# Is Music Theory Knowledge Vital In Creating Great Music?



## stprodigy

How important is music theory knowledge in composition? Sure we might say it plays an important role, but over the years we have seen many artists who had little or no music theory knowledge (one of the famous being Paul McCartney) create wonderful material.

I wonder because I have plenty of books on music theory, and I read them with the expectation that it will help improve my musical creativity and expression, but while everything I've read makes sense and I see the big picture of how the elements of music theory tie together, I wouldn't necessarily say its helping me create better melodies, chord progressions and what not.

It was once said that "Music theory is a great tool for _de_-constructing music, but doesn't work so well for _con_-structing music." 

I kind of think Music Theory can be analogized to teaching kids grammar in school. A child resident in an English speaking country like the USA or the UK already begins to learn how to hear and speak English language at a very early age, even before being enrolled in school. In school, the child then learns how to write English on paper and read it, and is also taught the syntax/grammar rules that govern English, but by mere being exposed to native speakers of English, the child already innately knows those syntax/grammar rules, even if its subconsciously.
No one has to teach you how to "comprehend" music. You ears pick up the soundwaves, and instantly your brain can tell if it has a rhythm or not, if its a tone or just noise, if its melodious or just a random string of notes, if its in key or off key, etc. 
Now does one have to be taught how to "create" music? I think even the most primitive of us has the basic ability to snap our fingers to a rhythm in our heads or whistle a tune. But creating great music? Is it talent, music theory, or a combination of both? Thats the question.


----------



## Peter Alexander

Harmony, not theory, is essential because itbcontains part of the language of music. For pop music, song form puts harmony in a direction. Most melodies come out of chord tones.


----------



## madbulk

And while that's still theory -- chord scale theory -- it's not as stuck in the mud as four part writing like you'll probably find taking up your typical theory text. 
Depends on where you're at. Doesn't hurt to know what voice leading is. But "vital?" as you put it? No, not so vital as other things.


----------



## Dave Connor

The short answer has to be no because so much great music has been written by people only taught by listening (which is a form of study.) For the most part, Popular music is the field where this principle is most proven. 

Classical music composer are almost always well versed in music theory though there are notable exceptions. Debussy basically endured his traditional education and understood it perfectly no doubt but ran off in a completely new direction. Elgar was self-taught, studying scores and the like but definitely _sounds_ as if he understands theory as well as anyone who ever wrote a thing.

What is misunderstood about theory is that it is simply the underlying science of a musical system that has dominated Western Music for several centuries. It is helpful to know it as it is helpful to know the ingredients that make up any whole substance. It's a tool in the hand of the composer and not an axe hanging over his head. In the end, it seems that the composers most admired by posterity made it a point to understand it as thoroughly as possible.


----------



## dannthr

I often find myself having to answer this question usually by students who see Music Theory Class as a challenge or chore and they are just smart enough to know successful people who don't have formal music theory training and are lazy enough to not want to take it on themselves.

Whatever the reason, the real root is a misunderstanding of what Music Theory actually is.

To be clear: it is merely the formal discussion on why music can sound good to our ears.

That's why we talk about Pythagoras first, he was the first recorded person to ask and investigate the question "why do these two notes sound good together and these two notes not sound good together?"

And the conversation has evolved since then as music has developed into a language both aural and written and it incorporates the exploration and experimentation of music makers certainly since the 13th century if not 500+BCE. 

Oh but this great composer doesn't read music, or this great composer didn't have formal training, blah, blah, blah.

Yeah, that's true, but imagine what they could've done if they'd had.

Now, it may also be that I teach Music Theory differently than other people. I do this because my experience in Music Theory Class was boring and they only told me what I couldn't do and I was like "screw this, I'm out of here!" 

So, I teach music theory as a toolbox--look at this, look at the effect this creates, look how this sounds, listen to how this can change the feeling, etc.

And I think that's where you have to approach Music Theory if you're feeling resistant to it--not as a rule book, but as a toolbox. And when you see Music Theory as a toolbox, then you can see how it'd be foolish to throw it out.

Why limit your potential on purpose?

Finally, all of those composers, song-writers, etc., who you admire that had no formal music theory training still had music theory, they just developed the conversation on their own, using their listening intuition, built upon all the music they heard. But imagine what they might've been able to do if they didn't have to spend so much time on unguided exploration?

I mean, let's face it, you're going to die, and you're going to die a lot sooner than you can explore everything music has to offer on your own.

So in Music Theory, we say "hey, look at this over here, look at this over there, see how this works? Isn't that cool?" That way you're not just fumbling around in the dark.


----------



## dcoscina

Anyone who concerns themselves enough to study whether at home by reading various treatises on the subject (Piston's books are pretty good), or in university/education institution most likely will benefit from having done so. As Christophe Beck said in an interview, knowing more about theory and orchestration is like an added set of tools that one can use especially when deadlines are tight and one runs out of "inspiration". I think almost anyone could author a good theme but having the technical chops to shape it, develop it, massage it, is what discerns a composer from others. 

I think studying jazz is helpful in breaking one out of the triadic and diatonic framework that can be so easy to fall into. Modal writing certainly has its place but can be a trap to fall into especially with DAWs and libraries that can make it so easy to endorse that type of composing. IN fact, it's harder to compose more involved music with samples, especially lyrical and chromatic styled writing for fast pieces with samples without making the piece sound fake. 

Some can do it well but most seem to avoid this like the plague because it doesn't sound too authentic.


----------



## dannthr

One of the first "composition" exercises, when we learn about melody, I play with my students is having them "randomly" pick numbers relating to scale degrees. I will sometimes guide them, through a bit, but even though the melody they create is sometimes a bit wonky, through motivic manipulation, it starts to sound like a song--and they get excited, because knowing stuff like that means you don't have to have a clever melody or inspiration to write something half-decent.

And then, when you do have inspired material--being able to fluidly manipulate that, it's extremely powerful.


----------



## JJP

Music is very similar to language. Studying music theory is similar to studying grammar. A firm understanding of grammar will not make you a powerful speaker or author. There are plenty of examples of moving speeches or written works with poor grammar. However those who have an understanding of the rules of grammar are better able to convey ideas in unique ways and speak with a particular eloquence when they choose to do so.

I think of brilliant orators such as Martin Luther King, or Cicero of ancient Rome, or even Abraham Lincoln who were able to put words together in ways that gave them amazing effect. Their eloquence came from a combination of their personal creativity and passion with their mastery of the rules of language. That mastery came from much study and practice. Their mastery means they know how to manipulate the rules to eloquently convey ideas and motivate people… and how and when to break them for even greater effect!

Similarly, you can find musical works from people who don't have much theoretical knowledge that are quite spectacular. There are plenty of examples in folk and pop musics from around the world. However, those who study theory are able to manipulate sounds in particularly unique ways because they understand the musical "grammar" of their culture. Each musical culture, like each language, has its own rules of style. Theory gives you and understanding of those stylistic rules. If you master them, you then have the ability to make your own choices about how to apply them for greatest effect. Those are musical options which you do not have if you do not put in the time to study.

As other people have said above, music theory gives you a set of tools. Once you have those tools in your bag, you can pull them out whenever you like.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

If you hear music you love and later discover the composer didn't know theory, you didn't love it in the first place - you only thought you did.

After all, theory always comes before practice.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I think it is a genre specific question.


----------



## ed buller

stprodigy @ Tue Dec 31 said:


> How important is music theory knowledge in composition? Sure we might say it plays an important role, but over the years we have seen many artists who had little or no music theory knowledge (one of the famous being Paul McCartney) create wonderful material.



This isn't strictly true. All the Beatles , by the time they got their deal had learned to play from memory literally hundreds of songs.......very good ones too. You can really hear all that knowledge in their own material. 

This is such an old debate . In all honesty it really is a personal choice . If you like studying, hear a piece of music and want to pull it apart to see whats going on .....do it.....if you'd prefer just to get inspiration and try and nail the style on your way....that will work too. For some the first is preferable for others the later......each to his own. 

The biggest problem from my own experience is when you are trying to get to grips with a certain texture and approach and it requires a lot of back knowledge that you just don't have , it really is impossible just to dip in , find the bit you like, nick it and get out... You have to wade through all the backstory too. Context is everything. But no mater how much you study it's still up to you to write the music. You can't just regurgitate the books.....that's sounds awful. 

E


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Except, if a guy like Thomas Newman, who is well trained spent a month really trying to recreate something sounding close to The Beatles, he could do so. But if Paul McCartney, who is not well trained spent a month really trying to recreate something close to John Williams he could not do so.


----------



## rgames

Music theory (or the craft of composition) is what you rely on when you run out of ideas.

Maybe people think exclusively in terms of theory - "Let's see - I'm in minor, so I think I'll use a German aug 6 as a pre-dominant" - but I doubt it. You hear the music in your head without regard to the theory that supports it. 

When the music in your head stops playing, or you don't really like it, theory (or craft) helps you meet deadlines.

rgames


----------



## korgscrew

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jan 01 said:


> If you hear music you love and later discover the composer didn't know theory, you didn't love it in the first place - you only thought you did.



Mind Blown. I haven't a clue what that meant.


----------



## Daniel James

I have never understood those people who bang on about not having musical training or education and wear it like a badge of honor. There is nothing impressive about boasting about being under educated. I really aim everyday to try to learn something new, particularly in music theory. Having a better understanding as to why what you do works the way it does will not sap any creativity out of creative people like I have heard claimed a few times. 

So to answer the original question, no, music theory isn't vital...its more than possible to create great music without music theory...however the chanses are, without a sort of understand of what you are doing, you music will only ever really sound like music you have heard before. Music theory gives you an opportunity to think about music in a different way, you have an educated understanding of what will 'work' and by proxy, what won't work but using that to your advantage. You can picture music from a philosophical stand point and have a way to represent abstract ideas through music by relating an idea to a musical technique or process.

Well, thats how I picture it, the more stuff you know, the more options you have. There is a difference between music that sounds wrong and music that sounds wrong for the right reasons 

-DJ


----------



## kawaivpc1

I have an objection to Daniel's opinion. 
Even though many composers made it without knowing music theory, they work with tons of other educated orchestrators, performers, composers, technicians and engineers. If there were not people like that, they could go through more difficult times. 

Yes, the most important thing in music is heart. But, it doesn't hurt to try to learn things via books or school, etc. I don't believe in college titles at all but you should always try your best to extend your knowledge in the best way you can. 

The more and more you study the music theory and history, you'll learn how to establish your original music better than trying to sound like other contemporary composers. Their main themes are usually simple, but there are lots of stuffs going on in the whole score which are much related with some academic side things. 

Music theory isn't essential but it will eventually support you. If you just want to satisfy with MIDI mockups that sound like other composers, don't study music theory. But, if you want to write music to be remembered, try to study and read as much as you can. Even though Hans said he doesn't know much music theory, there are many people in his company who are highly educated.

Music is all about wisdom. Counterpoint, tonal harmony, modulation, orchestration and performance techniques are all established through hundred years by the wisest people in music. Try your best in learning.


----------



## Daniel James

kawaivpc1 @ Tue Dec 31 said:


> I have an objection to Daniel's opinion.
> Even though many composers made it without knowing music theory, they work with tons of other educated orchestrators, performers, composers, technicians and engineers. If there were not people like that, they could go through more difficult times.
> 
> Yes, the most important thing in music is heart. But, it doesn't hurt to try to learn things via books or school, etc. I don't believe in college titles at all but you should always try your best to extend your knowledge in the best way you can.
> 
> The more and more you study the music theory and history, you'll learn how to establish your original music better than trying to sound like other contemporary composers. Their main themes are usually simple, but there are lots of stuffs going on in the whole score which are much related with some academic side things.
> 
> Music theory isn't essential but it will eventually support you. If you just want to satisfy with MIDI mockups that sound like other composers, don't study music theory. But, if you want to write music to be remembered, try to study and read as much as you can. Even though Hans said he doesn't know much music theory, there are many people in his company who are highly educated.
> 
> Music is all about wisdom. Counterpoint, tonal harmony, modulation, orchestration and performance techniques are all established through hundred years by the wisest people in music. Try your best in learning.



Wait...what are you objecting too? I was saying people should educate as much as they can. The more educated you are the more tools you posses. For example...you can hammer in a nail in tons of different ways, however having a hammer in your toolbox will make life easier. As in music you can write great music without knowledge of what you are doing and hammer in that nail with a shoe but learning the ins and outs of how it all works will help you hammer that nail home with ease.

-DJ


----------



## G.R. Baumann

Just some thoughts....

Music as such is sound in a temporal frame, the creation of the same is hugely dependent on imagination and the talent to express that.

An academic music education, such as harmony theory, voice leading, counterpoint, orchestration, general form and reading scores are vital to the ability to analyse scores, for what it is worth.

Through the academic education, a historical context might also be better understood.

Does a academically trained musician have an advantage over the one who has not benefited from such an education?

Depends on the formally untrained musician really, in some cases clearly yes, in others to a lesser degree.

It is not a strictly yes or no answer in my view.

...Mussorsky, Schönberg, Elgar.... just pointing to some classics, I think we can call them hugely influential on music, beyond any doubts. Or Dany Elfman, Hans Zimmer etc.

And who is to say that people without formal academic training have no knowledge about music? At the end, even with an academic education, it is not what you know, but who you know. :wink:


----------



## bbunker

This is a very strange question, because it seems painfully obvious. How is it possible to create anything at all without some kind of theory of it?

Here's an example: I play a note. You like that note. Now, if you try to play that note, you're already operating under the THEORY that the same note will always be the same note. If I play two notes, then if you try to duplicate them, you have the THEORY that the distance between two given notes will always be the same. If you try to 'transpose' that idea, there's a number of theories there: that there exist key centers, that one can change the key of an idea by moving it some distance, that the distances within the idea itself are not affected by this moving to a new key, etc.

Does anyone sit at the keyboard like a musical tabula rasa every time, completely devoid of any prior experiences that would give the composer associations or expectations? Because as soon as we have those experiences, we have theories. I know that if I play "C-E-G", then it sounds different than "C-C#-D". I don't need to have a word to describe each of those simultaneities of tone to have formed a wealth of expectations around that experience. This is the essence of music theory, that we can describe experiences after the fact, which provide us with expectations of what will happen when we do related activities in the future.

So yes. Music Theory is of course vital to creating any music at all.

Isn't the fact that we would ask the question in the first place the most interesting part of this? Why is it that anyone would want to lay claim to not knowing what they're doing? I seriously doubt that Johann Bachus Buxtemunchius, a fictional character born in 1719 that I've just invented, would go up to his other composer pals and say "Hey, guys...I just wrote this fugue. But, I don't use that theory stuff. I just like to FEEL the fugue."

Here's my hypothesis: we live in an age that values 'authenticity' in art above virtually all else. We want to mythologize the creation process into something virginal, and pure, and without the stain and strife of the heavy lifting of thought, and process, and craft.


----------



## lux

in general I think the impulse of getting your hands on some theory/books/videos/apps is a sign of a nice curiosity for the musical matter. No matter if you're learning guitar scales to begin a fake platinum blonded shredder or eating orchestration books for dinner. Or reading about synthesis secrets.

I think that helps, its cool and gives new ideas. 

Having a formal path is a different story, and probably its not so necessary to create any great music. It leads to other type of accomplishments though.


----------



## G.E.

It isn't necessary but it definitely can help.But the best way to learn something is by doing it over and over until you internalize it and master it.All the theory in the world won't help you if you don't actually do it.Some things you also learn on your own without ever reading about it, only to later find out that your music was academically correct the whole time.And I could argue that in some cases it is completely necessary.This is the most basic and simple example I can think of, but even to write a song like Marry had a little lamb, you need to know what a scale is and what a chord is.That's still theory, isn't it ?

By the way...Who had the bright idea of adding these falling snowflakes to the forum on the first day of the new year? I have the worst hangover and the snowflakes are making me dizzy haha.


----------



## SyMTiK

music theory is kind of like learning a language. you can learn it simply by listening to it and embracing it day in and day out, such as when we are children and pick up the language by hearing our parents and family memebers use it. however, receiving an education on the finer points of grammar, sentence structure, usage, etc. will only improve your speech and understanding of the language. 

same with learning about music theory. i started out making music having not read a single music theory book before, and only used my basic knowledge of the piano and my more in depth knowledge of percussion and rhythm to make music. i went on like that for a while, and my music started sounding more and more musical as i went along, despite not really knowing why such and such sounded good. however, once i started reading up more on music theory and song structure, i was able to write more effective music at a quicker pace than before because i now had a better understanding of what i was actually doing. 

so, in conclusion: essential? no. 

helpful? yes.


----------



## DaddyO

To me music theory is to music as history is to statesmanship.

By this I mean, anybody with enough creativity/energy/savvy/influence to gain control of the guns can seize control of a government. But to the degree he is ignorant of the historical forces at work in the world around him, and of the key lessons and precedents of history, he will be largely unsuccessful at delivering an society of enduring value. He will be prone to more blunders, recognize and seize fewer opportunities, misuse resources, etc. He may be more savvy than many educated men at gaining power. But he will not use it as wisely as a truly educated man. 

I do not mean "educated" as someone with a university degree; rather I mean someone who is truly conversant with, knowledgeable in a subject.

"Why" is a more important question than "What." 

The best "way" of course, is to combine instinctive, creative energy with knowledge. Instinctive music is viable, but even the instincts are unwittingly the product of those who have gone before. Just because we don't realize the knowledge we are inheriting through listening to the music of others doesn't mean we don't inherit it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> Mind Blown. I haven't a clue what that meant.



I don't either. 

Maybe he just finds the answer to the question obvious.


----------



## germancomponist

Is Sex Theory Knowledge Vital In Creating Great Sex?

..... .... ... .. .


----------



## ProtectedRights

I say yes, knowledge is very important, but this knowledge need not be from books or lectures. Knowledge also comes from learning by doing. So, knowledge does not even have to be in form of words. You can also learn an instrument with your whole body, without even knowing how things are called by professionals.


----------



## Folmann

Music is no different then language. Do you have to know the theory to speak it? Sorta. But there are infinite amount of ways learning it. Do you have to know music theory to make music? Sorta. You may not know it in a formal/academic sense, but you are picking up a variety of things that comes from theory either consciously or subconsciously.

It's ignorant when people say they don't need theory - when in fact they use theory without knowing it. If the opposite is true - we would hear completely mind breaking new types of music, which is unfortunately not the truth.

Another side of me wants to say that learning theory is just learning what someone else has done - and there is no innovation in that, but that's ignorant too, since 99% of knowledge and science is based on someone else's work.


----------



## germancomponist

Folmann @ Wed Jan 01 said:


> Music is no different then language. Do you have to know the theory to speak it? Sorta. But there are infinite amount of ways learning it. Do you have to know music theory to make music? Sorta. You may not know it in a formal/academic sense, but you are picking up a variety of things that comes from theory either consciously or subconsciously.
> 
> It's ignorant when people say they don't need theory - when in fact they use theory without knowing it. If the opposite is true - we would hear completely mind breaking new types of music, which is unfortunately not the truth.
> 
> Another side of me wants to say that learning theory is just learning what someone else has done - and there is no innovation in that, but that's ignorant too, since 99% of knowledge and science is based on someone else's work.



You are describing the truth! I know that many poeple don't like to read this, but it is the truth!


----------



## ProtectedRights

@Folmann:

true, not also for composing but also for instrument playing. If you learn from a teacher, you will only know the established techniques. If you try on your own, you might discover a new fascinating way of playing the instrument.


----------



## gsilbers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GKvq6GVd9s

:mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## Daniel James

Folmann @ Wed Jan 01 said:


> Another side of me wants to say that learning theory is just learning what someone else has done - and there is no innovation in that, but that's ignorant too, since 99% of knowledge and science is based on someone else's work.



Exactly...its sort of like a little black book of things that have worked in the past. You use the book to get up to speed then carry on from there.

-DJ


----------



## EastWest Lurker

You can't break the rules intelligently if you never learned them in the first place.


----------



## David Story

If you look at self taught composers, you'll see they partner with someone who does know theory, and will learn some themselves. Sir Paul and Sir George. Danny and Steve. Gershwin and Grofe. 

Like Dan and others said: Theory is a set of tools, you must have that. It can also become an academic grind, that you avoid.

This discussion crops up frequently in every field, it's a false dichotomy. Instinct and theory go hand in hand.

"I want the melody to go to a high Bb, which sounds shrill in the soprano. I don't want shrill, so I can transpose the melody, or double with mellow flutes."


----------



## Tanuj Tiku

I think a basic understanding of music is really essential to write any kind of music. How you acquire that understanding is completely open. 

If you have a decent idea but no skill or knowledge to put it down, then its a shame. This is a problem I face many times and that is why there is so much to learn everyday. 

The requirement of depth of knowledge in any particular area depends also on what kind of music you are writing. 

For years, I used to just aim at writing music like John Williams even though, I had no training whatsoever and came from a small town in India where nobody cared what I was doing with my silly little keyboard. In the process, I did still learn a lot.

I realized that I can never be John Williams nor should I aim for that. Over the years, many new thoughts followed and there is always things to learn. 

The biggest problem is not having any ideas or having nothing to say through music.

I think that is a much bigger problem on the long run. Many people with great skill sometimes are unable to really speak through their music. I do however feel this point is over dramatized in many discussions. 

Not all great players are bad composers of course. 

I am not a really great composer nor do I have any great knowledge of music. I do however learn as much as I can each day. I started very late. Every now and then, I do feel like I have something really special to say through music. I am working always to keep this feeling alive. Whether anyone listening to my music feels the same way is an entirely different thing! hahaha!

Firstly classify what is GREAT music? What kind of music are you thinking of when you say great music? Because, writing an electronic piece of music requires very different set of skills to writing a symphony. 

But, in the end it helps either ways to have a good grasp of the spirit of music that probably consists of skill, some sort of training and the skill of speaking through music. Sometimes, I almost feel the instruments are really singing in their own voice and they are always telling a story. This is of course different with songs. 

With so many great composers music whether its John Williams, Bernard Herrmann, Hans Zimmer or Danny Elfman etc - I always get moved by something and their music really feels like a story is being told.

I think in the end, this skill and the spirit of telling a story through music trumps everything. Which does not however mean that you should not learn any music theory. Somewhere, both these skills meet at one point and result in the kind of music that we hear from such great composers. 

In any case, why would any musician or composers goal would be not to learn music theory? Every bit helps. 

John Williams is probably over-qualified some would say to be a film composer today and his knowledge and skill is perhaps the best in the business today and since years now lost in time. But has that meant that his music is too complex or that it does not work to picture? 

His skill and the ability to tell a story through music and even beyond is a towering example of what music training and a great composing mind can produce. As are many before him.

But, we are also at the same time seeing many different kinds of composers coming out with different skills.

All of them work very hard and it takes years to get good at anything. 

You can study the work of a composer through years just by listening to it. 

Just my thoughts.


Tanuj.


----------



## cmillar

First, my disclaimers..... I was, and am, a trombone player first. Then, I studied music at university/conservatory.... so, in order for me to make a living as a trombone player, I have to know 'what I'm doing' as far as reading, counting, etc. any piece of music.

And my interest in composition came out of my 'jazz big band arranging studies'. The jazz studies actually made me more interested in wanting to compose my own music.

Then, my musical interests have taken me into composing for film, dance, skating, jazz, 'art-music', multi-media, and more.

And I keep on studying, listening, and digesting as much as I can about the music and the composers/arrangers I love..... be them Williams, Zimmer, Horner, Debussy, the Beatles, Goldsmith, Newman, Morricone, Michel Colombier, etc.

Having said all that..... What do I believe is the most important 'music theory' that people should agree upon?

RHYTHMS ! METRE ! TIME ! ..... knowing how to notate rhythms correctly! 

Plus, there is NOTHING more frustrating than being in a rehearsal situation where the rhythm section can't agree upon how to count the bar/measure numbers or can't agree whether they're playing in 4/4 or 8/4 time, or 2/4 or whatever!!!

I agree that theory is understanding what other people have done, or trying to make sense out of the 'sounds of music'..... and their are "many roads to Rome".

But, being able to agree on a 'pulse' or 'time signature' should be mandatory, universal training for us humans on this planet.

Thanks for indulging me!


----------



## José Herring

It's not as black and white as know it or not know it. There are many considerations when trying to apply music theory to music for a working musician or any musician that wants to make a living doing music.

Firstly don't buy in to the fact that there are composers out there with no knowlege of music theory that have been successful. HZ boast all day about it just because he didn't go to school for music, yet I've seen his hand written notes where he does know a bit about notation and he certainly knows how to put together a melody, how to harmonize, ect... It may not be very complex but he doesn't need to be. I suspect that if he needed to be he would be very capable of learning music theory as well as anybody.

So as to the basic question of to be or not to be, music theory is laden with pitfalls that if followed to the letter will practically guarentee that you'll never be able to communicate a note of music period.

Where I see most people fail including myself is where they think that knowledge of music is all you need in order to succeed in composing a piece.

The way I see it if communication to an audience is your prime intention and it should be for anybody that wants to make a dime, then you'll have to temper your music to the expectations of your intended audience. 

High level music theory knowledge and "being original" is the death of communication to an audience unless your particular audience values that. In the past they perhaps have, but in all honesty I doubt that.

Miles Davis never really ventured beyond the knowelge of the circle of 5ths. Yet was able to write extemely creative and inventive music by applying his creativity to chord voicing and rhythm plus a unique sound. Thelonous Monk was a music theory graduate from the Juilliard School, his music is fantastic but never had an audience big enough to subsist.

In the classical world Mozart's most famous pieces used basic harmony almost exclusively while his dissonant quartet hardly ever sees the light of day. His dissonant quartet being of course way beyond anything anybody could write during that time.

In the 20th century Schoenberg was relegated to teaching at UCLA to make ends meet, while Gershwin who hardly knew anything beyond the basics was able to get famous and rich from music.

Today John Corrigliano is relagted to composer obscurity while guys like John Adams and Eric Whittaker are on a fast ride of popular acceptance. Even though their music only uses basic triads with added notes for dissonance and texture, but certainly not the complext bi and tri tonal relationships of somebody like John C.

So, imo and this is my opinion and an opinion that I'm currently testing is that you can write some pretty clever music based on some pretty simple theory. And of the theory that's actually of major usefullness is only about a handful of really useful techniques.

First, counterpoint. The idea of voice leading is hightly useful. The idea of species counterpoint very not useful today. It practically guarentees that you won't be able to write most modern music.

Secondly, chord voicing. Very useful.

Third, melodic phrasing and construction, useful.
Fourth, motives (hooks) and how they can be manipulated, retrograde, invertion, ect, ect...

Some basic ideas regarding the ressoance factors of orchestration I find very useful.

Just to name of few ideas.

With that all being said. I'm probably the first to abandon music theory and just go for it. It was another famous jazzer who said that he studied music theory almost endlessly but when it's time to play he just jams.

The pitfal being that if you learn this from somebody else then you'll be getting what they think is important in their music and not neccissarily yours. 

I think as a composer you have to take a stand and learn stuff for yourself and take your lumps when people critizes your work. And always know that if criticism comes from another composer, it's tainted by their own bias. Mostly the reason I stopped commenting on others work.  Because all you're getting is what they consider to be acceptable and that may or may not be of any use to you.

Excuse all errors in grammar and spelling. I type quickly.


----------



## cmillar

Excellent post above by Jose!

Indeed, every situation is 'different', but a little knowledge is valuable and never, ever hurt anyone trying to be creative. 

And, in the case of Hans Zimmer, who is very rightly given credit as being one of the most creative minds writing music today (and, who, in his own words, knows that his job is to serve the movie and the artistic vision of the film makers).......

....Zimmer was very fortunate to have been exposed to a lot of great music in his youth, being from Germany. All the great rock bands of the '70's and '80's to grow up listening to, and another thing I think is important...... I find that much of his music is as exciting as Beethoven's is. 

Something to be said about growing up listening, and being exposed to a lot of great music! (.... and, again, he acknowledges the excellent work of people like Goldsmith, Williams, Morricone, and others as influential.)

(.... I believe the downfall of many composers in today's film world is that they truly haven't done their listening homework...... that should lead to some 'flaming'!)


----------



## Saxer

another good reason to have some music theory background is communication with other musicians. nothing speeds up a recording session more than being able to tell the musicians what and how to play in the right way. this also concerns band rehersals and any kind of collaboration with conductors, orchestrators, co-composers etc.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

cmillar @ 19/1/2014 said:


> .... I believe the downfall of many composers in today's film world is that they truly haven't done their listening homework...



Actually, it's not only budding composers, IMHO, but everyone coming up in any field. There just isn't time today for things like history, classics, listening or reading for hours, etc. Too busy with social networking and making some $$ for the latest...


----------



## Peter Alexander

here's an arrangement by Nan Schwartz for Natalie Cole on Here's That Rainy Day. See what the music tells you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsb-gOQ3sHs


----------



## williambass5

Some excellent, and thoughtful, replies.

To follow on dannthr's initial post... My first year college theory was fantastic since the teacher was a composer and saw theory knowledge as a tool to create. My second year theory was from a "player" who used theory to deconstruct. The second year was useful, but not as exciting (for obvious reasons!). Actually, some of it was pure drudgery..

Knowledge-and I'm broadly including much in this such as theory, harmony, orchestration- is a tool which develops a set of skills, expands possibilities, and reduces "guess-work". Its kind of like studying grammar/vocabulary/spelling to become a writer. It won't, by itself, make you better, but does give you a stronger set of tools to draw on.


----------



## rayinstirling

I would substitute the single word.... theory with multiples of the word..........practise
Beginning my life in music learning three chords on guitar to play "Red River Valley" taught me the rudiments and relationships of harmony and key. Everything after that is just sucking in more and more knowledge. I regret not putting in the time on formal study then and do not wear it as a badge of honor now but I have fun while creating my little tunes by ear. I hear what's coming next and I know why it should work but I'll be damned if I know what is called


----------



## arxpit

vibrato @ Thu Jan 02 said:


> I think a basic understanding of music is really essential to write any kind of music. How you acquire that understanding is completely open.
> 
> If you have a decent idea but no skill or knowledge to put it down, then its a shame. This is a problem I face many times and that is why there is so much to learn everyday.
> 
> The requirement of depth of knowledge in any particular area depends also on what kind of music you are writing.
> 
> For years, I used to just aim at writing music like John Williams even though, I had no training whatsoever and came from a small town in India where nobody cared what I was doing with my silly little keyboard. In the process, I did still learn a lot.
> 
> I realized that I can never be John Williams nor should I aim for that. Over the years, many new thoughts followed and there is always things to learn.
> 
> The biggest problem is not having any ideas or having nothing to say through music.
> 
> I think that is a much bigger problem on the long run. Many people with great skill sometimes are unable to really speak through their music. I do however feel this point is over dramatized in many discussions.
> 
> Not all great players are bad composers of course.
> 
> I am not a really great composer nor do I have any great knowledge of music. I do however learn as much as I can each day. I started very late. Every now and then, I do feel like I have something really special to say through music. I am working always to keep this feeling alive. Whether anyone listening to my music feels the same way is an entirely different thing! hahaha!
> 
> Firstly classify what is GREAT music? What kind of music are you thinking of when you say great music? Because, writing an electronic piece of music requires very different set of skills to writing a symphony.
> 
> But, in the end it helps either ways to have a good grasp of the spirit of music that probably consists of skill, some sort of training and the skill of speaking through music. Sometimes, I almost feel the instruments are really singing in their own voice and they are always telling a story. This is of course different with songs.
> 
> With so many great composers music whether its John Williams, Bernard Herrmann, Hans Zimmer or Danny Elfman etc - I always get moved by something and their music really feels like a story is being told.
> 
> I think in the end, this skill and the spirit of telling a story through music trumps everything. Which does not however mean that you should not learn any music theory. Somewhere, both these skills meet at one point and result in the kind of music that we hear from such great composers.
> 
> In any case, why would any musician or composers goal would be not to learn music theory? Every bit helps.
> 
> John Williams is probably over-qualified some would say to be a film composer today and his knowledge and skill is perhaps the best in the business today and since years now lost in time. But has that meant that his music is too complex or that it does not work to picture?
> 
> His skill and the ability to tell a story through music and even beyond is a towering example of what music training and a great composing mind can produce. As are many before him.
> 
> But, we are also at the same time seeing many different kinds of composers coming out with different skills.
> 
> All of them work very hard and it takes years to get good at anything.
> 
> You can study the work of a composer through years just by listening to it.
> 
> Just my thoughts.
> 
> 
> Tanuj.




I have never had formal training. I started by emulating others and then developed a knowledge of what music is in early 2000s. 

Tanuj this was a very inspiring answer.

AG


----------



## Wes Antczak

See your other thread for my comment. It applies also to having some knowledge of music theory. Further to that... you CAN figure all of this stuff by yourself. The saying goes that if one person can do something then another person can as well. BUT... someone else has already figured out some of the answers to the questions that you may have as well. Life is too short to always start from scratch; imo, it makes sense to take advantage of the knowledge that has already been explored by those who have come before you. The trick is to take that knowledge and use it not as a crutch or as some easy way out but as a further tool in your own music... and to do something that nobody else has done with those tools.


----------



## Darthmorphling

Wes Antczak @ Tue Jan 28 said:


> See your other thread for my comment. It applies also to having some knowledge of music theory. Further to that... you CAN figure all of this stuff by yourself. The saying goes that if one person can do something then another person can as well. BUT... someone else has already figured out some of the answers to the questions that you may have as well. Life is too short to always start from scratch; imo, it makes sense to take advantage of the knowledge that has already been explored by those who have come before you. The trick is to take that knowledge and use it not as a crutch or as some easy way out but as a further tool in your own music... and to do something that nobody else has done with those tools.



I really tried learning this stuff by just reading and working on my own. This has worked for me in the past with my other hobbies. However, over the past year I have realized that this is more than a hobby to me. I don't ever plan on making money, but I also want to get to be the best that I am capable of. That means I started looking at Mike Verta's Masterclasses, Scoring Stages and Visual Orchestration. I am also taking every music theory/production class that Coursera offers. I may not complete the classes during the scheduled time, but I do fnish all of the lessons.

I have also learned a lot from this forum. Despite its grumpy tone lately, it is filled with a lot of helpful people. Even the ones you may not agree with!


----------



## Wes Antczak

Mike's classes have been totally awesome! Now there's an example of someone who has already traveled this path ahead of us. I think it's really generous of him that he is willing to share his knowledge with those of us who are interested in learning from him. To me, he offers a really great balance of not only knowing the academic stuff, but also of having the real world experience of having been in the trenches with his sleeves rolled up as it were. I've learned quite a few things from his masterclasses. Thanks, Mike! 

Coursera, looks really interesting. I wasn't aware of it until you mentioned it... THANKS!


----------



## The Darris

My basic thoughts to answering the OP's thread question:

Music Theory is simply the study of how music works and why. Scientists use theories everyday to help explain their conclusions in their observations. The best scientists question everything in order to learn as much as possible. As a musician/composer, shouldn't we be doing our best to learn just as much in our field of training? 

Sure, if you just want to write simple themes by ear then you can. I have always taken the path of learning why my simple themes work so well which in turn, helps me develop more into my musicality and writings. I am a huge fan of being self educated and working hard to learn everything I can about something I am so passionate about. 

Music Theory is essentially the science of music, it is how it works, it is why it works, and it is one of the strongest tools a composer can use in a traditional and non-traditional way of writing. So to answer your question, no it isn't vital but do you want to settle for a basic understanding of music? Or do you want to know as much as you can and be well versed in musical knowledge?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Almost exclusively the only people I have heard maintain it is not are those who don't have it and do not want to take the time and effort.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I didn't see what David Story wrote:



> This discussion crops up frequently in every field, it's a false dichotomy. Instinct and theory go hand in hand.



Sing it!

Well put.

And Peter A., that's a great example. Love it.


----------



## Suganthan

Sorry to kindle an year old post, just wanted to share my views.



SyMTiK said:


> i went on like that for a while, and my music started sounding more and more musical as i went along, despite not really knowing why such and such sounded good. however, once i started reading up more on music theory and song structure, i was able to write more effective music at a quicker pace than before because i now had a better understanding of what i was actually doing.
> 
> so, in conclusion: essential? no.
> 
> helpful? yes.



I agree. Started out from scratch, not knowing any basic theory, I almost believed, I could be good like Hans Zimmer or Harry Gregson or any other Indian composers(you laughed hard, yeah I know). Then I realized that it is extremely absurd and there are lot to things to learn as I started to get to know the theory along jamming with my college band, reading theory books, etc. I am still in the learning phase, planning to go any music school.

So I would say theory(harmony, counterpoints) is indeed vital in creating great music not just helpful.



Tanuj Tiku said:


> I had no training whatsoever and came from a small town in India where nobody cared what I was doing with my silly little keyboard.



I could relate to that, internet is the only knowledge base I am having(yet). I am grateful for that.


----------



## d.healey

How could this thread go on for 3 pages without these two words: Irving Berlin


----------



## Vin

It isn't, but it certainly helps


----------



## skyy38

I think the most important thing to possess is a really big pair of ears.
Ears that have been trained enough to be able to name a note or a chord that someone plays for you without having to plink it out on a piano.
Ears that are keen enough to dissect the layers in the orchestra so you can copy those textures later on in your own work.
And ears that are smart enough to be able to take dictation from what you're hearing in your head so you can get it down on paper.

I don't discount a good education in theory- I wish I had more than I did so I could explain myself in a better way when talking about my music to others.

But in the end, I don't write "theory"-I write music.


----------



## JonFairhurst

Of course, people who write great music know theory - but they might not know it consciously. 

This is like asking if an outfielder needs to know calculus. They might not know it consciously, but they can't catch the ball without it. We can't stop ourselves from unconsciously solving calculus problems, just as we can't write sensible music without unconsciously implementing theory.


----------



## Musicologo

What music theory?... There are tons of different music theories... What "great music"? there are tons of "great musics".

So, it all boils down to: you have to master _some_ theory and _know deeply the conventions of a practice_ in order to *consistently* produce master works of that practice.

If you want to be a master in producing ragas I don't think shenkerian theory will help you with any of that, but spending some time with a raga master will. The same can be said of producing fados. If you want to produce great trailer music, then please go learn the theory behind it and the conventions of that practice, namely by reading what trailer music composers have been doing... 

If you're just producing your own style at random, you'll eventually create your own personal process and probably develop a theory for yourself that you know it works. You might never formalize it, but you know it.

So it really depends on what your goals are. I'd say knowledge is never too much, and the more you have about the conventions, theories and creative processes others use (specially masters of a certain area of knowledge) then, you'll probably become more efficient.

The more theories you study and learn, the more flexible you can become and then you'll be able to fuse them and create new works using knowledges from different musical practices.


----------



## Russell Moran

Music theory is very useful for creating music. For creating Great Music? dunno, I've never done that....


----------



## CDNmusic

JonFairhurst said:


> This is like asking if an outfielder needs to know calculus. They might not know it consciously, but they can't catch the ball without it. We can't stop ourselves from unconsciously solving calculus problems, just as we can't write sensible music without unconsciously implementing theory.


Uh?


----------



## JonFairhurst

@CDNmusic - With calculus, we can figure out stuff like velocity, acceleration, and position. One could calculate how fast an outfielder needs to run to catch a given fly ball. The outfielder doesn't need to know a thing about calculus, yet can do the same. Our brains are constantly solving calculus equations to allow us to walk, run, throw, drive, catch, and bow a string. We don't experience it as equation-solving because we don't have to think about it. We... just do it. (™Nike) But that doesn't mean that our brains aren't amazing, real-time equation solving machines.

Same thing with people who know zero music theory, yet they write songs with 1-4-5 chord structures in 4/4 just because they sound good. They might not realize that they know 1-4-5 and 4/4 theory, but they can apply it to their music without giving it a thought.

So here's a cool question: what comes first, the theory or the music? Do we like music because it matches some mathematical rules, or do we repeat things that sound good and then find the theory to explain it later? 

I think it's a bit of both. We know that octaves, fifths, fourths, and thirds sound nice, and sure enough, they have the simplest mathematical relationships. In this case sound follows math. But you'd never create Be-Bop from a chalkboard. We ease into it via Western music, blues, standard jazz, and African rhythms and eventually, we find that this wild stuff starts to make sense and sound good. Only then do we find the theory that helps us explain it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> what comes first, the theory or the music?



Definitely the music!


----------



## Saxer

JonFairhurst said:


> ...do we repeat things that sound good and then find the theory to explain it later?


Yes, exactly.

Music theory is extracting and describing what works.

Theory is helpful to teach and communicate. And it's a problem solver.
Writing four part harmony but there's a melody note outside of the underlining chord: how to write the three other voices? Having a movie scene ending in the middle of my music theme: how to write it to a given length? It's time for a big brass tutti but the main line doesn't fit into the trumpet range: how to transpose and how to modulate there effectively?


----------



## WorksAndExperiments

In my opinion the study of music theory and composition is crucial to become good composer. Only after you have studied and understood the music of Palestrina until the composers of the last century you can find your own way as a composer. Having said that you can write good music even without this knowledge, but you can never achieve high levels ....


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

Theory knowledge - or understanding - is very valuable. But there's different paths of gaining that and also different ways of applying it and relying on it.

I think the crucial question should be: does one need _formal_ education?

IMO not really. Not in an academic sense. For some, it's probably even healthier to avoid it ...


----------



## AVaudio

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Theory knowledge - or understanding - is very valuable. But there's different paths of gaining that and also different ways of applying it and relying on it.
> 
> I think the crucial question should be: does one need _formal_ education?
> 
> IMO not really. Not in an academic sense. For some, it's probably even healthier to avoid it ...




Indeed, it can be a constraint for certain people. The more theory you know, the more you try to apply it, and some times that limits us.

Music theory should speed you up with trusted devices or lack of inspiration, not limit what to do.


----------



## JohnG

Can anyone name a great composer who wasn't steeped in musical knowledge of one sort or another, that explicitly or implicitly includes theory?

Every writer who's worth listening to for more than three minutes knows a lot about music, however that knowledge was acquired. Jimmy Hendrix practiced incessantly, ditto Charlie Parker. Back and Beethoven were hot keyboardists. Haydn played keyboards and violin. The Beatles were hyper-conscious of their sound, had spent I don't know how long playing seven days a week in Hamburg and elsewhere and, after a couple of enjoyable but nevertheless "in the milieu" albums produced provocative work that broke new ground. Hans, James, Howard and Danny (pardon the familiarity) were keyboardists for major bands. Tom Newman plays piano (and either viola or violin, I hear). Liszt famously played the piano like a monster. BB King seems to have been physically attached to his guitar for decades.

All these guys, because of their immersion in playing music, inevitably incorporated theory into their fingers / heads / ears / whatever. They didn't just "play what they felt" like some idiotic scene in "Mr. Holland's Opus" (the absolutely most irritating, misleading movie ever made about music). They actually learned scales and substitutions and chord changes that normally would be included in the category "Music Theory." Some of them, maybe all of them, are gifted musically (perfect pitch etc.)

I'm all for that guy who can play the harmonica down at the beach like nobody's business. I hired a guy like that to play on a score once and he was awesome. But "great?"

Music theory is indispensable if you want to extend a musical idea beyond a few minutes. It's indispensable if you need to get 40 or 60 minutes of music written in a few weeks.

When I listen to the growth of film composers whom I admire, including some who started their careers with very little formal training, and then were able to go miles beyond where they began, I hear a lot of growth in what has to be called theory. Their music rises beyond "here's individual cue 1, now here's cue 3...30" to coherent works with (sometimes) a recognisable arc that in aggregate approaches the realm of great craftsmanship, and sometimes, arguably, serious art.

Today, simple harmony and folk / pop chord changes are "in," while functional (i.e. dominant / tonic) harmonic movement, either explicit or implied by a melody, is wildly out of favour. I have heard people call it "academic," by which they mean it sounds like something they were forced to listen to in school, which most apparently didn't like too much.

Maybe that sound really is worn out / used up? Schoenberg and Hindemith seemed to think so.

Maybe it's because, today, so much music is produced for the masses (who, in earlier times, didn't have the money to support music -- in the olden days it was the aristocracy) and the masses want something instantaneously, sometimes mawkishly accessible and emotionally unambiguous? People seem to reject anything that has a whiff of "work" to it.

I admire Tom Newman a great deal -- that guy knows 100x the theory most of us do, and yet he rarely _incorporates_ the old school stuff in his films in any obvious way ("The Good German" being of course the towering exception. And maybe Wall-E...).

Mr. N may not throw the theory in our faces every time, but he knows it.


----------



## Zhao Shen

In short, yes. It's admittedly much easier to make great music having the theory skills to recognize how you're doing what you're doing and what you could be doing better, but it's certainly not a prerequisite. Personally I feel like I am one of the least educated people on this forum in terms of music theory, but though that limits me in many ways, I am of the opinion that they are primarily workflow and progression limitations - both of which can be overcome given enough time.

TL;DR: Theory makes it easier to make music, and easier to make music professionally, but is by no means a prerequisite for making great music.



JohnG said:


> Every writer who's worth listening to for more than three minutes knows a lot about music, however learned.


That is an incredibly bold statement. I'd be less hasty to make such broad generalizations.


----------



## Hannes

I'll just throw in an Albert Einstein quote, which fits quite well in this context :

"Phantasie ist wichtiger als Wissen, denn Wissen ist begrenzt"
("Imagination is more important than knowledge, because knowledge is limited")

Music theory can help in creating music (modulations, chord progressions, imitatating musical eras etc.), but it is more important to use your imagination and to trust your ears IMO.


----------



## muk

Beethoven wrote something on the line of (what follows is a free translation): "Without wanting to call myself a scholar, since youth I strove to understand the meaning of the wise men of each century. Shame on any artist who doesn't deem that necessary."

That being said, the answer to the question depends entirely on how you define 'great'.


----------



## JohnG

Zhao Shen said:


> by no means a prerequisite for making great music.



Ok -- throw down! Can you name one "great composer" who doesn't have deep musical knowledge?


----------



## babylonwaves

theory help a lot when you're under pressure. i'm sure there's people who can write great stuff without having a decent background. but once you're on a deadline or you have to write/edit a lot, knowing music theory help tremendously.


----------



## Jaap

Why make it harder then it should be by excluding yourself from knowledge? If I want to build a house myself, I am also going to do research on every part of the construction if I want to do it effectively. Of course I can manage it with trial and error, but it takes up a lot more time and bigger risk at failure.
Knowledge can be limiting, I agree on that, but if you take it as problem and time solver and to prevent yourself for constantly inventing the wheel again, it is of great value. To avoid that it becomes limiting you should work on your personality as artist and find the goals and meanings with what you want to express and achieve and if you grow as an artist you can easier step up from the limitations of knowledge and bend them to your own will.


----------



## JohnG

By the way, I just snuck a dominant 7th chord into my score -- disguised somewhat by using a 4-2 inversion and dropping the root. Heh-heh.


----------



## Zhao Shen

JohnG said:


> Ok -- throw down! Can you name one "great composer" who doesn't have deep musical knowledge?


A great composer can make bad music. A bad composer make great music. And "great" is already such a subjective term anyway - can you claim that who you hold as "great" applies to everyone else as well?


----------



## JohnG

Chicken! Let's have a name YOU think is great. Or a piece.


----------



## Blackster

Here is my opinion on that: I think that you can create good music without having any idea of what you are really doing!  ... but you won't get into the professional industry because ...
1) very often you get your results by accident; how do you plan to reproduce them if your client wants you to write 10 more tracks in the same exact style but different
2) how do you communicate your music to other musicians if you have no idea what they are talking about
3) how do you know what parts of music you have really understood?
4) how do you explain to orchestrators, co-writers or other collaborators what you have done and how they can help you during the writing process?
(probably there are more points ...)

In fact, if you continue to write and deal with music, how do you stay untrained for a long-enough period of time? No offense intended, but one has to be really stupid if that is really happening ....


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry..

JohnG said:


> Ok -- throw down! Can you name one "great composer" who doesn't have deep musical knowledge?



Mikhail Glinka had very little formal training.


----------



## ed buller

that's the problem with this question. Music theory and formal training are different things

e


----------



## JohnG

Glinka? He started piano lessons at age 13 and went to conservatory.

Next...


----------



## jononotbono

If someone was just starting with Music Theory, what would someone recommend to begin learning it? A specific Book? A great website? Grades? Just being curious what advice anyone here that is great with Music Theory would recommend (other than listen to Music, work out how to play songs, pieces etc etc)? Actually to learn how to read Music, understand it and apply it...


----------



## JohnG

@Jono -- If you can sing you could try joining a choir at a church or school or something like that. You wouldn't have to buy an instrument and you could practice on your own, almost anywhere. In the UK in older times every village had a singing group; don't know if that's still true there.

You can maybe get there without reading music, without studying, but man -- how long do you have?


----------



## Blackster

jononotbono said:


> If someone was just starting with Music Theory, what would someone recommend to begin learning it? A specific Book? A great website? Grades? Just being curious what advice anyone here that is great with Music Theory would recommend (other than listen to Music, work out how to play songs, pieces etc etc)? Actually to learn how to read Music, understand it and apply it...



I know, it is self-promotion but ... www.musicintervaltheory.academy ....


----------



## JohnG

There's that English company -- Thinkspace. They have some good stuff for media.


----------



## ed buller

jononotbono said:


> If someone was just starting with Music Theory, what would someone recommend to begin learning it? A specific Book? A great website? Grades? Just being curious what advice anyone here that is great with Music Theory would recommend (other than listen to Music, work out how to play songs, pieces etc etc)? Actually to learn how to read Music, understand it and apply it...



can you read music ?

e


----------



## jononotbono

I can read Music but very basically. I used to sing in a Choir when I was about 12 (hated it haha) and used to have Piano lessons as a kid. I'm studying an MA with Thinkspace and in regards to Music I have always played by Ear and written music by what Sounds good to me. When I write Music, a lot of it comes from trial and error until I hit Gold (Gold to me). I would love to be able to apply Music Theory so when, for example, I want to write a Harmony, I can get into a good Ball Park and cut down on the Trail and Error. Don't get me wrong, Trial and Error is absolutely essential for writing things that are usually accidental and most likely to be the (my) best ideas (a sort of Naivety in Music is a great thing)

I think understanding Theory is essential for speed and in regards to speed, speed of writing is essential to hitting deadlines - both in terms of study and the real world for a paying job. Studying Theory and understanding what is going on can be no bad thing ("Knowledge is Power" etc) and doesn't hinder creativity. It can really help it. I guess if you start from scratch, with just theory, then your Music would most likely be formulaic and dare I say the word "unmusical" but to learn theory later in life, I think things are more likely to click together if that makes sense?

Knowing how to Modulate into many different keys and not feeling "stuck" or "boxed in" is another utter dream so this is why I ask where would someone start. Thanks for everyone's suggestions so far. They are all valid. Although I wouldn't join a Choir again. Learning via a Piano, Books, Internet and/or Teachers is what is probably best for me at this point in my life.

I have found out there is a local Orchestra where I live so when I am more knowledgeable I am going to start sitting in and watching them and absorbing!


----------



## jononotbono

Blackster said:


> I know, it is self-promotion but ... www.musicintervaltheory.academy ....



Thank you I'll check it out! And self Promotion is fine!


----------



## ed buller

well if you can read music I would start with :

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/082585699X?keywords=rimsky%20korsakov&qid=1456957002&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1 (www.amazon.com/gp/product/082585699X?keywords=rimsky%20korsakov&amp;qid=1456957002&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1)

It's short and sweet. And very very good.

free here : http://imslp.org/wiki/Practical_Manual_of_Harmony_(Rimsky-Korsakov,_Nikolay)

e


----------



## ed buller

Once you've mastered that;



Rimsky won't be a lot of good if you want to Do Goldsmith or Marco Beltrami


e


----------



## ed buller

Get used to the Roman Numeral system of labelling Chords. Don't worry to much about "harmonic function". But it's a great way to get to grips with chord sequences you like.

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

think of it like cooking. You learn recipes and once you get good and confident you mix it up, crazy stuff !.....and viola , you are a composer. 

e


----------



## InLight-Tone

jononotbono said:


> If someone was just starting with Music Theory, what would someone recommend to begin learning it? A specific Book? A great website? Grades? Just being curious what advice anyone here that is great with Music Theory would recommend (other than listen to Music, work out how to play songs, pieces etc etc)? Actually to learn how to read Music, understand it and apply it...



I think general theory books are best whereby you learn the language and mechanics of music, chords, scales, intervals, progressions etc., but that leave out as much as possible the stylistic "rules" as regards who did what, while fascinating and instructive in one sense can be restricting in another.

I tried learning and self educating from books like the freely available Goetchius series, but felt like I was in a straitjacket even writing a simple melody! A little too restrictive and stiff unless you want to sound like Bach and Handel. With modern media composition pretty much anything goes if you can pull it off convincingly.

That being said I found the Micheal Hewitt series of books very instructive for beginners and the "Harmony for Computer Musicians" book really good as it leads you into modern theory including chromatic which I would work through last, but leaves the "rules" for the most part out. Also I found very valuable to the process of composition "The Idiots Guide to Music Composition", mostly being a list of techniques and possibilities valuable to being able to write a theme and then expand on it.

Beyond that once you have that material understood and absorbed, you can check out Vincent Persichetti's book, "20th Century Harmony" which will take you directly into film score territory, where all the "rules" are out the window. That way you can stay tonal and traditional if you want too, but can take off into non-traditional territory as well...


----------



## jononotbono

Great! And thank you! So much knowledge to learn (and this doesn't include Production, Music Tech, etc The list is endless)!


----------



## InLight-Tone

jononotbono said:


> Great! And thank you! So much knowledge to learn (and this doesn't include Production, Music Tech, etc The list is endless)!



Ya, that's the problem being a one man band. Hopefully you don't have to work a job too!


----------



## Zhao Shen

JohnG said:


> Chicken! Let's have a name YOU think is great. Or a piece.





JohnG said:


> Glinka? He started piano lessons at age 13 and went to conservatory.
> 
> Next...


You have me there. I don't have a specific example in mind right now, but in the world we live in today it's getting more and more common for people with little formal training to make great music. Masterful symphonies? Probably not. Tracks that are well-made, well-produced, and are able to carry great emotional weight? Yes - and the emotional impact of a piece is what makes great music, for me personally.

Just one comment though, your input is obviously educated and you seem well-versed in many aspects of music and theory. But the manner in which you answer others is becoming increasingly petty. Name calling and feigned disinterest? Let's keep things mature, please.


----------



## JohnG

Zhao, you are deliberately twisting what I am saying and now you insult me. If you want to go that way, you can expect a response. I see in your latest post you have insinuated the word "formal" into your supposed rebuttal -- except I never said anything about formal. I just stated what I believe is an inescapable fact, that everyone who writes really good music figures out a way to Get Knowledge. 

I never said the acquisition of knowledge had to take place in a classroom or in some "formal" setting, so I'll ask _you_ to keep mature and refrain from putting words in my mouth. 

If you think you can attack me on a personal level and that's your idea of debate, then good luck. I find it a genuinely interesting topic, as I think my posts make clear, but since you can't come up with a single example of these hypothetical geniuses, you resort to insinuation and making stuff up that I never wrote. 
_
That_ is petty.


----------



## afterlight82

Jeez, calm it down. This argument (both in terms of what constitutes "good" and "bad" in music, and art, and in terms of how theory yields better or worse results) is far from settled but has been vastly better expressed - from both positions - by many writers over, well, centuries. Read what they have to say first. Constant Lambert's "Music, Ho" (yes, that's the title, ironically) is, for me, a pile of tripe in terms of the argument that it makes (he's completely wrong about Stravinsky, for one) but it's nonetheless an interesting version of this topic. There are numerous others. It's an entire field. It's an entire minefield, to be precise, usually populated by people set in their ways blowing hot air, often up one group or another's arse for some unknown reason or another.

Besides, the discussion is inane to have on such a simple level because it's an immense topic that goes way way beyond music - into the theory of art itself - and generally, it's rather pointless. Unless you're going to yield some staggering new insight into the construction of music in the 21st century, why bother getting so hot under the collar?

What's more important is "did theory yield XYZ piece of music which I love"? Are we subconsciously lead by the theory we learn? What can theory do for me in terms of help or even hindrance? How are the "rules" of music in fact shaped by society, by technology, by physics, by necessity? How can I use those expectations to both please and confound my audience? All of these are more interesting questions than "is this composer's music better because he studied for X number of years" or this BS.

As composers, just write the damn music and let other people decide whether it's any good or not, and don't go around judging other people's music. Write your own. Make it as great as you can. Then make it better. Then go home, eat good food and spend time with your family. And discuss important things. Like which eq plugin is best. (j/k).


----------



## Zhao Shen

JohnG said:


> Zhao, you are deliberately twisting what I am saying and now you insult me. If you want to go that way, you can expect a response. I see in your latest post you have insinuated the word "formal" into your supposed rebuttal -- except I never said anything about formal. I just stated what I believe is an inescapable fact, that everyone who writes really good music figures out a way to Get Knowledge.
> 
> I never said the acquisition of knowledge had to take place in a classroom or in some "formal" setting, so I'll ask _you_ to keep mature and refrain from putting words in my mouth.
> 
> If you think you can attack me on a personal level and that's your idea of debate, then good luck. I find it a genuinely interesting topic, as I think my posts make clear, but since you can't come up with a single example of these hypothetical geniuses, you resort to insinuation and making stuff up that I never wrote.
> _
> That_ is petty.


Apologies for misinterpreting your stance. But take out the formal part and my point still stands. And please, don't assume that I'm making personal attacks - I admire you and your music. I'm merely stating that from my point of view, your responses are becomingly increasingly driven by negative emotion.

To the OP, you should always be trying to pursue more knowledge of theory. But composing is so much more than just knowledge - the creativity is also of huge importance, and if you're asking the topic question because you're worried that a lack of theory knowledge will make all of your pieces bad or irrelevant, don't concern yourself with that. Make music, try to learn more each day, and let the rest work itself out.


----------



## JohnG

So one final insult and then -- it's all ok? Nice.

Every great composer knows theory, whether formally acquired or not, whether absorbed through study or playing or both. 

If I actually care about the topic in this thread, it's in part because I don't like to see beginners gulled into the idea that you can be "great" without learning theory, one way or another.

It doesn't have to be Beethoven and it doesn't have to be in a classroom. You can learn a lot of "theory" by carefully looking through Beatles or John Mayer or whatever song books with chord symbols that you can buy at any music store.

Have fun!


----------



## gbar

I figure no matter what you get really good at doing, it takes a long time. Like at least 10,000 hours just to be proficient.

Along the way you are going to run out of ideas trying to invent things all by yourself and stuck doing the same things over and over and probably start looking through what others do, how things are taught, and then probably exploiting the things you find most useful.

Whatever it is you do.


----------



## KEnK

Just want mention Harry Partch here-
as an example of a truly great composer who used no known music theory or instruments.
He invented his own instruments and music system entirely- was into microtones-
came up w/ a few very specific scales of up to 43 notes.
I read his book "Genesis of a Music", afterwhich I thought all western music was "wrong"
There is a lot of compelling structure to Partch's music.
Youtube him


----------



## marclawsonmusic

Wow, @KEnK. I had never heard of Harry Partch. Listening to a few tracks on YouTube now. I wonder if Robert Fripp was inspired by him. Some of this sounds like edgier King Crimson stuff.

Man, this is really, really, really out there.


----------



## afterlight82

KEnK said:


> Just want mention Harry Partch here-
> as an example of a truly great composer who used no known music theory or instruments.
> He invented his own instruments and music system entirely- was into microtones-
> came up w/ a few very specific scales of up to 43 notes.
> I read his book "Genesis of a Music", afterwhich I thought all western music was "wrong"
> There is a lot of compelling structure to Partch's music.
> Youtube him



Just for context, Partch was steeped in Western music theory (his writing on it is pretty impressive) and came to dislike it as he felt it (and his teachers) too restrictive once he had learned them (at USC, for two years, amongst other places). Lots of people are talked about as having accelerated past their teachers...he genuinely was way way way beyond their plane of thinking, on a whole other level entirely. It's no surprise he dropped out.

Instead of using no theory, he came up with a pretty detailed one based almost entirely on Helmholtz. It's remarkably detailed. His music, in a sense, was more based on "theory" than most - just rooted elsewhere. He's also an object lesson in why transients are to be helped and not looked down upon as he would have been basically indistinguishable from the homeless dudes in Santa Monica for the longest time, and it's amazing he managed to fight through that hardship. He's pretty much the quintessential starving artist...he literally starved for a long time.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry..

JohnG said:


> Glinka? He started piano lessons at age 13 and went to conservatory.
> 
> Next...



No, he did not go to conservatory. He studied with a composer in Italy for a short while but could not get counterpoint (it frustrated him), so he quit and then moved back to Russia and started composing his own way. Ah, he studied piano, yes. I see your point now. If you have studied any kind of music, then you are OK. You have a problem with people who never studied music at all calling themselves composers, I think. Am I wrong? It is not that important to me, other than trying to understand your point.


----------



## afterlight82

Also, if you haven't read Bitter Music, Partch's essays, you've missed out - big time. The guy was a genius.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

John, if you're talking about someone writing for orchestra, then that's one thing.

But in the pop field:



> Can you name one "great composer" who doesn't have deep musical knowledge?



Joni Mitchell. Listen to how sophisticated some of her old folk stuff is, and I doubt she could tell you she was playing polychords or whatever.

(And then there's "Court and Spark," with Tom Scott's arrangements off her piano playing. What a great album.)


----------



## JohnG

Nick -- I'm not talking about school and, despite what one or two have imputed to me, I never suggested / implied / stated that's what I'm talking about. I mentioned, among others, Hendrix, the Beatles, BB King, etc. and I don't know whether any of those guys studied in school. Maybe they did.

I'm talking about deep musical knowledge acquired through playing and studying the work of others and, essentially, striving to learn everything you can about your craft so you can realise your goals. Joni Mitchell studied all kinds of jazz, unusual tuning, etc. She was a monster student of music, just not in school.

My view is that if you want to be great you have to learn everything you can about music. I don't think it spoils spontaneity, but actually frees you to reach your goal more quickly, accurately and, sometimes, more richly than you can if you're just relying on gut feel.


----------



## JohnG

SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. said:


> No, he did not go to conservatory.



Actually, Glinka did go to conservatory, according to the bio I found. And studied in Italy, which is more than many here seem to be urging.

And anyway, school is not my issue.


----------



## waveheavy

The way I think about music theory is, the more tools in your kit, the more things you can do. Imagine trying to build a car with just a hammer, screwdriver, and an adjustable wrench. You could probably do it, but how long would it take and what would be the results? Why try to reinvent the wheel?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> My view is that if you want to be great you have to learn everything you can about music



Indubitably. And I think you know I'm the wrong person to argue against that!

I'm just talking about "music theory knowledge." Actually, the guy who told me about how sophisticated a musician she was - but that she was unschooled (but certainly not un-studied) - played on at least one of her records. That would have been 1976.


----------



## jononotbono

JohnG said:


> Nick -- I'm not talking about school and, despite what one or two have imputed to me, I never suggested / implied / stated that's what I'm talking about. I mentioned, among others, Hendrix, the Beatles, BB King, etc. and I don't know whether any of those guys studied in school. Maybe they did.
> 
> I'm talking about deep musical knowledge acquired through playing and studying the work of others and, essentially, striving to learn everything you can about your craft so you can realise your goals. Joni Mitchell studied all kinds of jazz, unusual tuning, etc. She was a monster student of music, just not in school.
> 
> My view is that if you want to be great you have to learn everything you can about music. I don't think it spoils spontaneity, but actually frees you to reach your goal more quickly, accurately and, sometimes, more richly than you can if you're just relying on gut feel.



Couldn't agree more. Now if only I could just upload everything into my brain with a USB pen. A big one.


----------



## KEnK

About Joni-
I recall seeing a Herbie Hancock interview at the time they made their first record together.
He seemed to indicate she didn't actually "know" what chords were resulting from her many unique tunings.
He had to "translate" it to the piano, but he didn't find it any less beautiful or sophisticated because she didn't know the names of the polychords she was playing.

I've always loved Joni Mitchell's music, not intending to disparage her, just an interesting anecdote

k


----------



## bbunker

This is really just turning into an epistemiology debate, isn't it?

Joni Mitchell was very knowledgeable about the materials that she worked with, in a sense that she had experienced the materials, knew how to reproduce them, and knew what the effect was of their production. She had a wealth of knowledge 'a posteriori,' from experience rather than from deduction about prior, or other's experiences.

I can imagine a composer who has never actually composed a piece - not even exercises. Just read the theory, and understood it somehow theoretically without ever experiencing what the result would be. This knowledge would be completely 'a priori,' from deduction without any experience.

No one exists in a pure state of a priori or a posteriori knowledge - after we experience things, we develop unspoken theories about how subsequent experiences go. So, Joni Mitchell's writing of pieces would combine her a posteriori knowledge of materials that she had used and experienced, with a priori speculation about how those materials would combine in future pieces.

Someone with a background of conservatory training has different materials, but still experiences things in similar way. A composer 'discovers' or works through some new way of working with the shared musical materials, this process is codified into theory by theorists, and this theory is given to students, so that they can work through the knowledge a priori, and have a better expectation of what their experience will be, so that their flexibility with their a posteriori knowledge will be more dependable - this is primarily the goal of learning theory, isn't it: that composers will have some knowledge of precedent and situations which other composers have experienced, so that they will need to rely less on speculation about how their a posteriori knowledge can be applied?

The focus on the 'mechanics' of theory is a bit of a red herring. Not having a name for a polychord doesn't change the nature of that polychord - but it does hinder both communication about it, and attempts to extrapolate ways of using it. An 'E' by any other name is the same note, since 'E-ness' is not an essential characteristic of the note, but understanding that 'E-ness' can lead to further knowledge which is a combination of a priori and a posteriori - if one knows of the top string on a guitar as 'that top note on the guitar' then it may not be as intuitively clear that other 'E' notes on the instrument are iterations of the same idea with a changed variable - and so a priori knowledge about how octaves are played on the instrument would be withheld from the 'top note of the guitar' player. So, mechanical knowledge about musical materials doesn't replace a posteriori experience, but facilitates the player's discovery of those experiences by providing a priori frameworks for that discovery to take place in.

TL:DR - The question itself misses the point a bit. Theory isn't necessary to write great music - it just provides a framework for composers to take the good music that they've written and extrapolate great music from it, instead of needing to constantly discover greatness. Assuming of course that 'great' anything exists...which is a topic for another day, surely.


----------



## ed buller

I always find this debate fascinating and infuriating in equal measure. Is the pursuit of knowledge a bad thing ? Music is a fiendishly difficult subject to learn . For the most part it's taught fairly badly in my opinion, partly because it's so reliant on Historical analysis. The original Posters question contains the word "vital". The only fair answer is "probably" But it really depends so much on the teacher and the pupil. Stravinsky had none of the ridiculous and limiting obsessions that Rimskey-Korsakov had. And as a result gave us in his first few compositions three of the greatest pieces of music ever written. How sad that as good as his teacher he was, ( Nikolai Andreyevich) he was always limited by his obsession with correctness . And yet without him would Stravisnky have gone on to compose such groundbreaking music ?

e


----------



## InLight-Tone

I want to add that I think the study of music theory the way I define it, the study of music possibilities, is important for media composers as they have to crank out volumes of material in short amounts of time and knowing all of your possible "moves" keeps things flowing.

If you are only writing an album a year for pop release or whatever, nah, you don't need it. Being a one or two trick pony with that output is fine, but if you are cranking out 100+ library tracks, forget about it or else they'll all sound the same...


----------



## gbar

I don't think it matters what you do, but you really have to do it, and you have to do it a lot.

Mathematicians do not become good.at mathematics without doing a lot of math, for example, and building up an intuitive understanding in the process. And "greatness", that can't be taught. Proficiency can be taught. Solving a problem never solved before is not something you learn in the classroom, but good luck doing that without becoming proficient first.

So learn, but also compose? And compose some more.


----------



## Udo

Having "an ear for music" is more important than extensive theory knowledge! Without "an ear", theory knowledge wont get you very far. I'm sure you'll have heard examples. BTW, genes play a significant part in having "an ear" (research indicates nearly 50%).

Theory is important, but plenty of good music has been composed by people with little theory knowledge. These days there's also sophisticated music prototyping software that provides enormous productivity gains, regardless of your level of theory knowledge.

The quality of anything you come up with using that software is determined by your creativity and "ear for music". You're the one who makes all the selections and decisions!

www.cognitone.com/products/mps/intro/page.stml
Some videos http://users.cognitone.com/tutorials/introduction
For prototyping orchestral music http://users.cognitone.com/tutorial/counterpoint-prototyping-orchestral-music-synfire

There's a learning curve to use the software to its full potential!


----------



## dcoscina

I think having an ear is paramount. I think the more theory one knows the more technique they can apply. But theory can be picked up in many ways. There's traditional schooling and then there's experience. I leaned more about orchestration when I apprenticed under a very solid orchestrator compared to reading books and taking classes in university. Also attending live orchestra performances helped me understand how the instruments work together. Going through conductors scores listening to the music is also helpful. 

There's many ways to get to a destination.


----------



## jononotbono

Yeah, I am going to start attending my Local Orchestra's rehearsals. I am hoping this will massively help with my writing and just understanding how all the sound works in such a massive room with a Massive number of Musicians! Hope they're good! haha!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I'm off the subject here:

Yes, SPAC... and that shit is getting branded with marketing talk like "democratizing music."

Now, I think it's great for people to have fun with sound-making toys. But when that's confused with music, the soul of humanity, the artform that's been passed on from generation to generation, the training that improves children's brain power throughout their lives... No. That's just wrong.


----------



## onnevan

In my opinion, the situation nowadays is much different than in has been until now. The technology now allows someone with talent and musical ear to write complex pieces of music whereas before the only way to write such musical pieces was to learn formally. And by technology I don't necesarily mean computers, even an old magnetophone can allow someone to overcome the main hurdle when composing music, that is (to me) human memory limits.


----------



## fixxer49

stprodigy said:


> How important is music theory knowledge in composition? Sure we might say it plays an important role, but over the years we have seen many artists who had little or no music theory knowledge (one of the famous being Paul McCartney) create wonderful material.
> 
> I wonder because I have plenty of books on music theory, and I read them with the expectation that it will help improve my musical creativity and expression, but while everything I've read makes sense and I see the big picture of how the elements of music theory tie together, I wouldn't necessarily say its helping me create better melodies, chord progressions and what not.
> 
> It was once said that "Music theory is a great tool for _de_-constructing music, but doesn't work so well for _con_-structing music."
> 
> I kind of think Music Theory can be analogized to teaching kids grammar in school. A child resident in an English speaking country like the USA or the UK already begins to learn how to hear and speak English language at a very early age, even before being enrolled in school. In school, the child then learns how to write English on paper and read it, and is also taught the syntax/grammar rules that govern English, but by mere being exposed to native speakers of English, the child already innately knows those syntax/grammar rules, even if its subconsciously.
> No one has to teach you how to "comprehend" music. You ears pick up the soundwaves, and instantly your brain can tell if it has a rhythm or not, if its a tone or just noise, if its melodious or just a random string of notes, if its in key or off key, etc.
> Now does one have to be taught how to "create" music? I think even the most primitive of us has the basic ability to snap our fingers to a rhythm in our heads or whistle a tune. But creating great music? Is it talent, music theory, or a combination of both? Thats the question.



Is having a vocabulary vital to speaking? If you want to sound like a 3rd grader, the answer is probably no.


----------



## GtrString

If you love music, why wouldn't you explore the theory facet of it? If you are passionate about it, you'd try to learn everything you can 360 degrees. And once you start to use some of the theory, you may get even more excited because you'll realize this is something anybody can do. Great goals are reached with many small steps, not one big leap of brilliance..


----------



## sazema

Of course is not important if you are gifted genius  Of course, you have a lot of helpers today, but I think basics are important, your workflow will be much easier than if you don't know anything


----------



## Ashermusic

GtrString said:


> If you love music, why wouldn't you explore the theory facet of it? If you are passionate about it, you'd try to learn everything you can 360 degrees. And once you start to use some of the theory, you may get even more excited because you'll realize this is something anybody can do. Great goals are reached with many small steps, not one big leap of brilliance..



I love that post. Music should be a lifelong learning and growth experience, not just "monkey see, monkey do" what is selling.


----------



## Parsifal666

Passion for music is what fueled my thirst for knowledge about it. And I'm still learning.

Is it mandatory? Depends on your goals. Does such knowledge help you get places a heck of a lot faster? YES. Will it get you through a harmonic, melodic, contrapuntal, production, and/or or orchestration corner (or 100) that you've painted yourself into? YES.

Will it guarantee you becoming a better composer? Nope. Does it up your chances? Despite slightly mixed emotions, I'd feel really irresponsible if I wrote anything but...YES.


----------



## dcoscina

I think knowing theory does give you more resources to draw from. And when you are in a time crunch falling back on technique can really save the day. Not saying it can replace inspiration but it's useful to have in ones back pocket.


----------



## Parsifal666

dcoscina said:


> I think knowing theory does give you more resources to draw from. And when you are in a time crunch falling back on technique can really save the day. Not saying it can replace inspiration but it's useful to have in ones back pocket.


 
You put that great! Nothing matches inspiration, it's just really nice to be able to speed through blocks.

For me it never ended though, I'm always learning new things that are at least peripherally relevant to music theory, plus even after decades I still have to brush up.

I'd live through the initial learning process all over again, simply because it helped me so much over the years. It's no fun having a composing handicap...even sample-oriented folks benefit.


----------



## Parsifal666

But...it's not just those things. It's placing yourself ahead of the pack in my opinion.

Savants like McCartney are the exception to the rule, most exceptional composers and musicians I know have at least a really firm grasp on the basics.


----------



## tokatila

I have found that that theory is very helpful for analyzing scores. Makes stealing much easier. So for example you wonder why this moment is awesome. Just one example, at 3:16, the awesome fortissimo part:



When you understand the theory, you see from the score that before "the awesomeness" stems from the fact that (for yourself <---that's the important part, what YOU like about it). I think this is in Kotska's Harmony book.

-The "A" note is a 1st note of V chord of D minor
-Repeat A a few times, thus enabling common-tone modulation
-Reframe the "A" as 3rd V7 of Bb Major

Awesomeness ensued. But how do you analyze that to make it a tool for you if you don't understand anything I wrote about?

For me it gives a simple tool: "Repeat 1st note (common-tone) of a V chord in any minor and reframe it as a 3rd of V7 in major half-step above the common tone".


----------



## Harzmusic

This is a very old discussion, but I want to chime in for a second there.
When I was a kid, maybe 10 or 11 years old, I sat down at the piano and tried out all kinds of chord relationships from C-Major.
By accident I found out that some chords that don't seem to belong in a specific key still have a very cool character to them. I would play around and return to my room with a little post-it with the chord relationships that I liked. It just said "C-Major -> Eb-Major, C-Major -> Ab-minor, A-minor -> F-minor" and stuff like that, and I tried to use these chords in C-Major when I was improvising. Soon I realized that if I played in a different key, the same chord characters could be found, when I counted the interval between the triads instead of the chord itself.
I gave the chord relations names like "Lord Of The Rings-Chord" or "Star-Wars Chord" and considered myself awfully clever.
Little did I know that I was doing a very basic form of modal interchange.
I tried and retried it, and made my own weird, incomplete kind of theory around it in my head by experimenting. Years later when I picked up a heavy book on Jazz Harmony, it made click and everything fell into place. I recognized what I was doing and it was easier for me to organize what works and what doesn't.

Did I need the knowledge of modal interchange, to use those chords as a kid? No.
Did it make me a better, more efficient and versatile composer to really understand what I was doing? Absolutely.
Do you need knowledge of all theory to create great music? Probably not. I still like some pieces I wrote as a kid more than what I do today. But I'd say it is somewhat helpful for being a successful working composer.
Not that I currently belong in that category.


----------



## mverta

No. It is not vital. It can be phenomenally useful. Absent a mastery of the things which matter, it can also severely handicap.


----------



## Leon Willett

tokatila said:


> But how do you analyze that to make it a tool for you if you don't understand anything I wrote about?
> 
> For me it gives a simple tool: "Repeat 1st note (common-tone) of a V chord in any minor and reframe it as a 3rd of V7 in major half-step above the common tone".



YES!! Without music theory one finds it hard to steal other peoples "tricks"  

And stealing other peoples tricks is... 

TOTALLY WORTH IT


----------



## sherief83

I probably am repeating someone's post point already but here is mine on the subject.

As someone who got into music via midi sequencing tools and grew musically that way AND as a composer who prefers studying natural instruments like the orchestra, studying Theory and Ear Training for 2 and half years helped me study scores by my musical heroes and learn what they are all about. 

Basically, take a peak into their project template file (Score) as us DAW obsessed people would like to do.

It has helped me write down ideas on a piece of paper without using or needing to rely on a tool.

It has also helped me understand many *behaviors *of a phrase/measure/harmonic progressions and habbits/orchestration layering and range.

Its true, some of it musically speaking, you could learn by trial and error and by ear but that is in the end the HARD way. Want a super speedy way? just look at the score, see how things flow and then up you go in a few mins.

So did it make me a better composer? YES. Because it allowed me to put a labeling on things I do and if the entire world goes to shit and no more technology, I'll just need a paper and pencil, or a sharp rock and a wall LOL.

That being said, I still to this day, can't fully compose anything sample based wise in Sibelius (which is collecting dust here LOL) I'm way too lazy and just love how easy and kindergarten logic and midi programing is. So my method of final composition kinda still goes to DAW, but the composing thought process of it and understanding what I'm doing is now quicker and logical and focused thanks to what I learned in school.

So yeah, if you can learn it, worth it! it will speed your learning composing process and you'll get further than you would. It's sort of like a catalyst to the function.


----------



## Daisser

I don't know why but all I could think about when reading this thread was this -



If you grew up in the 80s this might give you a smile


----------



## Leon Willett

Also, how are you gonna get all the chicks if you don't know how an oboe works, am I right? It's right up there with big biceps and impeccable grooming.


----------



## toddkedwards

No, if it sounds good it is good! Theory can help you understand what you've written and help you when your in a pinch with composing. You can write a composition that follows theory and the piece has no potential connecting to your listener. I think we as composers think way too much about theory and it affects how/what we write or not write.


----------



## Ashermusic

If you can't conceive it, you can't write it. Musical theory knowledge potentially increases what you can conceive.


----------



## Dave Connor

toddkedwards said:


> No, if it sounds good it is good! Theory can help you understand what you've written and help you when your in a pinch with composing. You can write a composition that follows theory and the piece has no potential connecting to your listener. I think we as composers think way too much about theory and it affects how/what we write or not write.
> 
> Todd


I've had a ton of theory which is precisely why I have to think very little when composing. It's really a database residing in the subconscious. You may spend an entire day or week learning how to ride a bike - maybe a year on how to sail a boat, but the thinking is in how you want to ride or sail on a given day, not the underlying theory.


----------



## Parsifal666

It's mostly...there's inspiration and then there's the fleshing out. I can't imagine how much slower things would be if I didn't know theory. Granted, there probably are some who can possibly squeak out a living using mostly samples without know barely anything about theory, more power to 'em.

The old people are right on this one


----------



## toddkedwards

Dave Connor said:


> I've had a ton of theory which is precisely why I have to think very little when composing. It's really a database residing in the subconscious. You may spend an entire day or week learning how to ride a bike - maybe a year on how to sail a boat, but the thinking is in how you want to ride or sail on a given day, not the underlying theory.


Agreed, I would just say it's not vital to write a song or composition.


----------



## Dave Connor

toddkedwards said:


> Agreed, I would just say it's not vital to write a song or composition.


It does really depend on the form. Guys like Lennon and McCartney, Brian Wilson and even Jagger Richards are all great students of the forms they worked in: just not using textbooks. Some Big Band guys studied Jazz Harmony with some cat at a piano and maybe looked at some charts and off they went.

No one should feel inferior or superior for having studied or not. It always comes down to the final result. I just listen and decide whether I like something or not as everyone else does I imagine. Something like real classical counterpoint is like assembling a watch so I recommend the same detailed study either enterprise would seem to require but there's always exceptions.


----------



## Dave Connor

I think because orchestral music is so multifaceted and potentially complex that most people go the route of study. Particularly when you consider the _type_ of writing for it throughout it's history. The great composers over time with almost no exceptions were very highly trained and always put forth their best efforts in their symphonic works as show pieces where they poured out their gifts on a very high level. Most of the great film composers were very thoroughly trained composers as well.

The problem people run into is that music which is easier to _make _than ever tends to be divorced from it's scientific basis and properties. You wouldn't do that with higher math or astronomy or medicine. No one questions the need to study those things; their foundation and current practical and theoretical components. So at least as far as gaining the results by past masters (regardless of style) if you want to be the next Goldsmith or Williams, you might want to follow in their footsteps the way they did their predecessors.


----------



## LamaRose

sherief83 said:


> ...and if the entire world goes to shit and no more technology, I'll just need a paper and pencil, or a sharp rock and a wall LOL.



This!


----------



## Mithrandir

toddkedwards said:


> No, if it sounds good it is good! Theory can help you understand what you've written and help you when your in a pinch with composing. You can write a composition that follows theory and the piece has no potential connecting to your listener. I think we as composers think way too much about theory and it affects how/what we write or not write.



You don't know music theory however, so how could you form an educated opinion on the matter?


----------



## toddkedwards

Mithrandir said:


> You don't know music theory however, so how could you form an educated opinion on the matter?


The OP was asking if Music Theory is vital to creating music and I was just sharing my opinion, That's all. I do know basic music theory, but not an expert.


----------



## Parsifal666

toddkedwards said:


> The OP was asking if Music Theory is vital to creating music and I was just sharing my opinion, That's all. I do know basic music theory, but not an expert.



There are quite a few songwriters and composers who know more or less just that. Some are quite successful.

I'd never recommend anyone to stay there, though. Theory helps you again and again. It's also a way to stand out today...you know your stuff.


----------



## Franco

The answer is yes!


----------



## foxby

Well, I would say that music theory (was) is extracted from the works of giants, who wrote great music..so, it might make sense to study it. However, in regards to writing "great music" and knowing theory, as far as I know, one things is sure: they are not equally proportional !

PS; Mussorgsky comes to mind though ..but he was also Modest


----------

