like sitting down, listening to a piece of mozart and be able to sit down and instantly remake it in my daw without trying around like "hmm, did he use a 7th or normal chord there?".. am i hunting for something there which can be achieved?
> 
> Have a good day




you are sorta describing a trick. A cool trick...but a trick. 18 years ago a wrote a little piano piece and played it for my teacher as he sat on the coach out of view of the piano . He got up after i was finished. Sat at the piano and played it back, note for note whilst explaining why he liked it. ! Now it was impressive don't get me wrong but...I'd come up with the piece myself. Without a lot of training.

So my take away is this. Training can be like having soooooooooo many options. I can go here...or here...do this...or that....but ultimately it's up to you to make it work !



even tiger Woods has a shit round now and again right ?



best


ed


----------



## eph221

ed buller said:


> you are sorta describing a trick. A cool trick...but a trick. 18 years ago a wrote a little piano piece and played it for my teacher as he sat on the coach out of view of the piano . He got up after i was finished. Sat at the piano and played it back, note for note whilst explaining why he liked it. ! Now it was impressive don't get me wrong but...I'd come up with the piece myself. Without a lot of training.
> 
> So my take away is this. Training can be like having soooooooooo many options. I can go here...or here...do this...or that....but ultimately it's up to you to make it work !
> 
> 
> 
> even tiger Woods has a shit round now and again right ?
> 
> 
> 
> best
> 
> 
> ed




Also, for the more abstract thinkers and composers: A lot of compositional work deals with things like delayed gratification and the playing with the listeners expectations. It's important to know what those expectations might be. I imagine this can be done through a lot of listening and intuition but it's HOAL easier with theory. D:D


----------



## VinRice

Yes, you need to learn theory. It's not a set of rules, it's hundreds of years of real-world experience as to what works, distilled. When you are creating a melody, theme, line, texture or whatever you can forget about it. When you noodle a section that you really like you are able to analyse and understand _why_ it works. Then you can expand it horizontally and vertically with relative ease and speed. As you internalise more and more theory it starts to remove the fear of _where the hell do I go now? _Songwriting and composing are much more about craft than art - as are all creative professions.


----------



## robgb

Theory may help you or it may hurt you. Some people thrive on "rules," while others don't care about them or find them restrictive—just like any other creative endeavor. It really depends on the individual. There is no right or wrong path to making music. There are brilliant composers who know theory backwards and forwards and there are brilliant composers who can't read a note of music. All that matters is the final product.


----------



## Eric

What genre of music would you like to learn the theory behind? 

When I took “classical” music theory in college, some of it was great (like studying Bach’s works), and some seemed incredibly dated (figured bass seems only practical for improvising baroque musicians). No practical knowledge of modern popular chords was taught at all.

Then I took jazz theory. It was cool, but mostly concepts I was already familiar with.

The most theory I ever learned at school was taught to me by the guitar professor, during an ear training class. In a single hour, I learned the premise that harmony = scales = chords = arpeggios, and the fundamental scale choices for standard jazz chords, concepts that remain central to the way I think about music.


----------



## Sean

robgb said:


> Theory may help you or it may hurt you. Some people thrive on "rules," while others don't care about them or find them restrictive—just like any other creative endeavor. It really depends on the individual. There is no right or wrong path to making music. There are brilliant composers who know theory backwards and forwards and there are brilliant composers who can't read a note of music. All that matters is the final product.



I think I know what you are trying to get at but I think a better way to say this is "following the rules of theory might hurt or help you." I can't possibly see how knowing theory would hurt you, can just choose to ignore the rules if that's your style, but at least then you know exactly what rules you are breaking and can have a reason for it.


----------



## Parsifal666

It's what you do with or without it. Don't forget to spin Reign in Blood.


----------



## ed buller

Is this the most repeated discussion we have on this forum ? It seems not a week goes by before a “ theory ...worth it ? “ thread develops . I’m not sure that’s the original posters question either. But perhaps we should have an emoji in our profiles . “Knowledge of musical practices a good thing or bad when in the business of writing music” .

But just so it’s clear. I’m all for it . It’s much more likely to help you than hinder you. It can be fun. And can be done in a variety of ways. Not all involving hideously dull and dry music theory text books . The internet is your friend .


Good luck

Best 

Ed


----------



## borisb2

one more thing to add:

I suppose the trick with theory is to have the "rules" in your head / under your fingers without thinking about them while composing. There's nothing worse than having a good flow while composing/playing something and then stopping and analyzing "wait a minute, to which keys I have to bend now my melody in order to properly end my perfect authentic recapitulation cadence" .. could kill ones creative outburst

I think its important to know good voice leading, pivot chord modulation or modal changes (either by learning theory or listening to enough scores). But don't (actively) think about it when sitting on the piano


----------



## halfwalk

Sean said:


> I can't possibly see how knowing theory would hurt you



Pedagogical dogma can stifle innovation and creativity. An implicit hierarchy exists; the teacher assumes authority over the development of the student's mind, i.e. learn what I tell you and recite it back to me verbatim or you have "failed." So _if you have a bad teacher_, learning theory can certainly hurt you by encouraging you to close your mind rather than opening it. And given the implicit authority ("I am the teacher, therefore I am correct") how could you possibly know (until too late) that you have/had a bad teacher?

I had a big epistemological rant prepared, but I've binned it. Suffice it to say, no one can be told what the Matrix is; you have to see it for yourself.


----------



## Sean

halfwalk said:


> Pedagogical dogma can stifle innovation and creativity. An implicit hierarchy exists; the teacher assumes authority over the development of the student's mind, i.e. learn what I tell you and recite it back to me verbatim or you have "failed." So _if you have a bad teacher_, learning theory can certainly hurt you by encouraging you to close your mind rather than opening it. And given the implicit authority ("I am the teacher, therefore I am correct") how could you possibly know (until too late) that you have/had a bad teacher?
> 
> I had a big epistemological rant prepared, but I've binned it. Suffice it to say, no one can be told what the Matrix is; you have to see it for yourself.


That's not really relevant to what I said. I said knowing/learning theory won't hurt you. You can teach yourself theory. Everything you just said has nothing to do with theory, it's just about if someone gets a bad teacher...


----------



## ism

halfwalk said:


> Pedagogical dogma can stifle innovation and creativity. An implicit hierarchy exists; the teacher assumes authority over the development of the student's mind, i.e. learn what I tell you and recite it back to me verbatim or you have "failed." So _if you have a bad teacher_, learning theory can certainly hurt you by encouraging you to close your mind rather than opening it. And given the implicit authority ("I am the teacher, therefore I am correct") how could you possibly know (until too late) that you have/had a bad teacher?
> 
> I had a big epistemological rant prepared, but I've binned it. Suffice it to say, no one can be told what the Matrix is; you have to see it for yourself.



Bad teaching can always do more harm than good, Paulo Friere’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” is probably the classic analysis (and is quite a good read besides). You’re basically talking about what he calls the “banking theory of education”, which has a particular relevance for oppressed landless peasants under a hegemonic military dictatorship, but it’s not hard to see the effect at work in lots of music education also.

I’d argue, however, that what’s damaging here lies inherently in the social relations of the pedagogical context. And that learning music theory isn’t more inherently harmful than learning anything else.


----------



## robgb

Sean said:


> I can't possibly see how knowing theory would hurt you,


If you learn theory, you are taught how it's SUPPOSED to be done, and you feel bound by those rules. If you don't learn theory you may simply do what comes from instinct, with nothing to bind you. Someone who is used to the freedom of instinct might suddenly find their creativity hampered when learn that they're "doing it wrong." Others might feel this helps them. Again, it's up to the individual.


----------



## halfwalk

Sean said:


> That's not really relevant to what I said. I said knowing/learning theory won't hurt you. You can teach yourself theory. Everything you just said has nothing to do with theory, it's just about if someone gets a bad teacher...



My point is, learning theory does not equal understanding the vibrations of the universe and how they affect human consciousness. It is merely one way to contextualize a small subset of our understanding of the universe.

For instance, there are theoretically infinite tones. Yet we arbitrarily restrict ourselves, generally in the "western" mindset, to just twelve. And thus, many are led to believe that an arrangement of sounds outside of those twelve tones is inherently "unmusical."

What I'm trying to say is that music theory is just _one_ perspective on what music actually means. So in thinking that "I've learned (a) music theory, therefore I understand music" is imposing an arbitrary limitation on your own perception of the universe. And that can potentially be harmful if you ever decide to decouple your mind from the cultural expectations instilled in you against your will from birth.

Music does not exist except for inside the brain. It's just vibrations that we have learned to interpret, through the lens of culture, and filtered by the physiological limitations of our sensory organs. So you can learn all about how people have historically made sense of these vibrations (i.e. music theory), but you are learning only what has been agreed upon by authority figures throughout history. You are learning what someone else decided music means. And by committing to music theory you are shaping your own interpretations of the vibrations of the universe in order to fit neatly with those expectations devised arbitrarily, albeit through empirical observation, by people whose culture is potentially radically different than your own.

I'll repeat, music does not exist except for inside your brain. Music theory can shape your perception of it, can help you make sense of what you're hearing, but does nothing to explain the _why_ of music. And regarding music (or art in general) I would argue that the _why_ is infinitely more important than the _what_ or the _how. _And that must come from within you.

Also, self taught in this context does not mean the information just spontaneously appeared inside your head from nothing. You read it somewhere. So maybe you are interpreting the "teacher" part too literally.

Of course, if you're trying to get someone to pay you for your music, then yeah, probably play it safe.


----------



## ism

robgb said:


> If you learn theory, you are taught how it's SUPPOSED to be done, and you feel bound by those rules. If you don't learn theory you may simply do what comes from instinct, with nothing to bind you. Someone who is used to the freedom of instinct might suddenly find their creativity hampered when learn that they're "doing it wrong." Others might feel this helps them. Again, it's up to the individual.




Only if they subject themselves to the (hegemonic) authority implicit demanding the theory be respected.


----------



## eph221

Nobody I know teaches this way (re hegemonic authority) but there are benefits to having a private teacher rather than a classroom. There's always n+levels of abstraction Clearly, any professional knows that. I can see how teachers in colleges find themselves spinning their wheels most times. Hopefully, they're not disgruntled workers. Personally, I think the whole paradigm is useless. I don't know why anyone would bother getting a degree in music.


----------



## halfwalk

ism said:


> Bad teaching can always do more harm than good, Paulo Friere’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” is probably the classic analysis (and is quite a good read besides). You’re basically talking about what he calls the “banking theory of education”, which has a particular relevance for oppressed landless peasants under a hegemonic military dictatorship, but it’s not hard to see the effect at work in lots of music education also.
> 
> I’d argue, however, that what’s damaging here lies inherently in the social relations of the pedagogical context. And that learning music theory isn’t more inherently harmful than learning anything else.



Interesting, I'll look into that. I have a lot of thoughts on what you've brought up here, though they definitely go well beyond the scope of music theory. 

Learning, often, _isn't_. But I'll stop there.


----------



## halfwalk

eph221 said:


> Nobody I know teaches this way (re hegemonic authority)



Yet in academia we all must pass "tests" (among other things) or be considered as "failing." In other words, "Learn this the way I taught it, or there will be consequences."


----------



## robgb

eph221 said:


> Nobody I know teaches this way (re hegemonic authority)


It's certainly implicit.


----------



## ism

eph221 said:


> Nobody I know teaches this way (re hegemonic authority)



The Frierian critique goes much deeper than individual teaching styles. And there’s an important sense in which the best teacher in the world, faced with needing students to pass a predetermined exam, is always going to be a part of a larger “banking” theory of pedagogy.

The way that in recent decades composers who insisted on such trivialities as ‘melody’ or ‘sounding good’ we’re driven from the academy is one example. Fetishization of the prohibition on parallel 5ths is another.


----------



## jmauz

While writing I'm completely OUT of control. I think that's the best mindset to be in...within the parameters you're given (brief details, cue restraints, hit points, etc.) you gotta just let it happen. I consider myself a vehicle for the music. 

Wow that sounded douchey. Point is, I do my best to get out of head and into my heart.

Once it's written and I'm making tweaks, that's another story entirely. However, I try not to get bogged down with analytic harmony bullshit unless it can help me figure out why some certain interval or progression doesn't sound right.


----------



## eph221

It may be in others, witness the posts here! Academia in general has its problems.


----------



## eph221

halfwalk said:


> Yet in academia we all must pass "tests" (among other things) or be considered as "failing." In other words, "Learn this the way I taught it, or there will be consequences."



There are many newer schools that only have pass/fail. In Sarasota, there's New College which is loaded with brainiacs who have success, it's a liberal arts school and is pass/fail.https://www.bestcollegereviews.org/colleges-without-letter-grades/ Look at the list! These are great schools!


----------



## ism

Conversely, I think there's a history of jazz musicians being shunned for being too intellectual


----------



## Rodney Money

All I know is that I can look at a lead sheet writing out an entire arrangement with proper voice leading for saxophone quartet in less than an hour getting paid for it without even having to hear it on the piano. Then an hour later do a different tune for 2 trumpets, trombone, and piano. I blame theory.


----------



## Parsifal666

robgb said:


> If you learn theory, you are taught how it's SUPPOSED to be done, and you feel bound by those rules. If you don't learn theory you may simply do what comes from instinct, with nothing to bind you. Someone who is used to the freedom of instinct might suddenly find their creativity hampered .


Just because you're taught how something is supposed to be done doesn't mean you have to feel bound to those rules. I was a little surprised you wrote that. BTW did you know you look a little like Tommy Bolin?


----------



## MichaelVakili

Music theory is really just suggestions and names... Very good suggestions ,but at the end - music came first ,books and theory after that. Still a little bit is helpful - but if you start to obsess and think more academically rather than creatively I think that is were theory is more harmful. At least in my opinion *


----------



## Parsifal666

robgb said:


> It's certainly implicit.


Perhaps your teachers. I had a set of wildly creative teachers who were wonderfully corny and heartbreakingly optimistic and I was actually inspired by them to check out avante garde heavies like Stockhausen and the Serial composers.


----------



## robgb

Parsifal666 said:


> erhaps your teachers. I had a set of wildly creative teachers who were wonderfully corny and heartbreakingly optimistic and I was actually inspired by them to check out avante garde heavies like Stockhausen and the Serial composers.


That may be true, but it's implicit even here on this forum, every time the subject comes up.


----------



## VinRice

No you're right. Nobody should learn anything. That's clearly the way forward.


----------



## robgb

VinRice said:


> No you're right. Nobody should learn anything. That's clearly the way forward.


The sarcasm is hardly necessary. There are a lot of ways to learn.


----------



## ism

Parsifal666 said:


> Perhaps your teachers. I had a set of wildly creative teachers who were wonderfully corny and heartbreakingly optimistic and I was actually inspired by them to check out avante garde heavies like Stockhausen and the Serial composers.



And I was always getting in trouble for parallel bleeding 5ths. Even when they sounded good. Even when it was a two part counterpoint where the melodies both needed those notes and were perfectly strong enough to maintain their independence in the face of the evil of parallel 5ths.

It's one of my great adult pleasure to be able to play parallel 5ths any time I want.

In fact, here's some now:



I love this demo, and if I had written it, I might have been tempted to title it "ode parallel 5ths".


----------



## D Halgren

robgb said:


> The sarcasm is hardly necessary. There are a lot of ways to learn.


That's kinda his gig


----------



## VinRice

robgb said:


> The sarcasm is hardly necessary. There are a lot of ways to learn.



Then what the fuck are you arguing with then? The OP asks about whether learning theory is worth it. Answer = yes.


----------



## ism

Here's how parallel 5th should be taught:



(Notwithstanding the bit in the final chapter where he says that students should be taught why to avoid parallel 5th until after they've had the avoidance of parallel 5th beaten into them by rote)


----------



## robgb

VinRice said:


> Then what the fuck are you arguing with then? The OP asks about whether learning theory is worth it. Answer = yes.


No. The answer is it depends on the individual. I've said that from my first post. The hostility is no more necessary than the sarcasm.


----------



## VinRice

robgb said:


> No. The answer is it depends on the individual. I've said that from my first post. The hostility is no more necessary than the sarcasm.



That's a bullshit passive-aggressive non-answer. EVERYTHING depends on the individual. What's necessary in my posts is my decision. Are you trying to pressure me into conforming to your behavioural norms? Or perhaps trying to signal an implied moral superiority?


----------



## robgb

VinRice said:


> That's a bullshit passive-aggressive non-answer. EVERYTHING depends on the individual. What's necessary in my posts is my decision. Are you trying to pressure me into conforming to your behavioural norms? Or perhaps trying to signal an implied moral superiority?


Yawn.


----------



## halfwalk

VinRice said:


> That's a bullshit passive-aggressive non-answer. EVERYTHING depends on the individual. What's necessary in my posts is my decision. Are you trying to pressure me into conforming to your behavioural norms? Or perhaps trying to signal an implied moral superiority?





> No you're right. Nobody should learn anything. That's clearly the way forward



You are attacking a viewpoint which is contrary to your own, by intentionally reducing it to an extreme caricature of its actual intent rather than actually engaging in meaningful dialog regarding why you might see things differently.

I hope you recognize the irony of your accusation of signaling implied moral superiority.


----------



## mikeh-375

robgb said:


> If you learn theory, you are taught how it's SUPPOSED to be done, and you feel bound by those rules. If you don't learn theory you may simply do what comes from instinct, with nothing to bind you. Someone who is used to the freedom of instinct might suddenly find their creativity hampered when learn that they're "doing it wrong." Others might feel this helps them. Again, it's up to the individual.


 
Rob with the greatest respect, some of this post above is flat out wrong and is typical of the misunderstandings and assumptions often made by some.


----------



## robgb

mikeh-375 said:


> Rob with the greatest respect, some of this post above is flat out wrong and is typical of the misunderstandings and assumptions often made by some.


I can only speak from my own experience and the experience of friends, some of whom embrace formal learning and others who don't. And I'm not strictly speaking about music theory, but all creative endeavors. The same applies to writing, for example, which is my particular profession.



halfwalk said:


> I hope you recognize the irony of your accusation of signaling implied moral superiority.


Probably a waste of time engaging. I've put him on ignore.


----------



## VinRice

halfwalk said:


> You are attacking a viewpoint which is contrary to your own, by intentionally reducing it to an extreme caricature of its actual intent rather than actually engaging in meaningful dialog regarding why you might see things differently.
> 
> I hope you recognize the irony of your accusation of signaling implied moral superiority.



You are making the mistake of taking me seriously. I suspect irony is a concept you struggle with.


----------



## VinRice

robgb said:


> I can only speak from my own experience and the experience of friends, some of whom embrace formal learning and others who don't. And I'm not strictly speaking about music theory, but all creative endeavors. The same applies to writing, for example, which is my particular profession.
> 
> 
> Probably a waste of time engaging. I've put him on ignore.



I rest my case.


----------



## halfwalk

mikeh-375 said:


> Rob with the greatest respect, some of this post above is flat out wrong and is typical of the misunderstandings and assumptions often made by some.



I think it's not a matter of how it's "supposed to be done," but rather the creation of a framework that determines whether or not something is "musical."

If it cannot be explained by music theory, then it must not be music, right? It depends on what the individual considers to be musical, rather than what people have _traditionally_ agreed upon. Some people hear songs in the wind, where others just hear noise. 

It's about consciousness and the perception of vibrations, arbitrarily, as "music" and how music theory _can_ (not saying it does, but it can) instill a sense of "tunnel vision" regarding what music is and isn't.


----------



## Farkle

ein fisch said:


> So this is a question for all the composers here that did learn music theory for a long time (5+ years), including ear training and all that good stuff;
> 
> Are your compositions still a try-and-fail sometimes or can you make faster decisions due to it (well i bet you can, but was that speed-up worth the hours/years of practice?)? Like knowing exactly if you're gonna use this voicing after the other voicing?
> 
> When i think of me after learning and practicing music theory for a couple years my goal would be to gain more control and not having to try and fail all the time. Like sitting down, listening to a piece of mozart and be able to sit down and instantly remake it in my daw without trying around like "hmm, did he use a 7th or normal chord there?".. am i hunting for something there which can be achieved?
> 
> Have a good day



I recommend reading this book, and then doing each of the chapter's drills, repeatedly (spend like 1-2 weeks on each one).

Ron Gorow - Hearing and Writing Music


----------



## VinRice

All fun and games aside, there are two arguments here that seem to have become conflated. 'Formal' education is a whole topic unto itself that actually has nothing to do with the OP's question which was about learning. Will you become a better musician, songwriter, composer by learning theory? Unequivocally, absolutely, yes.


----------



## Sean

VinRice said:


> Will you become a better musician, songwriter, composer by learning theory? Unequivocally, absolutely, yes.


I really can't understand how people would think otherwise, its absolutely mind boggling


----------



## Parsifal666

ism said:


> And I was always getting in trouble for parallel bleeding 5ths. Even when they sounded good. Even when it was a two part counterpoint where the melodies both needed those notes and were perfectly strong enough to maintain their independence in the face of the evil of parallel 5ths.
> 
> It's one of my great adult pleasure to be able to play parallel 5ths any time I want.
> 
> In fact, here's some now:
> 
> 
> 
> I love this demo, and if I had written it, I might have been tempted to title it "ode parallel 5ths".



Nice! And when it comes to parallel fifths, thank God for Tony Iommi!


----------



## ism

Sean said:


> I really can't understand how people would think otherwise, its absolutely mind boggling




What I think is the root conflation (and why these threads predictably degenerate in more Luvvies vs Boffins acimony) is the way that being badly taught theory can not only *not* help you become a better composer but can even do you damage as a composer (if you internalize badly conceived theory) vs the indisputable value of theory itself. 

A trivial (if slightly dramatized) example: I do actually believe theory of parallel 5ths is extremely valuable - when the underlying musical reasons and their contexts are understood. But internalizing the rule by rote is only useful you want to be a hack churning out derivative chorales of undigested Bach.


----------



## VinRice

ism said:


> What I think is the root conflation (and why these threads predictably degenerate in more Luvvies vs Boffins acimony) is the way that being badly taught theory can not only *not* help you become a better composer but can even do you damage as a composer (if you internalize badly conceived theory) vs the indisputable value of theory itself.



Perfect.


----------



## VinRice

Parsifal666 said:


> Nice! And when it comes to parallel fifths, thank God for Tony Iommi!



Ooh. What's this on my desktop? It's a video of War Pigs from 1971! Quick blast to reset my brain after watching Eurovision (26 songs all with the same 4 chords)


----------



## Parsifal666

VinRice said:


> Ooh. What's this on my desktop? It's a video of War Pigs from 1971! Quick blast to reset my brain after watching Eurovision (26 songs all with the same 4 chords)


OH yeah! Can't imagine that song without THAT solo. Iconic.


----------



## eph221

robgb said:


> The sarcasm is hardly necessary. There are a lot of ways to learn.


No sarcasm, no condescension and no devaluation in my world.


----------



## Leon Willett

robgb said:


> If you learn theory, you are taught how it's SUPPOSED to be done, and you feel bound by those rules. If you don't learn theory you may simply do what comes from instinct, with nothing to bind you. Someone who is used to the freedom of instinct might suddenly find their creativity hampered when learn that they're "doing it wrong." Others might feel this helps them. Again, it's up to the individual.



This would be theory done wrong. 

Theory done right is when you learn how to make your music sound exactly the way you want. 

Which would be the only point of spending time learning something  

Does your music already sound exactly and precisely the way you want? If it does, you don't need any help. If it doesn't, you have something to learn -- so you can fix that. You should be your own favourite composer -- are you? 

In your defence, theory is usually taught the bad way, so I understand why you think this. This includes the vast majority of books, courses, and even some theory I've seen touted on this forum.


----------



## ism

Leon Willett said:


> Theory done right is when you learn how to make your music sound exactly the way you want.



Or when you want another too to help you discover music you didn’t even know you wanted to write.

I also think that the thing about most theory books it that they were always meant to be studied in a context, for instance with a teacher able to offer genuine, specific musical insight. Or where a student is simultaneously studying performance. Decontextualized theory is just a kind of pointless and arbitrary form of algebra.


----------



## Sean

ism said:


> What I think is the root conflation (and why these threads predictably degenerate in more Luvvies vs Boffins acimony) is the way that being badly taught theory can not only *not* help you become a better composer but can even do you damage as a composer (if you internalize badly conceived theory) vs the indisputable value of theory itself.


Well some people are clearly arguing about that, but some are also just simply stating "theory can hurt some people" which is just not true. If it is "hurting" their creative process then they are just simply doing it wrong...


----------



## Sean

halfwalk said:


> My point is, learning theory does not equal understanding the vibrations of the universe and how they affect human consciousness. It is merely one way to contextualize a small subset of our understanding of the universe.
> 
> For instance, there are theoretically infinite tones. Yet we arbitrarily restrict ourselves, generally in the "western" mindset, to just twelve. And thus, many are led to believe that an arrangement of sounds outside of those twelve tones is inherently "unmusical."
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that music theory is just _one_ perspective on what music actually means. So in thinking that "I've learned (a) music theory, therefore I understand music" is imposing an arbitrary limitation on your own perception of the universe. And that can potentially be harmful if you ever decide to decouple your mind from the cultural expectations instilled in you against your will from birth.
> 
> Music does not exist except for inside the brain. It's just vibrations that we have learned to interpret, through the lens of culture, and filtered by the physiological limitations of our sensory organs. So you can learn all about how people have historically made sense of these vibrations (i.e. music theory), but you are learning only what has been agreed upon by authority figures throughout history. You are learning what someone else decided music means. And by committing to music theory you are shaping your own interpretations of the vibrations of the universe in order to fit neatly with those expectations devised arbitrarily, albeit through empirical observation, by people whose culture is potentially radically different than your own.
> 
> I'll repeat, music does not exist except for inside your brain. Music theory can shape your perception of it, can help you make sense of what you're hearing, but does nothing to explain the _why_ of music. And regarding music (or art in general) I would argue that the _why_ is infinitely more important than the _what_ or the _how. _And that must come from within you.
> 
> Also, self taught in this context does not mean the information just spontaneously appeared inside your head from nothing. You read it somewhere. So maybe you are interpreting the "teacher" part too literally.
> 
> Of course, if you're trying to get someone to pay you for your music, then yeah, probably play it safe.


Can you please stick to the point because you aren't. We aren't talking about what music is, we are simply talking about whether or not there is a point to learning music theory, which there is.



> So in thinking that "I've learned (a) music theory, therefore I understand music"


Nobody has said this or implied this, you are just making up stuff to further your non-argument.

You could also try not using a thesaurus to write your sentences, it's not helping you.


Learning music theory gives you a set of tools to use at your disposal if you so choose, nobody is forcing you to follow the rules of music theory, but they are there to help you. Not everything I write follows all the rules of music theory, I'm not saying that's what you have to do. What I'm saying is it is a good tool to have in your toolkit, regardless of what you are trying to do.

Never have I said "knowing music theory makes you understand music" when there is obviously more to that.


----------



## mikeh-375

The _principle_ of technique (theory) is one of the real prizes for a composer afaik. This is one area where misunderstanding sometimes creeps in - there is a disconnect in some people's minds between the creative process and the artifice, as if one even hinders the other. In actual fact the opposite is true. The artifice is capable of freeing creativity.

Once the principle is learnt, invention and imagination (and constraints too!) are applied to the parameters of the technique, a) in order to search for material b) in order to progress an idea/section and c) to maintain control, cohere the music to make it sound inevitable. Ironically too, if one does constrain the options, often the music is more powerful for it.

In other words the composer uses their artistic sensibilities and proclivities, whims and especially instinct, to dictate what happens in their music by applying these paradigms to the principle - the composer dictates, _not_ vice versa. If one can also be open to serendipity, then there is no limit to what can be achieved. Flexibility is also the key for as new ideas present themselves, they will dictate new technical approaches, especially to the trained ear.

I will add though and have said elsewhere on this forum (and will again no doubt) that my feelings about composers who work on instinct alone is one of great respect and admiration and probably half of the music I love is written in that way. (the last thing I am is a musical snob, I even liked the Norway entry in Eurovision last night) In this regard @Robg, we completely agree, although in certain genres instinct alone is not enough.


----------



## mikeh-375

halfwalk said:


> If it cannot be explained by music theory, then it must not be music, right? It depends on what the individual considers to be musical, rather than what people have _traditionally_ agreed upon. Some people hear songs in the wind, where others just hear noise.
> 
> It's about consciousness and the perception of vibrations, arbitrarily, as "music" and how music theory _can_ (not saying it does, but it can) instill a sense of "tunnel vision" regarding what music is and isn't.



Wrong on the question above HalfW. Who in their right mind thinks like that?..not me.
I agree that technique can instill a sense of tunnel vision, but only to someone who fails to see the real purpose of it as it relates to creativity. Ironically, the "consciousness and perception of vibrations" you speak of is heightened and enhanced musically speaking, with the correct application of technique.


----------



## GtrString

Theory in the sense that it is a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based, is indispensable. It is also easier to break out of the box, because you know what the box is. You can make decisions a lot faster, and help you find direction and progress in your work.

It can make you a composer with good understanding, and make work a lot easier for you, but it doesn’t make you a “good” composer by default. The dark 1% side of theory is that you just follow “rules”, and become narrow minded and boring. But don’t elevate that 1% to mean everything, you’ll be missing the train.

If you have total control, it means that you are trying to play it safe, and not pushing boundaries like artists are supposed to do. Theory should rather be used to help you push boundaries.. it is the principles of musical syntax and semantics, but language keeps evolving and extend those rules.. same with theory.


----------



## Saxer

Using theory is recognizing what you do and what others do. That's all.


----------



## ism

Sean said:


> Well some people are clearly arguing about that, but some are also just simply stating "theory can hurt some people" which is just not true. If it is "hurting" their creative process then they are just simply doing it wrong...


And if they’re doing it wrong, if it’s been taught badly and internalized, then it’s hurting their creative process. 

My point is that while sweeping statements that theory hurts creativity are wrong, we can still admit the possibility that some people have had bad experiences with theory.


----------



## Parsifal666

Alexandre said:


> Any info on good theory books or any form of tutorials then?
> Thanks!



You can find pretty much all that online, no need to spend money on books. Google what you specifically want to learn.


----------



## patrick76

Saxer said:


> Using theory is recognizing what you do and what others do. That's all.



Succinct and well stated! 

I view it as a tool that gives me a head start when attempting to understand a piece of music.


----------



## Parsifal666

It can also be helpful when you're struggling for ideas. For instance, last year I just sat down and started drawing out a twelve tone exercise, strictly abiding by the rules of that compositional technique. The beginning came out real nice and I kept that, however as I kept writing I began not liking some of what I heard...so, I abandoned that compositional model and instead took the composition to natural minor and finished with that.

Had I not known that (and other) compositional models, I might have been where I imagine some resoundingly-theoryless composers get: just shooting into the wind, and that can take forever to base something substantial on. Reverse compositional engineering can take up a lot of time, and composition itself is an essentially lonely, time-consuming process to begin with.

But hey, I must reiterate that the theoryless have been guilty of making terrific music, right off the top of my head the Beatles (though, to be fair they had a supremely knowledgeable producer in George Martin who probably acted as copy editor and even ghostwriter at times to their ideas...of course, even the fact that they cooked up those ideas on their own remains mind-blowing to this very day imo). Then there are the theoryless instrumentalists like Hendrix...inspiring awe to this very day.


----------



## dtcomposer

I've kind of skimmed this conversation and I think one thing that is missing is recognizing the fallacy of assuming that theory means 1st or 2nd year common practice theory. I mean yeah learning the most basic elements of theory and only using those might feel restrictive. But there's a reason for that. They are general building blocks for tonal music in a pretty common style. But these building blocks are such a tiny drop in the bucket of what even common practice theory is.

I'm very confident that anything a trained or non-trained (in the sense of having a formal music theory training or equivalent experience) composer could dream up has already been explored, analyzed, and written about as of 2019. At a certain point theory just becomes an exploration of how composers are achieving certain sounds. That is a wide umbrella that takes non functional harmony, formal concerns and myriad other elements into account. Take a peek at any kind of 20th century theory book and you will find as much non-function and rule-breaking as you desire. There are no rules at a certain point, just composers with lots of knowledge making intelligent choices while trying to explore new (or even familiar) musical ground.

Understanding that is fundamental to being able to reproduce or build off of those ideas. With enough knowledge you get a better understanding of even your own music. For instance when you write something really interesting and you can dig into it with a theoretical understanding and be able to reproduce it or expand on it you become a much more agile and efficient composer. Instead of just hoping that you stumble into it again you can know how you did it and add that technique to your toolset. Understanding how others have done similar things (because you are likely not reinventing the wheel) can also give you perspective about how really talented people traversed similar musical ground. Maybe they did it better than you did. Maybe they have thought about options you haven't considered.

Anyway my TLDR is that theory isn't diatonic chords and 18th century polyphony. Those are often useful things to know, but they are similar to learning some best practices for EQ or reverb in a general sense. There are unlimited options and techniques to learn even though it is very useful to know the basics in many circumstances.


----------



## angeruroth

Fwiw, my 2c:
Theory do constrain you... until you reach some kind of breaking point. Then it allows you to express yourself in different, better or at least commonly accepted ways.
First you are 100% free, but you fail big time when trying some not so obvious things. Then you feel limited 'cause you're trying to match what you do with what you learn, and some good ideas just don't follow the rules you know. And then, as your knowledge grows, you find ways to marry both worlds.

The hard part is reaching that breaking point.
The good part is when you discover how to follow or ignore what you've learned.
The sad part is when you realize that you've forgotten how to do some things, following theory or not.
And the happy part is when you realize that most times it doesn't matter how you achieve this or that if it's what you wanted to achieve.

Just my humble opinion.


----------



## borisb2

let's just speed up things: 

http://tobyrush.com/theorypages/

a lot covered on a few pdf-sheets - for the ones without time but interested


----------



## Desire Inspires

I don't have anything of value to add to the discussion, but I will chime in anyway with a YouTube video. Thanks.


----------



## dexterjettser

I’ve been reading Mastery by Robert Greene lately and it’s really solidified a lot of things for me. Learning theory, harmony, orchestration, counterpoint etc. basically ‘craft’ is vital when you’re in your formative years at a particular vocation.

He makes the case that you need to learn all of the rules of the vocation before you can go out on your own with your own ideas. Basically the first 10 years (10,000 hours of deliberate practice-your apprenticeship) of composing (or anything really) need to be spent learning as much as you can from the giants that stood before you. After that then you know the ‘rules’ and their limitations and can create new approaches.


----------



## Fang

I actually think trying to unlearn something can be harder than learning something. Knowledge can be restraining in the way that it closes your mind, where the ability to make great music lies in having an open mind.


----------



## VinRice

Fang said:


> I actually think trying to unlearn something can be harder than learning something. Knowledge can be restraining in the way that it closes your mind, where the ability to make great music lies in having an open mind.



Wrong.


----------



## Parsifal666

Fang said:


> I actually think trying to unlearn something can be harder than learning something. Knowledge can be restraining in the way that it closes your mind, where the ability to make great music lies in having an open mind.


​


VinRice said:


> Wrong.



Yeah, whenever I read this it makes me cackle like a hyena;

a) because it's usually a newb (no offense to newbs) and

b) because it's an example of someone who doesn't know anything about music and has no plans to.

Tell Beethoven, John Williams, Alfred Newman, Wagner, Mozart, Haydn, Scriabin, Schoenberg, Bartok, the Bachs, Mahler, Bruckner, DeBussy....dozens more composers considered the greatest in all history that. They all knew theory inside and out. Why would anyone listen to that sentiment from you and discard the facts?

Seriously consider dropping that little axiom if you actually plan on doing something in music, my friend.

All that said, I _do_ think being overly concerned about theory and thereby letting it get in your way is possible (to set the record completely straight).


----------



## Fang

Parsifal666 said:


> Yeah, whenever I read this it makes me cackle like a hyena;
> 
> a) because it's usually a newb (no offense to newbs) and
> 
> b) because it's an example of someone who doesn't know anything about music and has no plans to.
> 
> Tell Beethoven, John Williams, Alfred Newman, Wagner, Mozart, Haydn, Scriabin, Schoenberg, Bartok, the Bachs, Mahler, Bruckner, DeBussy....dozens more composers considered the greatest in all history that. They all knew theory inside and out. Why would anyone listen to that sentiment from you and discard the facts?
> 
> Seriously consider dropping that little axiom if you actually plan on doing something in music, my friend.
> 
> All that said, I _do_ think being overly concerned about theory and thereby letting it get in your way is possible (to set the record completely straight).



What makes one person know more about music than another person? enlighten me, please.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

Fang said:


> I actually think trying to unlearn something can be harder than learning something. Knowledge can be restraining in the way that it closes your mind, where the ability to make great music lies in having an open mind.



I believe there is some truth to that. To the best of my knowledge, Paul McCartney never knew, and still doesn't know how to read or write music notation. He is a master of songwriting, and understanding how chords work, etc. Perhaps that would have been lost if he had studied formally? Stevie Nicks decided against formal training, as she figured her "bad habits" where what enabled her distinctive creativity; once there are rules, ones signature style might change.


----------



## muk

Fang said:


> What makes one person know more about music than another person? enlighten me, please.



Is that supposed to be a serious question? What does make a surgeon know more about doing surgeries than the layman? Your stance is incredibly blasé. Try arguing that you know as much as a surgeon without putting in any work. This stance is just absurd. If you don't care enough about music to try to understand even the most basic principles behind it, why exactly do you want to write music?

Craft and creativity do not work against each other. It's the opposite. They stimulate each other, and either one is worth little without the other.


----------



## Fang

muk said:


> Is that supposed to be a serious question? What does make a surgeon know more about doing surgeries than the layman? Your stance is incredibly blasé. Try arguing that you know as much as a surgeon without putting in any work. This stance is just absurd. If you don't care enough about music to try to understand even the most basic principles behind it, why exactly do you want to write music?
> 
> Craft and creativity do not work against each other. It's the opposite. They stimulate each other, and either one is worth little without the other.



Yeh it's a serious question, and music is not surgery. I wouldn't want a surgeon to be creative I would want them to perform under the rules. I'm not saying music is not a craft, I am saying I don't think there is one route to creating great songs because music is extremely personal.

BTW I'm not against music theory, I have studied classical music. I am saying you don't need it to create great music and you definitely don't need to know theory to involve yourself in music. That is why music is so accessible isn't it?

Granted if you are entering into a specific genre you must learn the rules of that genre just like you must learn English if you want to live in an English speaking country, but I see no reason why people cannot create their own language in music, in fact I think it more appropriate that people express their ideas/emotions in their own language.

My question still stands; what makes any of you think you "know" more about music than anyone else?

If you can answer me convincingly I will stand corrected, I don't know the truth but I am doubtful you do either


----------



## visiblenoise

If I may butt in - I think a lot of people are using the word "music" to refer to music tradition as it has developed thus far, predominantly western. As someone who tries to give all "art" the benefit of the doubt (at least initially), I think that disregarding this tradition is a valid place to come from, but you have to accept that you're setting yourself up to be understood by nobody.

Personally, I think all worthwhile art has to cater to the audience to some degree. Otherwise it'll be perceived as an exercise in novelty, and you can't complain when nobody appreciates it.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

muk said:


> Is that supposed to be a serious question? What does make a surgeon know more about doing surgeries than the layman? Your stance is incredibly blasé. Try arguing that you know as much as a surgeon without putting in any work. This stance is just absurd. If you don't care enough about music to try to understand even the most basic principles behind it, why exactly do you want to write music?



The thing is....music is music. I know how to write heavy metal music (which I've had commercial success with), but don't have formal classical training (yet I earn money from writing orchestral). Does that mean I can't write good "music"? Just like a surgeon, there are many types of surgeons, each one excellent at the chosen specialty; a brain surgeon can't necessarily perform heart surgery.


----------



## Rodney Money

Fang said:


> What makes one person know more about music than another person? enlighten me, please.


You are conducting a live ensemble in which all of the individuals are individually playing in tune, but the major triad still doesn’t sound right and time is money. Why not?

Rotaries VS pistons, why would you choose one over another?

How does a professional sax player play a whole-note?

Your hero calls you up for the 1st time since 2005 and wants you to play with his personal ensemble tomorrow on July 4th, because they are playing your piece or song. You have to drive 2 hours, without practicing with the ensemble, and ever hearing the actual work live, but you have to perform live on the spot, and before you do this you have to talk about your composition to a live audience. Are you prepared?


----------



## Fang

Rodney Money said:


> You are conducting a live ensemble in which all of the individuals are individually playing in tune, but the major triad still doesn’t sound right and time is money. Why not?
> 
> Rotaries VS pistons, why would you choose one over another?
> 
> How does a professional sax player play a whole-note?
> 
> Your hero calls you up for the 1st time since 2005 and wants you to play with his personal ensemble tomorrow on July 4th, because they are playing your piece or song. You have to drive 2 hours, without practicing with the ensemble, and ever hearing the actual work live, but you have to perform live on the spot, and before you do this you have to talk about your composition to a live audience. Are you prepared?



Heard of Jamie Oliver? A great chef who couldn't run a restaurant.

I bet his food was tasty though, what do you think?


----------



## Rodney Money

Fang said:


> Heard of Jamie Oliver? A great chef who couldn't run a restaurant.
> 
> I bet his food was tasty though, what do you think?


I enjoy making a living for what I’m passionate about.


----------



## Fang

visiblenoise said:


> If I may butt in - I think a lot of people are using the word "music" to refer to music tradition as it has developed thus far, predominantly western. As someone who tries to give all "art" the benefit of the doubt (at least initially), I think that disregarding this tradition is a valid place to come from, but you have to accept that you're setting yourself up to be understood by nobody.
> 
> Personally, I think all worthwhile art has to cater to the audience to some degree. Otherwise it'll be perceived as an exercise in novelty, and you can't complain when nobody appreciates it.



What you are saying is correct, but what came before traditional music? Or in other words- where did traditional music come from? 

I understand your point though, it seems that you cannot divorce music from culture


----------



## Fang

Rodney Money said:


> I enjoy making a living for what I’m passionate about.



I'm sure you do, but not everyone is as smart as you.

I've heard some amazing songs, but some of the best music (in my opinion) is sitting on a hard drive on my friends 15 year old mac. He's never had a music lesson in his life, he taught himself piano/drums etc. and in some ways understands music better (or differently) than me, and I grew up with music teachers

Just because he hasn't monetized his music it doesn't mean it's any worse than yours or mine, or that we know more about music than him

You're just a Gordon Ramsey and he is a Jamie Oliver


----------



## Rodney Money

Fang said:


> I'm sure you do, but not everyone is as smart as you.
> 
> I've heard some amazing songs, but some of the best music (in my opinion) is sitting on a hard drive on my friends 15 year old mac. He's never had a music lesson in his life, he taught himself piano/drums etc. and in some ways understands music better (or differently) than me, and I grew up with music teachers
> 
> Just because he hasn't monetized his music it doesn't mean it's any worse than yours or mine, or that we know more about music than him
> 
> You're just a Gordon Ramsey and he is a Jamie Oliver


Teachers just help strengthen the mind, but great teachers also strengthen the heart bringing out your full potential. It took me 4 teachers to find that man, and many never find theirs. Your friend actually sounds like a Leonardo (a thinker,) where I am more like a Michelangelo (a doer,) but it’s better than sounding like you (a judgmental.)


----------



## ism

Fang said:


> I'm sure you do, but not everyone is as smart as you.
> 
> I've heard some amazing songs, but some of the best music (in my opinion) is sitting on a hard drive on my friends 15 year old mac. He's never had a music lesson in his life, he taught himself piano/drums etc. and in some ways understands music better (or differently) than me, and I grew up with music teachers
> 
> Just because he hasn't monetized his music it doesn't mean it's any worse than yours or mine, or that we know more about music than him
> 
> You're just a Gordon Ramsey and he is a Jamie Oliver




The argument (and the reason these threads always turn acrimonious) is because the argument is *not* about high culture vs low culture - I'm sure every one here loves at least some of both, and knows that writing a truly great pop song isn't any easier that writing a great symphony. Seriously who isn't in awe of at least something by Lemmon-McCartney? There probably more people that hate Beethoven that don't love at least something by Lennon-McCartney. 


Its the "harder to unlearn argument", ie the notion that studying is harmful.


While Beethovn slept with Fux's counterpoint by his bedside, Paul obviously didn't need Fux's Counterpoint to write Yesterday. But the above arguments amount to saying that studying Fux would have harmed Paul as a songwriter, invariable annoys people because is contains the implicit suggests that those of us who do study theory are someone damaged as composers by it.

Which is silly.


----------



## Fang

Rodney Money said:


> Teachers just help strengthen the mind, but great teachers also strengthen the heart bringing out your full potential. It took me 4 teachers to find that man, and many never find theirs. Your friend actually sounds like a Leonardo (a thinker,) where I am more like a Michelangelo (a doer,) but it’s better than sounding like you (a judgmental.)



I wasn't judging anyone but now that you've compared yourself to michelangelo - ew


----------



## Fang

ism said:


> The argument (and the reason these threads always turn acrimonious) is because the argument is *not* about high culture vs low culture - I'm sure every one here loves at least some of both, and knows that writing a truly great pop song isn't any easier that writing a great symphony. Seriously who isn't in awe of at least something by Lemmon-McCartney? There probably more people that hate Beethoven that don't love at least something by Lennon-McCartney.
> 
> 
> Its the "harder to unlearn argument", ie the notion that studying is harmful.
> 
> 
> While Beethovn slept with Fux's counterpoint by his bedside, Paul obviously didn't need Fux's Counterpoint to write Yesterday. But the above arguments amount to saying that studying Fux would have harmed Paul as a songwriter, invariable annoys people because is contains the implicit suggests that those of us who do study theory are someone damaged as composers by it.
> 
> Which is silly.



So if I annoy people it means I am wrong? The only reason I can see why people are getting annoyed is if they doubt that what they have done has been a waste of time - which I never said

I stick by my words, unlearning can be just as hard if not harder than learning. If people receive that as me calling them damaged then that's on them. We're all a bit damaged aren't we, I don't even see that as a problem.


----------



## ism

ism said:


> bedside





Rodney Money said:


> Teachers just help strengthen the mind, but great teachers also strengthen the heart bringing out your full potential. It took me 4 teachers to find that man, and many never find theirs. Your friend actually sounds like a Leonardo (a thinker,) where I am more like a Michelangelo (a doer,) but it’s better than sounding like you (a judgmental.)



I had no idea the whole Luvvie Boffin debate when back that far.


----------



## ism

Fang said:


> So if I annoy people it means I am wrong? The only reason I can see why people are getting annoyed is if they doubt that what they have done has been a waste of time - which I never said
> 
> I stick by my words, unlearning can be just as hard if not harder than learning. If people receive that as me calling them damaged then that's on them. We're all a bit damaged aren't we, I don't even see that as a problem.


-

Just commenting on why these threads always - *always* - degenerate into this kind of acrimony. 


I also think that ‘unlearning’ is usually a code for something else, and might enjoy debating the pedagogical notion in another context. 

But I was just trying to offer some insight into why I think it is that on *every* thread about music theory some one always makes some variant on this comments, and it then always reliably degenerates into acrimony, and then transforms into the same totally unrelated debate over high art vs low art debate, ignorance vs condescension, Luvvies vs Boffins etc. 


It seems so completely unnecessary, and is entirely emblematic of how the internet manages to squanders the opportunity for a reasonable discussion.


----------



## trumpoz

ism said:


> Its the "harder to unlearn argument", ie the notion that studying is harmful.



Some study can be harmful if it is inappropriate to the person who is studying. Although it does not relate as much to composition/theory, there are accepted techniques for playing certain instruments that for the vast majority of musicians that lend themselves to progressing on the instrument and others that hinder progress. Trying to assist the student to undo those that hinder is a longer process than learning them in the process. I see it every day as a teacher. I went through it as a young musician trying to undo habits that were limiting my progress as a trumpet player.... bloody hell it took ages to unlearn what I had learned as I was trying to change something that was ingrained. Hell I had a (15 year old high school student come and ask me about negative harmony because he heard Jacob Collier talk about it - my response was along the lines of "It is a different approach to harmony that can be used to create source material that you may not normally go towards. In all honesty get you head head around traditional western harmony for the next few years so that you have the foundation in order to understand negative harmony and possibly use is".

There will always be people that write fantastic music without much musical knowledge, or improvisers like Chet Baker who didn't learn to read or write music (apparently). Those people are few and far between - for the rest of us appropriate study of theory can provide a great reference point at any time in the musical process.


----------



## Fang

ism said:


> -
> 
> Just commenting on why these threads always - *always* - degenerate into this kind of acrimony.
> 
> 
> I also think that ‘unlearning’ is usually a code for something else, and might enjoy debating the pedagogical notion in another context.
> 
> But I was just trying to offer some insight into why I think it is that on *every* thread about music theory some one always makes some variant on this comments, and it then always reliably degenerates into acrimony, and then transforms into the same totally unrelated debate over high art vs low art debate, ignorance vs condescension, Luvvies vs Boffins etc.
> 
> 
> It seems so completely unnecessary, and is entirely emblematic of how the internet manages to squanders the opportunity for a reasonable discussion.



If we cannot discuss pedagogical notion in a thread about learning music theory then where should we discuss it? I do agree with you though that this is the way these threads normally go. I didn't mean to hurt anyones feelings, although it was fun to rile up some heated opinions.


----------



## VinRice

The promotion of the concept that ignorance is preferable to knowledge is disgusting to me.


----------



## Farkle

ein fisch said:


> So this is a question for all the composers here that did learn music theory for a long time (5+ years), including ear training and all that good stuff;
> 
> ... can you make faster decisions due to it (well i bet you can, but was that speed-up worth the hours/years of practice?)? Like knowing exactly if you're gonna use this voicing after the other voicing?



Yes.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I haven't read this thread, but the answer to the first question is NO!

Well, of course going oom-pah-pah C-F-G triads on the piano is going to be under control, but everything I've ever done that's marginally interesting has an element of being out of control - to the point that I sometimes hear things later and am surprised that I came up with them.

Hans once posted a great quote (or I'm pulling a quote out of his post) to the effect that his limitation is his technique. I think that's true of everyone, certainly me.

Of course he's not saying his technique holds him back or that he doesn't know what he's doing, he's saying that's his boundary. And I think the irony is that it's easy to focus on what you don't know - your limitations - rather than to explore how much you can do with what you *do* know.

Look at Joni Mitchell, for example. She has no idea what she's doing, yet she comes up with things no other human being would think of in a million years.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Or Ringo Starr drum parts, for that matter.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

douggibson said:


> Ear Training is a myth. No such thing exists in my opinion.



The better your ears, the better the musician you are!


----------



## Parsifal666

Fang, you look worse and worse. Your question has already been answered more than once. 

Just drop it and move onto another topic. Or start another account here. 

You're embarrassing yourself, my friend.


----------



## mikeh-375

[QUOTE="Fang, post: 4408044, member: 21247"

I stick by my words, unlearning can be just as hard if not harder than learning. If people receive that as me calling them damaged then that's on them. We're all a bit damaged aren't we, I don't even see that as a problem.[/QUOTE]

As one who underwent theory (that is- technique) either via self-imposed discipline, or from my Alma Mater, I can vouch for the fact that although in a way, one should un-learn after learning (and yes, it can take a while), the actual learning if applied properly, develops your voice in the most personal of ways. It's not for everyone, but it's a damn fine thing to do if you want to develop your own way in orchestral/concert music and maximise your personal aesthetic creativity.
In that sense, knowing one's own depths in music can imply a better music than one might create without technique, simply because in the learning you find yourself.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

Saxer said:


> composing interesting stuff is like inventing good new jokes.



On of the best analogies about making music I ever heard.


----------



## mikeh-375

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Or Ringo Starr drum parts, for that matter.



Meanie.... (I'm a scouser)


----------



## Fang

douggibson said:


> Easy.
> 
> Listen to these pitches played on the piano.
> 
> Can you name them like the kid in the video ?
> 
> 
> 
> No ?
> 
> 
> He knows more about music then you do.
> 
> Next question




What you call a note is not what the note is, naming notes is a poor example. If I know what an apple is called by looking at it I know much less than the person who has tasted it and doesnt know its name.


----------



## Fang

Parsifal666 said:


> Fang, you look worse and worse. Your question has already been answered more than once.
> 
> Just drop it and move onto another topic. Or start another account here.
> 
> You're embarrassing yourself, my friend.



I'm not worried about being embarrassed on here. Why dont you stick on topic, I dont know you and you dont know me so theres no point getting personal.


----------



## Tacet

Oh my, these theory threads are sooo tedious .

Some people don't want to learn the tools of the trade? Fine.
They think understanding music theory will stifle their innate, god-given creativity? Ditto.
What's the point in arguing?

One in a trillion might one day become the next McCartney.
The others are just shooting themselves in the foot. Let them.


----------



## Fang

douggibson said:


> You come across like a "flat-earther" to music theory


So you think the earth is round?

We can have meaningful dialogue, we're both people at the end of the day - calm down



douggibson said:


> it's a core part of their experience of the world. It's not something they have to turn on, just like you don't have to turn on your taste buds or use effort for it.



That's perfect, thank you 



douggibson said:


> Also most perfect pitch possers acquire this before the age of 5



I don't know if you read my inital point, but you're arguing my case for me 

This whole thread is about music theory, we're not talking about musically inclined synaesthetic children


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

douggibson said:


> He knows more about music then you do.
> 
> Next question



The kid can name the notes/chords by hearing them, so that makes him more knowledgable about music? Theory, perhaps.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

ism said:


> But the above arguments amount to saying that studying Fux would have harmed Paul as a songwriter, invariable annoys people because is contains the implicit suggests that those of us who do study theory are someone damaged as composers by it.



I don't think anyone said that (including myself). I said that by having rules, it might affect how you had written music previously. Some incredibly talented musicians are masters of their instruments, or even orchestration/arranging, but totally bomb at trying to write anything. Does that make them less knowledgeable about music? Of course not, nor does it make the untrained composer (who writes wonderful pieces) less knowledgable. It's all relative.


----------



## Fang

Tacet said:


> Oh my, these theory threads are sooo tedious .
> 
> Some people don't want to learn the tools of the trade? Fine.
> They think understanding music theory will stifle their innate, god-given creativity? Ditto.
> What's the point in arguing?
> 
> One in a trillion might one day become the next McCartney.
> The others are just shooting themselves in the foot. Let them.



First of all, there isn't even 1 trillion people on earth so your math is flawed. Secondly, to certain people, those odds sound more appealing than a 100% rate of being mediocre

Nothing wrong with being mediocre by the way

The truth is to be different, you have to take a chance. All the people getting angry about music theory here are risk averse, so naturally they will think that their way is the only way and all other ways are wrong. I get it, because to say that there could be another route would mean that what they have been doing has been a waste of time (which it doesn't really mean) and it brings all their dormant insecurities to the surface. It's great.


----------



## Tacet

Fang said:


> First of all, there isn't even 1 trillion people on earth so your math is flawed.


Irony is lost on you, clearly. 



Fang said:


> The truth is to be different, you have to take a chance.


Sure, and knowing music theory will actually help you in that endeavor.
Ever heard of Debussy, Stravinski, Schoenberg, Penderecki?


----------



## Fang

Tacet said:


> Irony is lost on you, clearly.






Tacet said:


> Sure, and knowing music theory will actually help you in that endeavor.
> Ever heard of Debussy, Stravinski, Schoenberg, Penderecki?


So you're saying you should learn music theory to know what not to do?


----------



## VinRice

The idea that ignorance is preferable to enlightenment is such an irrational and preposterous concept that there are clearly reasons for its popularity lying below below the surface. It’s not a new idea but seems to be going through its own ‘renaissance’, hence the dire political situation we presently find ourselves in across the world. Visit any decent bookshop for extensive writings on that particular phenomena.

With music, there appear to be a number of misconceptions, conflations and simple poor thinking that lead down this path:

Many people have a poor experience of school and tend to conflate the absolutism of time and resource-pressured teaching with the value of the knowledge. The knowledge itself become the tyranny rather than the teaching methods. The best teaching provides the tools and motivation for a life of self-exploration but unfortunately this is not the norm.

Music theory as a monolithic set of rules. It’s absolutely not. It’s a collection of examples of what works. It’s a journey through a codified history of the development of western music, starting with natural physical phenomena of the overtone series and its pleasing effect on the human ear. Each era adds its own sophistications as the receiving culture develops - and each era builds on the knowledge of the previous. 

Knowledge kills creativity. Absolutely not. This is a misconception of how creativity works. Creativity is not ‘free thinking’. Creativity is synthesis. The melding of two (or more) different ideas, styles, objects, whatever, to create a unique other. There are literally hundreds of philosophy, psychology, and creative design books on this subject.

I understand what people mean when they say they need to ‘unlearn’ stuff to become more creative but that’s not actually what happens. The knowledge simply becomes a subconscious part of your personal tool set that informs everything that you do, but gives you the freedom to ‘flow’. This is truly the pay-off of the years of learning. When that knowledge has become innate and you don’t need to think about the guidelines you are free to create, because you just ‘know’ what your options are and how they can be subverted to synthesise something new. This flow state is what all creatives strive for and it comes through knowledge, not ignorance.

“I make great music now and I don’t have any theory” Wrong. You absolutely know some theory, it’s just innate rather than explicit. You have learned over the years by experimentation and listening what works and what doesn’t. It’s just taken a long time, is very limited, you don’t understand why what you are doing works and you can’t codify it so that somebody else could understand it. How is that an optimal situation? 

Been there, done that. Plinked on my parents piano for years (my sister got the piano lessons), played guitar in bands for twenty years and was good at it. 30 years to work out from first principles stuff I could have learned in a year of formal training. After six years of intense self-development am I a better musician and composer? Good God to even pose the question is absurd.

“Musician X or Y don’t know any theory and they make good music/ are rich and successful”

This is the most pernicious fallacy of all.

Assuming the premise is true, outliers of a vast statistical distribution are not sensible role models. The inflation of the significance of such outliers by the media etc. is simply a reflection of our own desperate need to believe that such elevation is possible without putting in the work. We would all like to win the lottery or indeed start the next Amazon or become the President, but for 99.999999% of the population it’s never going to happen. The exceptions prove the rule.

In any case the premise is not true. Popular music is the product of an extensive team of people and you can be damn sure that somebody in that team knows their classical and jazz theory (usually the producer and the keyboard player).

I’m done. I’m off to deny my kids the vaccines they need to stay alive because duh!


----------



## Tacet

Fang said:


> So you're saying you should learn music theory to know what not to do?


Nope, learning music theory simply gives you more options: follow the established conventions if and when you so desire.
Or completely ignore them, deliberately trash them, whatever sounds good to you.

Additional knowledge will only help you pursue your musical goals, however innovative, individual and original they may be.

@VinRice: post of the day. This thread is done as far as I'm concerned.

Peace to all.


----------



## JJP

I don't chime in on these "should I learn music theory?" debates often, but I have a little time and may be able to shine a little bit of light from my experience here. I'm sometimes one of the people who has a music theory background working with those who do not. In my experience with larger projects, there are generally two types of people who don't have a good grasp of music theory:

those who lack knowledge but understand and accept their limitations and attempt to put in place procedures to allow others to assist them in the most efficient way possible.
those who lack knowledge but either try to hide that fact or continually insist that it is not necessary.
People in both these categories face additional hurdles in realizing their musical ideas. The process of creating music is more challenging for them because they must go through a lot of trial and error. More knowledge would enable them to understand what they want to do and make better decisions from the start. It also means they have more difficulty understanding the potential pitfalls and costs of their decisions farther down the creation process on larger projects. That can get very costly and cause a lot of stress for anyone who works with them because time and energy becomes focused on things that have little (or negative) impact while ignoring the things that may greatly help reach the artist's or composer's desired goal.

The people in category #1 usually have enough experience to be cognizant of these challenges and do their best to minimize the negative outcomes. Usually they find good, skilled people to work with them, give them clearly defined roles, and then try to stay out of the way of those roles and trust in the professionalism of those on their team. They usually understand that they are often the source of backups or other issues, accept that fact, and structure their schedules and resources to account for that.

The people in category #2 are often a nightmare and skilled, experienced people sometimes will avoid working with them. I've dealt with people in category #2 in a number of situations over the last 20 years: films, stage musicals, album recordings, TV shows, the big award shows, and live concerts. These are the people who because of their lack of knowledge often talk on and on about being innovative while doing things that have been done dozens of times before in exactly the same way or perhaps even more elegantly. They often want to rewrite all the "rules" without understanding what the "rules" are or which rules can't be rewritten. (Music is sound which is governed by the laws of physics.)

Category #2 also contains the people who will hire very skilled professionals, sometimes the best in the business, and then second-guess every musical decision those people make in trying to efficiently realize their musical goal. They will demand costly, time-consuming changes that have little to no impact on the final music. They are unable to see when they are doing things that will have musical outcomes different from what they desire. Most devastatingly they will dismiss the advice or decisions of their own experts who are there to help them because they lack the knowledge to understand the advice they are being given.

Category #2 are the first people to see advice, even when it helps them reach the exact musical goal they desire, as compromising their creativity or forcing them to accept certain "rules". These are the people who cause others working with them to stay up late and burn themselves out doing things that ultimately will have to be changed later or just won't work at all. That can be soul-crushing and cause even the very best among us to either walk away from a project or simply turn into robots who blindly follow every instruction even if they know their work is harming the composer's vision for end product. No one will listen to them anyway because their knowledge and experience is worthless when ignored.

Music is like language. It exists to be heard and understood in some way by a listener. You can communicate effectively with others without a good understanding the grammar of your language, but as you try to communicate with wider numbers of people or convey more intricate and intimate ideas, the lack of language resources will limit your capacity.

Having a good musical foundation in theory, harmony, ear-training, etc, benefits you more the further you progress in your musical journey. As you progress you will most likely have to deal with other musicians. This is where the gaps in someone's musical knowledge start to become a problem. They limit your ability to communicate your ideas or make effective musical decisions.

Those are my observations from a rather varied career so far that stretches from little student projects to major record label productions, to blockbuster films, to the Oscars, Grammys, and Emmys. In that time, I have never seen having more musical knowledge be anything but an asset. More musical knowledge puts more tools in your bag that you can pull out when needed. Usually having too little knowledge is the biggest problem. As some of my colleagues like to joke, far too often people "know just enough to be dangerous to everyone around them."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

mikeh-375 said:


> Meanie.... (I'm a scouser)



I had to look that up!

And I'm a transplanted Brit.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

douggibson said:


> But what does that actually mean ?
> 
> It's not actually your ears.



Doug, I have a feeling you're missing what musicians mean when we talk about "ears." I mean, yeah, of course it's your brain. Everything is, whether it's a sport, a science, an art, or anything else.

The point is that your level of understanding/identifying what you hear, how detailed your understanding is - either incoming or what you hear in your mind - is 1:1 your level of musicianship!

That's a separate issue from knowing "theory," it's your ears!


----------



## mikeh-375

Evelyn Glennie was a year above me at the Royal Academy. I first met her in the students bar and spoke for maybe 15mins before suspecting she was deaf. Sometime later, I was walking along a corridor where there were practice rooms and heard the most florid and delicate playing of a Mozart piano piece. I looked in through the window and guess who was playing... amazing.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

douggibson said:


> Easy.
> 
> Listen to these pitches played on the piano.
> 
> Can you name them like the kid in the video ?
> 
> 
> 
> No ?
> 
> He knows more about music then you do.
> 
> Next question




This is funny because the kid has perfect pitch... which is a gift some people are born with - most are not. It does not automatically make you a better musician.

"Talent is cheaper than table salt. What separates the talented individual from the successful one is a lot of hard work."
- Stephen King


----------



## mikeh-375

marclawsonmusic said:


> This is funny because the kid has perfect pitch... which is a gift some people are born with - most are not. It does not automatically make you a better musician.
> 
> "Talent is cheaper than table salt. What separates the talented individual from the successful one is a lot of hard work."
> - Stephen King



At my Alma Mater I new a girl who had PP but when she looked art a score, could not get to grips with transposition because what she heard did not marry with what she was reading. But conversely there was an amazing composer/conductor with PP who could also sight read large scores at the piano....so there you go.


----------



## purple

Sean said:


> Sure theory will not necessarily help you find a really cool melody you like, but knowing how chords work and how to make them "make sense" theory wise is an invaluable tool. With theory there are chords that lead to each other and this helps create a good progression. Sure you can find these chord progressions without the theory knowledge, but it takes longer.
> 
> This is just one example of how music theory "can" help. Obviously it will not make you an award winning composer, but I believe it can certainly help.


Theory definitely _can _help you write better melodies.


----------



## purple

The answer to the question of how much theory you should know will eternally be "more than you currently know". You will never know too much theory, and continuing to learn it or even experiment in it yourself like many great composers in the past have, can give you tools to write better, faster, more consistently, and find inspiration you might not otherwise find. It can change the way you listen and experience music. I believe it is possible to write great music without studying theory, as many in this thread and others have said, there are tons of excellent musicians out there who never went to music school or anything, but if you want to be the best, or even close to the best, you really should study theory.


----------



## mikeh-375

purple said:


> Theory definitely _can _help you write better melodies.



Absolutely @purple. The greatest tunes ever written and revered as a zenith in the high art where, and are, written in the main by masters, that should tell some people something.
The thread is full of ignorance and urban myth concerning theory and how it applies to composing and the creative self. (ww are talking about technique in this context and perhaps if it was called as such, might infer its true purpose to those who don't understand).

You either get this or you don't, if you don't you could be (in fact, are more likely to be) missing out on your full potential.


----------



## Dave Connor

Music learning: musicianship, theory, ear training, structure, form, orchestration and whatever else, must be gained _in some fashion _by the student. At least some of those aspects anyway. Lennon and McCartney are model music learners. Them not having a “formal education” is a purely academic consideration since 30 years at Berklee or Juilliard would not produce their like over a few centuries most likely. Neither of them ever displayed a single limitation in achieving their aims in their primary field. McCartney’s orchestral excursions are a different matter but once again, his gift (ears) carried things through well enough. And, he wasn’t too proud to enlist Carl Davis the way the band had George Martin.

Same with the Jazz greats who hung out at clubs, listened to records and wood-shedded their way to greatness. Same with the self-taught monstrosity known as Elgar. Debussy had a quality C_lassical education _which he no doubt fully understood but it bored him. He radically departed from it based upon an unexplainable inner compass.

In traditional orchestral music the number of composers who underwent a thorough education is far greater than those who didn’t. The fundamentals they learned obviously informed their work but they distinguished themselves often with the intangible of talent - as well as by departing from the established norms and conventions they learned.

It is generally agreed upon that Mozart stayed within the conventions of his day but made use of them with towering beauty and invention while Beethoven burst out in every direction feeling constrained by them.

With Beethoven you have what may be the essence of the Music Theory argument. Had he not so perfectly understood _The Rules, _he never could have broken them in the way he did. In fact, if you want to fully appreciate Beethoven you have to learn them yourself. In an astonishing way, he is telling completely separate stories on multiple levels. His formal construction, studied without hearing a single note is nearly as impressive as the music itself. Except that it IS the music - yet in a way almost completely hidden. In his earliest piano music he is stretching the rules every which way but not actually breaking them! That is, he always justifies and explains what he’s done:

Consider how radical it would be to start a piece named in the program as being in E Major... in C Major. Radical, to the point of shocking the ears of that day (far more in the crowd back then would have what we call perfect pitch.) Eventually Beethoven after loitering in C Major for quite some time, makes it to B Major, the dominant of E - which makes the C excursion in retrospect, on the Neapolitan of B. Voila, E Major set up perfectly.

Simply put, if you wish to apply yourself to music or an aspect of music, you should _in some way _learn the basic properties you wish to make use of and manipulate. The way a sculptor learns about clay vrs marble or a painter watercolor vrs oil. Learning these will not make you into Michelangelo but will help solve those vital mysteries before you proceed. The end product is what tells the world whether your approach brought forth a worthwhile or even important result. And not everyone who’s done great things underwent a traditional education.

As far as present-day professional requirements, JJP’s post is excellent. There’s a difference between a number of skills as job requirements and undertaking various musical creative endeavors of course. If you want to work with an orchestra, you should indeed learn what he suggests. Also, someone should dig up what Hans Zimmer said here regarding what he looks for in a composer. It’s a perfect laying out of personal and technical requirements to work at a high level in film.


----------



## Michael Antrum

Interesting conversation. I can't imagine why anyone would not want to learn theory. How can you learn form other composers and musicians if you don't understand the language in which they converse ?

If you hear something really great in a piece of music, imagine if you couldn't transcribe it to paper, or pick up a score and read it and understand how it was done done. It would be like having a hand tied behind your back. I have a note book full of musical jottings that I carry around with me, and I dip into it often.

Of course, when we say 'Music Theory', this means wildly different things to different people. Some people think theory is know what notes comprise a particular chord - which to me is basic knowledge - not theory.

To others it is being able to discuss arcane counterpoint techniques with the use of many-syllabled technical terms.

One thing I do get however, is the terrible musical knowledge snobbery that appears so rife in academia. It makes people defensive about seeking out knowledge and learning. Anyone who introduces themselves as a musical pedagogue (usually in around the first few minutes) sets my antennae twitching.

There is a person on this forum who told me about one of his first experiences with having his music performed by an orchestra. Apparently, the conductor, took time out to speak to the budding composer, and decided to encourage him with the following words:

'I am not here to be embarrassed by you'.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the action of a grade A arsehole. What should have been one of the most memorable occasions of a young career, marred by someone who obviously feels the need to make themselves feel more important by treating others like a POS.

Any educator who belittles people because of your lack of perceived musical knowledge, is a poor educator. If you don't know something, it doesn't make you stupid. That's totally something different. A good educator inspires and motivates their students to learn more and more. It seems, sadly, to be a rare gift.

I think that is why a lot of people are put off theory, and misunderstand what it is. Anyone who says the musical theory is the study of the 'rules of music', fails to grasp its true meaning.

One bit of advice, when studying theory, be sensible. You are not going to understand everything in a week. The way I found to work for me was 'a little bit and often'. (It also might explain why I have managed to be happily married for 29 years next month !).

When I play fast single handed runs down the piano keyboard, other players often ask how you can do that. The answer is easy, start slow and do ten minutes every day, and then get sightly better every day. Learning theory is a bit like that too. when you learn theory, read it, then close the book and write down what you have just learnt. Sounds basic, and it is, but for me it tends to stick more when you do that.

The posts above about the legally deaf lady, really struck home for me.

I am a little more fortunate than her, but I have been completely deaf in my left ear since birth. So when people discuss placement of audio sections in the stereo field, I have absolutely no idea what they are talking about - I can only imagine. If I put my phone down and it starts ringing, I simply have no idea where in the room it is, except solely by the fact that the nearer I am the louder it gets.

Now, being a glass half full kind of guy, I think there are some advantages to this - for me at least. First of all, my own compositions will only sound half as bad (or less often, twice as good). And did I mention that I have been happily married for 29 years ).

In some ways I find this rather liberating, as I can concentrate on the actual music without getting torn up about the 'mix'. If it's worth taking that music further, then some else will have to do that bit for me.

When I was younger, going out to noisy restaurants and bars, I sometimes found it hard to follow conversations as I couldn't 'filter' the output form two ears. It really frustrated me until I realised that most of what I was 'missing out on' was sheer bollocks.

So don't let anyone put you off learning music theory. It will do nothing but help your music going forward, just not immediately, and probably not quite in the way you would expect. Like going to the gym - the benefits are slow and cumulative.



​


----------



## Parsifal666

I honestly hope @Fang keeps this up. I intentionally came on here this morning looking for something to brighten up my day and ended up laughing me buttocks off. This is hilarious.

Go, Fang! (just be ready to close this account and open another so you can be even more obtuse and get away with it).

Carry on.


----------



## MartinH.

marclawsonmusic said:


> This is funny because the kid has perfect pitch... which is a gift some people are born with - most are not.



Iirc there's a method of teaching it to kids at a certain age and that has a (close to?) 100% success rate. I think it was a study mentioned in the book "peak".


----------



## mikeh-375

douggibson said:


> Music theory is a tool to study the listening, reading and perception of music. (ideally with a tactile connection)
> 
> That's it.



Respectfully, I don't believe that is just it Doug. Theory also translates into technique and _that_ as we both know is vital for developing one's own creativity. The distinction between theory as you define it and as I do (more as technique) are two sides of the same coin. We are both right, but in the context of this thread, I should imagine technique is perhaps more relevant as it relates to actual composing.
edit...perhaps we are on the same side of the coin having re-read your "tactile connection" comment...?


----------



## Adam Takacs

My personal experiences about music theory.
For a long time I didn't believe the theory is essential.
The result: lots of music ideas, themes, sketches but only very few musical compositions.
I thought it would work, but I was wrong.
Maybe as death as a boundary gives meaning to life, music theory as a framework gives meaning to music. Within that everything is possible by creativity.


----------



## Fang

Parsifal666 said:


> I honestly hope @Fang keeps this up. I intentionally came on here this morning looking for something to brighten up my day and ended up laughing me buttocks off. This is hilarious.
> 
> Go, Fang! (just be ready to close this account and open another so you can be even more obtuse and get away with it).
> 
> Carry on.



I'm glad I added to your day bud. I think I'll keep this account so we can be best friends.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

douggibson said:


> Where did anyone get the idea that theory is separate from your ears



I have no idea what the distinction is that you're making, Doug.

Of course it's all ears! I mean, what would be the point of learning anything about music if you don't know what it sounds like?

All I meant is that I wasn't commenting on whether it's important to learn about "music theory."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

douggibson said:


> (I guess trying to memorize songs to hear intervals, and other stupid ideas that are junk)



To me it's much more than that, although it's fair to say that if you can't hear intervals then you're not going to get very far.



> how can we explain how a person *who is legally deaf,* can become one of the top classical soloist in the world ?



She's amazing, but of course she hears every inch of what she's playing in her head - just as (as Dave C said) Beethoven did when he was deaf.

Now, she may have different references from the ones someone with hearing has, but I don't think so. If I remember right she wasn't born deaf, she lost her hearing.


----------



## mikeh-375

Nick Batzdorf said:


> To me it's much more than that, although it's fair to say that if you can't hear intervals then you're not going to get very far.
> 
> 
> 
> She's amazing, but of course she hears every inch of what she's playing in her head - just as (as Dave C said) Beethoven did when he was deaf.
> 
> Now, she may have different references from the ones someone with hearing has, but I don't think so. If I remember right she wasn't born deaf, she lost her hearing.



She told me she felt (and presumably mentally translated somehow) vibrations when music was being played through speakers. It really doesn't explain her gloriously sensitive pianism though, she really was a fine player (maybe still is)


----------



## mikeh-375

douggibson said:


> Perfect, consonant, and dissonant intervals have distinct rhythms.
> 
> Students, in my experience, once this shift happens are much better at distinguishing music in real time.



Yes indeed, beats. I should have been more clear, I meant in a timbral way. I didn't like to press too much on specifics with her as I recall, but have always wondered about that, how her soundworld is "coloured". Also, how she perceives higher partials/frequencies in terms of vibrations for translation into her inner mode of listening - one imagines that might be more difficult - fascinating stuff and one of the most gifted musicians I've ever met.


----------



## vagar

This is a debate that appears recurrently (and tediously) in music forums, about the evils of studying music theory.

There are many paths towards improving your ability in a certain craft, but they could be roughly grouped in three categories:

*1) Trial and error*: with or without external input, you just try stuff until you get something satisfying. This may easily lead to investing time reinventing the wheel, but that's exactly what some people need to absorb that knowledge. For others it will be a regrettable waste of time. This is also the path that leads to breakthroughs in the craft.

*2) Learn by example*: you choose a mentor and try to mimic their style. The classic "imitate, assimilate, innovate" line from jazz trumpet player Clark Terry. This includes analysing masterworks, or just stuff you like the most or find the most interesting. If you have personal contact with your mentor you get guidance and feedback, a "master and apprentice" situation.

*3) Academy/theory.* People tend to see theory and practice as two separate things, but this is a superficial view. Theory is (should be, if not perverted into an end on itself) practice distilled, a resource-efficient (albeit limited) way to propagate the tools a long line of masters of the craft discovered and perfected through the ages. In arts, it is the purposeful application of our rational capability to emotional pursuits, a set of best practices to achieve specific results, that what makes stuff tick. Again, the dichotomy between rationality and emotion is a false one: your emotional range changes and grows with experience, like your taste for different foods. Also, theory is not only what is taught in a Western classical conservatory: every time someone discovers a procedure and places a label on it so they can recall it later, they are creating their own theory. Flamenco, blues, jazz, salsa, Indian classical music... they all have their own theories passed from one musician to another. Yes, there is the ineffable, that what can't be described, analyzed or taught. But a good scaffolding and a broad toolset help reach for those inspiration gems that are so seldom within our grasp. Theory only stifles those who haven't properly learned or been taught to view it as a tool, not as an end result.

*Those three improvement avenues are not exclusive, quite the contrary, they are complementary and the most benefit lies in exploring all three.* Some would find a greater affinity for just one of them, perhaps, but they all contribute to a well-rounded creator.


----------



## Loïc D

miket said:


> I know theory and I'm still an absolutely dreadful composer. Your mileage may vary....


Same boat here. Gimme a paddle.


----------



## rudi

I thought I'd throw a few ideas here from a slightly different perspective... 

There are some interesting parallels between music and languages. Just as we learn to speak without knowing grammar when we are born, we can learn music just by listening. But in the same way we can enrich our writing style by knowing grammar, syntax, etymology, literature etc., we can do the same with our music.

We use language in different ways in different contexts. It can be casual, formal, technical, inspirational, poetic.

Different languages have different sounds and rules as does music. Some linguistics concepts are nigh universal such as the use of subject, object, verb (although their order may differ), others such the number of phonemes / sounds can vary greatly.

Languages change over time, be it vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, meaning and do so through usage not planning. What we consider "normal" now, is different from what it was a hundred, five hundred, or thousand years or more ago.

When we talk about "music theory" we talk about a set of rules that are the result of experiment, accident, custom, familiarity, ideas, and physics. A lot of it is culture based. Western culture is built on a specific set of harmonies, scales, meters and rules that are different from other cultures, or even ancient music. For an interesting look at the influence of culture on music cognition take a look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_in_music_cognition


----------



## mikeh-375

vagar said:


> This is a debate that appears recurrently (and tediously) in music forums, about the evils of studying music theory.
> 
> 
> 
> *................3) Academy/theory.* People tend to see theory and practice as two separate things, but this is a superficial view. Theory is (should be, if not perverted into an end on itself) practice distilled, a resource-efficient (albeit limited) way to propagate the tools a long line of masters of the craft discovered and perfected through the ages. In arts, it is the purposeful application of our rational capability to emotional pursuits, a set of best practices to achieve specific results, that what makes stuff tick. Again, the dichotomy between rationality and emotion is a false one: your emotional range changes and grows with experience, like your taste for different foods. Also, theory is not only what is taught in a Western classical conservatory: every time someone discovers a procedure and places a label on it so they can recall it later, they are creating their own theory. Flamenco, blues, jazz, salsa, Indian classical music... they all have their own theories passed from one musician to another. Yes, there is the ineffable, that what can't be described, analyzed or taught. But a good scaffolding and a broad toolset help reach for those inspiration gems that are so seldom within our grasp. Theory only stifles those who haven't properly learned or been taught to view it as a tool, not as an end result.


Well said @vagar .

This is exactly my view and practice. There is no point in finding a good theme or motif and then not being able to dress it up properly for listening to. It would also be a terrible waste if the composer didn't have the tools to search for and exploit the musics' nascent implications. Unity and cohesion are another byproduct of a creative act underpinned with theoretical support. The freeing of the imagination is facilitated too, contrary to a popular opinion that theory stifles originality. My comments refer only to concert/art music btw, media is a different paradigm and sometimes much more fun.


----------



## Maxtrixbass

Alexandre said:


> Hey could you expand on what you mean? Thanks!


 Not sure what he meant, but I would third the sentiment.

What I would mean is that theory gives you tools, but a great hammer alone still won't give you a straight nail much less fine woodworking. The technique can be practiced and the theory absorbed, but no guarantee the output will be on the mark. Such is the nature of art. Churn it out to make a deadline: yep. Say what you wanted to say successfully? That's a smaller target and one hard to hit no matter what tools you have.


----------



## Uiroo

Had to think of this interview.


----------



## reddognoyz

I sure hope not! : )


----------



## Maxtrixbass

Uiroo said:


> Had to think of this interview.



It took me awhile, but isn't that _Shostakovich_ talking to Stravinski?

BTW, it could be that Stravinski's statement about not going to a particular school may have been less about education/study/learning, but more about the particular school and the direction it would have taken him. I applied to a graduate program at Indiana and am happy I didn't get in since it would have squashed any tonality out of my writing (not bad, but not the direction I wanted to go). I imagine Soviet institutions would have been intense in their pressures.


----------



## Dave Connor

Robert Craft.


----------



## Mike Fox

I think what Elfman says in this clip is incredibly interesting and relatable....


----------



## Maxtrixbass

Dave Connor said:


> Robert Craft.


Ah yes, the language would give that away... (ie, its not Russian..)


----------



## youngpokie

I am in the process of rediscovering "music theory" (and here I mean specifically tonal harmony) after a very long gap; and not completing it when I had the chance and the teacher is one of my biggest regrets.

As someone suggested earlier, the knowledge of theory harmony is liberating to a creative musician, because, like mastery of language, it allows us to speak on a whole new level of expressiveness and impact. It's the difference between writing an email and writing a novel that people want to read over and over, in terms of craft.

The problem so many people (including myself) have with learning tonal harmony is the way it is taught.

The schools, books and online courses are all focused on just one harmonic system, which is the foundation of most music written from Bach through Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Saint Saens, etc. It's a "major-minor" diatonic system based on tonic-subdominant-dominant.

But this system is one of at least 5 truly distinct harmonic systems and it actively excludes people who are interested in atonal, modal, poly-harmonic or other harmonic styles that existed before or were created on top of the "classic" system (Scriabin, Debussy, Messiaen, Schoenberg, etc). So the first problem is how poorly we understand what type of harmony we want to learn and what kind of music we can expect to create based on it.

But there is a reason why the "major-minor" classical system is overwhelming all the others. It's the most cohesive system of all (encompassing more than just harmony itself), it is based the repeatable and logical building blocks and allows to create music and melody that is easy to remember and recognize, on top of being highly expressive and creating the most impact on the listener.

Yes, this system has "rules". But to me it was a revelation when I finally realized that these rules simply tell me how to achieve the most amazing sound possible within this system when I move from one chord to another with voice leading, all based on more than 200 years of "best practice". It's all about the best possible sound, sound, sound (almost like the talk about best sounding sample libraries here. I bet Mozart would be posting about best sounding ways from one chord to another on this forum if he could).

The rest of classic harmony is just the building blocks. If, again within this system, you put I 6/4 chord after the Neapolitan 6 and before the Dominant and sit it on for a full bar, you can dramatically increase tension and emotion. I learned this yesterday and it was a "wow" moment for me. And so on and so forth.

The "major-minor" system is the original loop-based music when it comes to harmony. The basic formula is T-S-D, which is then endlessly extended, varied or prolonged by replacing T and S each with two or three classes of chord substitutions (or modulation) and then finishing with D plus a cadence. That's it, in a nutshell.

But nobody explains this in schools or courses. They just tell us what the rules are in isolation, using boring examples and never explaining how it fits into the bigger picture and what we can achieve if with it. And they use really weird names that are hard to remember. It's so tedious and mind-numbing, unless we understand the why and therefore use it right away. And I have never seen a text book on practical modal or atonal harmony, for example.

So, personally, I'm grinding on, day by day, and thankfully every other day I stumble upon something that's to me a revelation.

/RANT OVER


----------



## ed buller

you are ready: 

best

ed


----------



## jonathanparham

youngpokie said:


> But nobody explains this in schools or courses. They just tell us what the rules are in isolation, using boring examples and never explaining how it fits into the bigger picture and what we can achieve if with it. And they use really weird names that are hard to remember. It's so tedious and mind-numbing, unless we understand the why and therefore use it right away. And I have never seen a text book on practical modal or atonal harmony, for example.
> 
> So, personally, I'm grinding on, day by day, and thankfully every other day I stumble upon something that's to me a revelation.
> 
> /RANT OVER


try scoreclub


----------



## mikeh-375

youngpokie said:


> um if he could).
> 
> ......... And I have never seen a text book on practical modal or atonal harmony, for example.



Try these for atonality. Best practice atonality requires learning (and/or inventing) systems for creative and aesthetic control in a wide open aural field.


----------



## JohnG

Stravinsky: "I find that all composers must conduct." (26'12") above


----------

