# Theory



## Rohann (Sep 13, 2017)

Hi all,

I posted this on the Redbanned forum and Mike graciously replied, but I'd like to go a bit deeper and clarify my understanding (something I'm not sure he has time for). A little quiet over there at the moment.

"Hi all,

Mike mentions (passionately I might add) in the question section of Composition 2 (around 2:01:00 or so) that approaching music from a theory perspective is a bad idea, and theory should be left really to the end.

I can completely understand why, in a way -- most of my favourite musicians started off writing fantastic music with little to no theory _knowledge_, instead learning in intuitively (or at least so I argue).

However, I haven't had this experience myself -- what would be considered useful vs. not useful theory? Starting composing as an adult, I didn't really have the opportunity to jam along to my favourite songs for 15 years prior to starting. Isn't it useful to at least know what key one is in, what makes a minor scale, which notes are in which scales, etc?_ Not prescriptively_, mind you. I found a bit of music theory made the piano make a hell of a lot more sense, and when writing melodies or parts, at least having an idea of what kind of mood I'm going for made writing a lot easier and quicker.

Similarly, transcribing something and knowing what intervals sounds like, or what a major 7th sounds like has made transcribing a whole lot faster. Similarly, when messing around and trying to find a melody idea, knowing what scale I'm in makes improvising something sound a lot less like hunting and pecking.
In short, what about theory that simply codifies certain moods or sounds you like? It doesn't mean you work it out on paper beforehand, but more or less acts as a label or starting point for finding a mood. "Oh, I want that really heartbreaking chord sound that I like -- minor chord, add a 9th and a 2nd."
I'm not really sure how else one would know one's way around a piano, except perhaps by pattern recognition. Patterns work great on guitar for the most part, as it's really easy to, say, play chromatically descending Maj7th chords down the neck (just move the shape), but piano is another story. At least I think so?

So...where does one draw the line? Sitting down and thinking "I'm going to write in Lydian" may indeed be missing the point, but isn't it useful to think "I'm kind of after that middle eastern vibe (i.e. start with the Arabic scale)" or "I'm sort of after that Japanese folk vibe" and know, at least on a basic/general level, what fits in there?

I'll be the first to admit that attempting to write prescriptively with theory leads to drivel, and I hate the process, but I've found it useful for codifying what I'm learning.


----------



## Replicant (Sep 13, 2017)

Rohann said:


> Mike mentions (passionately I might add) in the question section of Composition 2 (around 2:01:00 or so) that approaching music from a theory perspective is a bad idea, and theory should be left really to the end.



I disagree. Theory is liberating. 

The more you know about theory, the less you'll struggle to write whatever it is you want. Get good enough, and you can compose anything you want without putting much thought into it. _Knowing where to start is important_, and there is nothing you can do that can't be explained with music theory, so you might as well know it beforehand. 

You'll spend an eternity trying to effectively harmonize your melodies, write counter melodies around it, or write a tune at all; if you want to write something that sounds "X", how will you begin to do that if you don't know why what you're after sounds the way that it does?

I've never heard anyone who knows theory say they wish that they didn't.


----------



## Rohann (Sep 13, 2017)

Replicant said:


> I disagree. Theory is liberating.
> 
> The more you know about theory, the less you'll struggle to write whatever it is you want. Get good enough, and you can compose anything you want without putting much thought into it. _Knowing where to start is important_, and there is nothing you can do that can't be explained with music theory, so you might as well know it beforehand.
> 
> ...


He _does _mention that theory is really useful, but says that he discourages theory for new composers because it often leads people into a false sense of safety of thinking that if one knows theory, one knows composition. He says (and I agree, as far as I can tell) that learning to write is more like learning language as a kid, via transcribing melodies, moods, changes, etc one likes, internalizing them, and only starting to codify and learn more _formal _structure after the fact, the transcribing process and checking one's accuracy being the main "learning" component (in the same way that a child hears words, tries them, is corrected, and gets a solid basic grasp on how to express his or herself verbally before learning technical grammar). Not sure if that illuminates the concept at all.


----------



## Saxer (Sep 13, 2017)

Children learn differently than adults when it comes to languages. You can hear a difference when adults move to a country with a new language: those who learn the grammar (theory) can speak correctly after a couple of years (just keeping their accent). Those who learn by ear only use wrong grammar all their life.

Same with musicians: i.e. there are lots of guitar players out there who play pentatonic over every chord and never realize something else could fit better. If they don't know what pentatonic is and what's happening in the chords they just 'play what they feel' and think it's creative.

Mike is arguing from his standpoint. He grew up with music, had early piano lessons and he is educated in theory. He is talking about key signatures and chords and modulations and notating scores and structure... all things you can't know if you never learned it. That *is* music theory. If you already learned it you just use it. But you have to have it.

And there's another standpoint. If you learn by ear only you always use parts of something that has been there before. But if you explore a scale yourself and build your own chords out of it you come across a lot of things you never heard or recognized in other peoples music. It's a process you have to go though yourself. Mike also does this (in one of his lessons using sus4/sus2 chords combining them with different bass notes). That is exploring music theory knowledge in a creative way. You can't do that without knowledge about chords.

Theoretical thoughts can lead to creativity. Tasks like: "make a melody with two octave jumps and harmonize with sus-chords only" will give other results than noodling on your instrument. It helps to get out of the "no idea" trap.

Mike is right when he says: you can't get music out of a book. You have to make it. But that's obvious.


----------



## JJP (Sep 14, 2017)

Saxer's post is excellent.

Music theory is the grammar of music. Learning grammar will not make you an eloquent speaker. Not learning grammar will greatly hinder your chances of being eloquent.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Sep 14, 2017)

Jeez, I'll just say read Replicant and Saxer above and add me to that.
I can accept that theory is not for all and may hinder some natural inclinations, fair enough. But to not start a beginner with theory is missing a golden opportunity for that person. Theory and practical, side by side all the way.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 14, 2017)

Theory is particularly good for the young. It opens up a new world to them in displaying the individual components that make up the whole of music. It also gives you a vocabulary that you may now employ and experiment with (such as the Major scale degrees; the chords built on them and their extensions.) Learning what a Maj7th chord is was a revelation to me as a young teenager, (as well as ii V I etc.) At that point you're running down the road of music and not stumbling around. The fact that you can hardly name a single great composer without a traditional background in music theory puts a few metric tones on the scales of the question in favor of theory (i.e. getting an education in your chosen field such as science, medicine, physics, music etc., is a vital necessity.)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 14, 2017)

Learning *anything* is good!

We get these threads from time to time, and - I'm probably repeating myself - I've never heard anyone who's studied theory (or who knows notation, etc.) say they regret it. That's because they understand the value very clearly.

Confucius: "Wider perspective better than narrower perspective."


----------



## Rohann (Sep 14, 2017)

Great points all, thanks for the replies. I suppose my question here isn't "no theory" vs "yes theory" but more "when theory" and "how much theory".

It seems like his perspective is more a matter of "order of operations". He _does _say that one should be able to write and develop a melody before learning advanced theory because learning B without A is missing the crux of composition, which I can agree with. However, he seems to stress this to the point of saying you should be able to write and connect appropriate "mood" parts at any given moment without learning any theory, and this is something I have a hard time understanding. I can see that if one has been playing for decades -- my favourite "composers" in the world of "band" music (i.e. rock, metal, etc) either didn't learn theory at all or learned it late after already internalizing and being able to play a ton of different songs, and I agree that _approaching _music writing from a theoretical standpoint, not in a "I need a new idea" kind of way, I've seen Mike do that, but in a large-scale way, is I think perilous and the idea leaves a foul taste in my mouth.
That said, someone like Nick Johnston (who may well be one of the best improvising guitarists I've ever heard) sure as hell knows his way around a fretboard, but again only learned more advanced/formal theory down the road. Denying its usefulness would be rather silly, but keeping it as an organizational tool seems key -- no one writes a good story by studying grammar, but if one can write a good story, grammar is certainly helpful in refining, dressing and polishing it. I think writing a good story is probably the hardest part, and it really does seem like a large amount of grammar and accompanying "style" is learned by reading a lot.

I'm trying to consolidate this with the general way he tends to teach his courses, and I can't help but wonder if my conception of basic theory means something else, as he does refer to keys, notes, types of chords, etc. I agree with him in the sense of the "feel" for music being an internal one and language learning requiring immersion (10 years of mandatory academic/"technical" French in gradeschool with zero ability to speak it at the end is testament to this), but basic knowledge of chord structure, notation, keys, etc have made navigating music a whole lot easier.


----------



## Phryq (Sep 22, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Learning *anything* is good!
> 
> We get these threads from time to time, and - I'm probably repeating myself - I've never heard anyone who's studied theory (or who knows notation, etc.) say they regret it. That's because they understand the value very clearly.
> 
> Confucius: "Wider perspective better than narrower perspective."



Learning *anything* is good, and knowing what is most important to learn is... practically impossible. As a teacher, I realize there's no way I can know what's best for my kids to learn.

OTOH there's sometimes a price with learning; some things can be taught in a way that is... brainwashy. For example, years of wrote memorizing has been shown to stifle creativity. I make a deliberate effort to not be boxed in by theoretical knowledge, and prefer to learn theory as a way of

A - understanding what others have done.

B - learning tools of the craft.


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 22, 2017)

Saxer said:


> And there's another standpoint. If you learn by ear only you always use parts of something that has been there before. But if you explore a scale yourself and build your own chords out of it you come across a lot of things you never heard or recognized in other peoples music.



I really don't think I can agree with this. If I'm not mistaken, you're basically saying that If you've learned by ear (which I did), then you're limited to what you only heard from other peoples music, and that is how you'll always compose. Is this correct?


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 22, 2017)




----------



## mikeh-375 (Sep 22, 2017)

Rohan,
When he talks about connecting "mood",perhaps it could just be a way of assessing if a student has natural ability or not. Composing is instinctive, theory is there to aid, abet and cajole any good idea or inspiration into a cohesive form whilst not restraining or restricting its freedom and fantasy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 22, 2017)

Phryq, 


Phryq said:


> Learning *anything* is good, and knowing what is most important to learn is... practically impossible. As a teacher, I realize there's no way I can know what's best for my kids to learn.
> 
> OTOH there's sometimes a price with learning; some things can be taught in a way that is... brainwashy. For example, years of wrote memorizing has been shown to stifle creativity. I make a deliberate effort to not be boxed in by theoretical knowledge, and prefer to learn theory as a way of
> 
> ...




Good teachers always put things in context! Music theory - regardless of the system - is more an analysis of what's usually done than a set of rules. Your A, in other words.

I mean, yeah, there are some rules. If you play C F G triads in root position and then go back to C adding a Db on top, you're only going to like the sound as a nasty special effect.

But some "rules" are made to be broken. The rule that closely voiced chords are muddy if they're too low goes away at very low dynamics, for example. And in some contexts you can use that Db I mentioned over the C chord if it's been sustaining for a while.

Pretty basic examples!


----------



## Rohann (Sep 22, 2017)

Phryq said:


> Learning *anything* is good, and knowing what is most important to learn is... practically impossible. As a teacher, I realize there's no way I can know what's best for my kids to learn.
> 
> OTOH there's sometimes a price with learning; some things can be taught in a way that is... brainwashy. For example, years of wrote memorizing has been shown to stifle creativity. I make a deliberate effort to not be boxed in by theoretical knowledge, and prefer to learn theory as a way of
> 
> ...


That's quite interesting, I hadn't thought of that but it makes sense. Great way to look at theory by the way, I agree it should really be no more than a tool by which to better organize and communicate.



mikefox789 said:


> I really don't think I can agree with this. If I'm not mistaken, you're basically saying that If you've learned by ear (which I did), then you're limited to what you only heard from other peoples music, and that is how you'll always compose. Is this correct?


I'm inclined to disagree as well. A blank slate doesn't exist -- we're always influenced by the music we hear. Also, typically speaking, music written non-intuitively (i.e. _purely _through theory) tends to be pretty boring, whereas I think it's safe to say every composer I've ever liked uses it as no more than a tool. And truthfully, if all you ever do _is _draw from music you've learned by ear, learn enough of it and you're bound to come up with something unique.


----------



## Phryq (Sep 22, 2017)

As a teenager I went through a strange avant-guard phase. I wanted to develop my own voice, and believed any music I heard would 'taint' my voice, making me sound more like something else. I tried to actively forget everything I knew and stopped listening to music altogether. The result was total $5!#&.



> The rule that closely voiced chords are muddy if they're too low goes away at very low dynamics, for example.



Oooh, thinking of Beethoven's 7th. I love it, but never knew about low dynamics killing mud. Why is that I wonder? I've also read that pure-tuning the triad gets rid of the mud. These are the kinds of tidbits I'm always dying for.


----------



## JJP (Sep 23, 2017)

mikefox789 said:


>




The point this guy makes in the first minute of the link about his teacher is completely off the mark. He misunderstands the mindset of a virtuoso performer. The fact that his teacher didn't compose and considered herself a poor composer has no connection to her advanced knowledge of music theory. He completely misses the point that most classical virtuosos put their energy, studies, and practice into interpretation of existing music. Many have no desire to compose at all. It's a different skill that takes years to master. She's a performer and her knowledge of theory undoubtedly helps her interpret what's on the page. I couldn't keep watching after that extreme disconnect, because it's the kind of mistake that comes from lack of experience.

Don't worry about studying theory too early. By studying you're putting more tools in your bag. You can not and don't need to use every tool on every project. The point of learning things and adding tools is that they are there when you need them.

To look at it another way, I had good teachers who taught me excellent grammar by strictly enforcing the rules from a young age. That does not mean that I can't step outside those rules to use colloquialisms, deviate from proper sentence structure to write a lyric that sings better, or simply change things up for effect when I write or speak. We do this type of thing all the time. The idea that diving deep into learning the constructs of music theory will somehow limit your ability is the exact opposite of the truth. Besides, you're never going to learn all the rules of every genre of music. It's not possible.


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 23, 2017)

JJP said:


> The point this guy makes in the first minute of the link about his teacher is completely off the mark. He misunderstands the mindset of a virtuoso performer. The fact that his teacher didn't compose and considered herself a poor composer has no connection to her advanced knowledge of music theory. He completely misses the point that most classical virtuosos put their energy, studies, and practice into interpretation of existing music. Many have no desire to compose at all. It's a different skill that takes years to master. She's a performer and her knowledge of theory undoubtedly helps her interpret what's on the page. I couldn't keep watching after that extreme disconnect, because it's the kind of mistake that comes from lack of experience.
> 
> Don't worry about studying theory too early. By studying you're putting more tools in your bag. You can not and don't need to use every tool on every project. The point of learning things and adding tools is that they are there when you need them.
> 
> To look at it another way, I had good teachers who taught me excellent grammar by strictly enforcing the rules from a young age. That does not mean that I can't step outside those rules to use colloquialisms, deviate from proper sentence structure to write a lyric that sings better, or simply change things up for effect when I write or speak. We do this type of thing all the time. The idea that diving deep into learning the constructs of music theory will somehow limit your ability is the exact opposite of the truth. Besides, you're never going to learn all the rules of every genre of music. It's not possible.



There are actually musicians out there who are amazing at their instrument. They know theory through, and through, and are incredible performers, yet they can't compose worth crap. Its the sad truth. From day one, they spend so much time learning theory, that the part of the brain responsible for the ability to compose music never develops (thats my assumption). I've had multiple piano teachers tell me that they simply cannot write and never have any music floating in their head. They've played their entire lives, yet they have never written a simple melody. They let learning by the book get in the way of their creative skills. I agree that learning theory may not hinder your ability to compose, but focusing too much on it certainly will. I believe thats the point the guy in the video was trying to make. If you disagree, I would be interested to hear your reasons as to why some performers cant (not wont) compose their own music, and their focus on music theory thats heavily responsible for crafting them into the musician they currently are isnt to blame.


----------



## JJP (Sep 23, 2017)

mikefox789 said:


> If you disagree, I would be interested to hear your reasons as to why some performers cant (not wont) compose their own music, and their focus on music theory thats heavily responsible for crafting them into the musician they currently are isnt to blame.



Some performers have neither the drive nor the desire to compose. This is the case for the majority of virtuosos whom I have known. They may dabble a bit in composing, but most of them don't care much about it. They want to perform, and that is where they have developed their skills through years of practice. They don't hear new musical ideas in their heads and want to work them out. It doesn't give them the same pleasure as practicing and performing. It has nothing to do with the amount of music theory knowledge they have. I started as a performer, so I completely understand their point of view.

Most of these people have excellent music theory knowledge. Most of them, if not all that I know, have had at least an undergraduate degree from a reputable music school and many have post-graduate music degrees. Heck, in the jazz world, if you don't know your theory you get run off the bandstand. Knowing theory is essential for being able to improvise in a jazz setting. Jazz improvisation is composition in real-time within a particular harmonic structure, so you'd better know your theory!

People don't set out become great composers, learn too much theory, and then have to settle for being a virtuoso performer because they ruined their brains by studying too much. That actually sounds pretty funny now that I put it in writing! 

Great performers don't always write their own music for the same reason that great composers don't always perform their own music. Sure some do, but not all. Some composers don't want to perform, so they haven't put in the practice it takes to become a good performer. That's not what motivates them. They find more joy or simply have more aptitude for composing, so they focus on that.


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 23, 2017)

JJP said:


> Some performers have neither the drive nor the desire to compose. This is the case for the majority of virtuosos whom I have known. They may dabble a bit in composing, but most of them don't care much about it. They want to perform, and that is where they have developed their skills through years of practice. They don't hear new musical ideas in their heads and want to work them out. It doesn't give them the same pleasure as practicing and performing. It has nothing to do with the amount of music theory knowledge they have. I started as a performer, so I completely understand their point of view.
> 
> Most of these people have excellent music theory knowledge. Most of them, if not all that I know, have had at least an undergraduate degree from a reputable music school and many have post-graduate music degrees. Heck, in the jazz world, if you don't know your theory you get run off the bandstand. Knowing theory is essential for being able to improvise in a jazz setting. Jazz improvisation is composition in real-time within a particular harmonic structure, so you'd better know your theory!
> 
> ...


So your only answer to the question at hand is that its not a matter of cant, its a matter of wont?


----------



## Rob (Sep 23, 2017)

In the classical musical world, if you set yourself off to be a performer you have a path to follow, which includes studying your instrument's technique, interpretation, repertoire, going to masterclasses, doing contests, you really haven't much time left to do other things, but that's what is required for that highly specialized career. And there's nothing lacking in this kind of route, I have only admiration for these people...
Theory is a much too broad, blurry word I think.


----------



## thereus (Sep 23, 2017)

"Composing is one thing, performing another, listening a third. What can they have to do with one another?" as John Cage asked.


----------



## JJP (Sep 23, 2017)

mikefox789 said:


> So your only answer to the question at hand is that its not a matter of cant, its a matter of wont?



Please read what I wrote carefully. My point is that their inability to compose is not a result of having learned too much theory. One doesn't cause the other.


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 23, 2017)

JJP said:


> Please read what I wrote carefully. My point is that their inability to compose is not a result of having learned too much theory. One doesn't cause the other.


You and I are just going in circles now. Have a good weekend!


----------



## muk (Sep 24, 2017)

mikefox789 said:


> I would be interested to hear your reasons as to why some performers cant (not wont) compose their own music, and their focus on music theory thats heavily responsible for crafting them into the musician they currently are isnt to blame.



Their focus on music theory is not to blame because there is nothing to blame here. Not everyone spending their time with music wants to be a composer. You can just as well say that spending too much time on learning to compose is to blame for the part of your brain responsible for the ability to perform at a top level never developing. Composers let honing their creative skills get in the way of developing performance skills. Both arguments are not wrong, but they are completely beside the point.
You are blaming somebody for not being able to do something he doesn't want to do in the first place. From that you conclude that he can't do it because he wasted his time with learning other stuff. And there you are wrong in my opinion. They have other interests than you. That doesn't make their efforts wasted. It's not that they wasted their time and thus couldn't learn to compose. Most of them certainly could have learned it had they chosen to. But they didn't want to. And that's a free decision, not a problem. And it has nothing to do with learning theory.

You can very well learn composition, train your creative skills, and learn all about theory all at once without one ever getting in the way of the other. Quite the opposite, they will complement, enrich, and inspirit each other. Creativity is not stifled by 'learning by the book'. It can only be stifled by not using it and training it. And it is exactly knowledge and deep understanding of music (theory, harmony, counterpoint, form etc) that will let you use your creativity to the fullest.

Edit: by the way, if this comes across as harsh that is not my intention but due to my somewhat limited command of the english language.


----------



## gregh (Sep 24, 2017)

Rob said:


> In the classical musical world, if you set yourself off to be a performer you have a path to follow, which includes studying your instrument's technique, interpretation, repertoire, going to masterclasses, doing contests, you really haven't much time left to do other things, but that's what is required for that highly specialized career. And there's nothing lacking in this kind of route, I have only admiration for these people...
> Theory is a much too broad, blurry word I think.


pretty much gets the lot - I know quite a few virtuosic performers, people who play stuff that was "impossible" not that long ago and I cant believe they can even do what they do, let alone do anything else


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 24, 2017)

muk said:


> Creativity is not stifled by'learning by the book'. *It* *can only be stifled by not using it and training it.*



That's exactly my point, lol!!! 

This is what I said in a previous post,

"I agree that learning theory may not hinder your ability to compose, but focusing too much on it certainly will."

In other words, focus too much on one thing (theory) and something else will be ignored (composition skills). Obviously, your composition skills will suffer, because you didnt use or train them. And yes, focus too much on composition, and you wont be a great performer. Theory and composition in and of themselves are not to blame, and I agree that they can completely be used together, and can compliment eachother when allowed to do so. 

Btw, your post wasn't harsh.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Sep 24, 2017)

Mike,
I don't get what you mean by...
_
in other words, focus too much on one thing (theory) and something else will be ignored (composition skills). Obviously, your composition skills will suffer, because you didnt use or train them.
_
Theory does train your composition skill and eventually underpins it and becomes a guiding principle once you fly the theoretical nest so to speak, isn't that why it is there? Am I missing your point here?


----------



## JohnG (Sep 24, 2017)

Why do we keep having this discussion? Does anyone think BB King didn't know "all the chords" or something beyond I IV V IV ii V I ??? Hendrix practiced scales, including unusual ones, incessantly. The Beatles were always looking for new harmonic and sonic ideas.

You don't have to be a silly hidebound prof or a Telemann imitator to want to know how a composer achieves a particular effect.

And what is "too much" theory anyway? Is there a point where you say, "oh no! If I learn ONE MORE THING it will be too much?" I don't think so.

Without knowing theory and orchestration tried and true practices, it is impossible to meet a typical movie deadline, unless you have tons of money to pay for people who _do_ know the theory.

I am really enjoying Johann Johannsson's scores lately, and others that incorporate experimental ideas, but that doesn't mean that they don't know anything. Thomas Newmann, whom I admire a great deal, unquestionably knows all the theory, though nevertheless he doesn't labour us with it every cue.

You know it so you can use it when you want it. Wearing a "I don't have no book learnin'" badge as though it's a mark of purity or it makes you a rebel pirate artist is, to me, short-sighted and limiting.

Put another way -- music takes a certain amount of time to write down and execute. The more short cuts you know, the faster you can put your finger on the sound you're seeking. Theory helps with that. Without it, even a lifetime spent with making sound can fall short of what it otherwise might have achieved.


----------



## Piano Pete (Sep 24, 2017)

Learn the rules so you can break them. 

Of course, a lot of it can be figured out by oneself intuitively, but the majority of the strongest artists I know balance both the intuition and the theoretical side of things. Understanding what something is, and to be able to name it, is very powerful; after that, it is up to you on how you interpret it and use that knowledge! The study of theory is our vocabulary and syntax, and new words are always added.

I think where people get caught up when diving into theory is that they try to follow certain things too much to the letter-- most notably when people deal with counterpoint and voice leading. The largest bit of advice that I can give is to think of it as an observation of what works and how it generally functions. For example, parallel fifths and octaves. There are a ton of them in music, and if you have two voices against each other and the proceeding counterpoint was harmonically "balanced" the parallel motion at the fifth or unison is going to stick out like a sore thumb: it also vividly outlines the direction of the phrase. 

With the previous example in mind, should parallel motion be avoided all together? No. This is why a ton of music is rife with parallel intervals because it helps bring out a line or adds a, hopefully, tasteful outline to the direction of a phrase. This is where the creative aspect comes in: do what you want! If you want this effect, use it. No one is going to chase after you with a club for writing a technical no-no, but if you want a harmonically balanced work, you may wish to avoid this on strong beats unless there is contrary motion or it is a cadence etc. Use theory to help understand something you are writing or performing. Of course, do not let it be a crutch. Let your creative side choose what to do with that understanding. If you do not have the knowledge to pull from, you may be limiting yourself to potentially wonderful things; however-- on the flip-side --you may still come to the same conclusions, or better, via a happy accident or whatever!

For me, theory has been extremely useful when:

1) Writing stylistically, which isnt that the bulk of what we do for media?

2) Harmonic movement or potentially juicy transitions. In my case, it is always fun to try different possibilities to see what they are like; I often go with what I originally conceived, but I have also gotten some interesting material that I have used later that I wouldn't have other wise come up with, or it would have taken forever for me to stumble across. 

3) Deadlines: when you have to cram something out at the last minute and you need notes on paper to hand off to an ensemble, you do not always have the luxury of pondering each note. Let your main idea be creative, and let the theory fill in the orchestration and the rest so that you have a well balanced piece at the end that will not produce shifty glances and curses from the ensemble. Especially for media, no consumer will never have know the difference; they'll just hear a finished piece. Of course, conscious changes and choices occur in this scenario, and if you hear something vividly in your head: write it down. This has saved my rear on multiple occasions. 

4) Figuring out why something does or doesnt work especially when it does not fit into any theoretical mold that I know. This sort of mental dissection has been the bulk of my education. Anyone can look at a score and copy a phrase or harmonic progression, but if you come to a conclusion as to why it works and can use that new knowledge productively, you have just grown as a composer! Isn't that in itself a win? This has hit home with me when voicing any dense, jazzy chord. I dont remember each specific voicing I have ever done or experienced, but I remember principles that help guide me to my desired goal.

Anything in this post can be applied to multiple parts of music and life. Take the time to learn something, add it to your arsenal, and choose when and how you use it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 24, 2017)

John wrote:



> Why do we keep having this discussion?



That's the question, i'nit.


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 24, 2017)

mikeh-375 said:


> Mike,
> I don't get what you mean by...
> _
> in other words, focus too much on one thing (theory) and something else will be ignored (composition skills). Obviously, your composition skills will suffer, because you didnt use or train them.
> ...



Im not denying the value of theory, and how it can benefit composition, but if someone wants to compose their own music, and focuses just on learning theory, they are putting the cart before the horse. To me, If you want to learn how to compose your own music, learning theory by itself isnt the way to do it. I think theory can be a valuable aid and tool when composing, but you need to know how to compose first, or learn both at the same time. Like I said, I had two piano instructors who were amazing, and knew tons of theory, but they couldnt write to save thier lives. These werent virtuoso performers who chose not to compose, they were excellent piano instructors who seriously struggled with writing their own music, and could never write a simple melody. When I found out that not just one, but both of my instructors suffered from this, I was totally surprised. How could such great pianists not be able to write music? I quickly found out that this is actually quite common. My only guess is that they spent too much of their time focusing on everything else about their instrument (including a great deal of theory), aside from learning how to compose with it. Theory helped them understand what they were doing, but It never inspired or benefited their creative process. Theory itself isnt to blame, but the amount of time they spent focusing on it is. They never made time to learn how to compose and develop their creativity, because they put theory first. That's my whole point. Theory does not teach you how to compose, even though it can surely benefit the process, and provide you a better understanding of what you're doing.


----------



## ctsai89 (Sep 24, 2017)

There are definitely the basics (such as key signatures and chord progressions, ear training) that are extremely important. With those basics you could find out by listening: how other composers constructed their music.

But if you go in deeper and deeper, let's saying you're at the level of learning german/french augmented 6th chords and how they reinterpret to other dominant chords (okay I'm almost not speaking English) then most likely you could do yourself more harm than you would benefit unless you're analyzing how Wagner/Scriabin's music works. But even then, their music does not have a definite or the right way to analyze it and perhaps they weren't thinking of music theory as much as you would've thought they did when they were composing either.

So, seriously, the basics down, ear training is important. But going beyond that is also encouraged, just beware that it might take away your pure creative ability if you can't take your mind off music theory while you're composing.


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 24, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> just beware that it might take away your pure creative ability if you can't take your mind off music theory while you're composing.



You mean theres a dark side to theory?! Gett outta town!


----------



## ctsai89 (Sep 24, 2017)

mikefox789 said:


> You mean theres a dark side to theory?! Gett outta town!



Yes definitely. Haha sorry

From my own experience but I know a few other who suffer the same creative limitation I suffer from knowing too much theory as well


----------



## Kyle Preston (Sep 24, 2017)

mikefox789 said:


> Theory does not teach you how to compose



Agreed man. Knowing how to cook doesn't make someone a chef - it makes them a cook.


----------



## ctsai89 (Sep 24, 2017)

Kyle Preston said:


> Agreed man. Knowing how to cook doesn't make someone a chef - it makes them a cook.



Haha! Nice one


----------



## ctsai89 (Sep 24, 2017)

I'd say having a vast music theory knowledge can help a musicologist far greater than it would help a composer


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 24, 2017)

mikefox789 said:


> if someone wants to compose their own music, and focuses just on learning theory, they are putting the cart before the horse



But why would you even need to say that?


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 24, 2017)

Rohann said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I posted this on the Redbanned forum and Mike graciously replied, but I'd like to go a bit deeper and clarify my understanding (something I'm not sure he has time for). A little quiet over there at the moment.
> 
> ...




well, from the mikes videos ive seen, he might be refering to; while you write music to picture dont worry about the theory, just write how it feels and if it works to picuture. but he has several hours long videos you want to check out. 
Imo, the theory is good to learn so you can expand your knowledge of music in _general_ which leads to discoveries in moods, melodies etc wich then its second nature when you actually start writing for picture. as opose to see a scene that has a sad moment and you just think .. oh this should be a minor chord but with a raised 4th but that would be a different scale etc and leads to not doing much or being too tehcnical when something simple could of worked. 
Films are not that peculiar or each one is something completly different from one another. its not like there are more than 13 hollywood plots. each with similar act structure etc. and directors add temp tracks. if you transcirbe a bunch of scores and check out the theory then you will have a big arsenal of devices just so you dont have to think about thoery when scoring. so when you see a scene you just KNOW what to do, what harmony and chord changes etc and later on you can mix and match and borrow from classcial score and do your own style based on other styles you like.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 24, 2017)

gsilbers said:


> while you write music to picture dont worry about the theory, just write how it feels and if it works to picuture



This is absolute BS. One of the few ways to keep a score coherent is to write something intuitive and then apply theory to it in order to inform your choices later in the score. I'm not talking about slavishly adhering to a narrow idea or set of ideas, but that it pays to know, from a sound, theoretical point of view, what you've done so far.

I'm not talking about augmented 6ths or something like that.

People who try to write purely through intuition are going to have a challenge producing (at least with only one composer) 60-70 minutes of orchestral music to picture in three or four weeks. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's needlessly harder.


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 24, 2017)

JohnG said:


> This is absolute BS. One of the few ways to keep a score coherent is to write something intuitive and then apply theory to it in order to inform your choices later in the score. I'm not talking about slavishly adhering to a narrow idea or set of ideas, but that it pays to know, from a sound, theoretical point of view, what you've done so far.
> 
> I'm not talking about augmented 6ths or something like that.
> 
> People who try to write purely through intuition are going to have a challenge producing (at least with only one composer) 60-70 minutes of orchestral music to picture in three or four weeks. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's needlessly harder.



woudnt the intuivie part be "how it feels"? 

I guess there is still a battle between left vs right brain. Even if i write how i feel or what i find intuitive, ill still use for example, an A minor chord and change to a G major chord. feels right for a scene and then in the melody would of use notes from those scales. i wouldnt be doing a wierd chords i woudlnt know how to spell out. 
my point is more about not having to rely on thoery when composing to picture. the music thoery should be already in your intuition. does that make sense? 
then again, if the scene is sad, then obviously your 1st intuition or thought is... well its going to be in some sort of minor chord and scale and build on that.


----------



## gregh (Sep 25, 2017)

I find with any creative work that I move between intuitive and analytic positions. Analysis tends to be through a theoretical framework, quite possibly implicit. There is quite a bit of research in design about the necessity for taking hard practice in drawing to build skills that can be applied effortlessly - which allows for creative reframing of the problem space. Similar to virtuosic performers thinking about higher order performance issues rather than the " I must put this finger there" that bedevils the novice.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Sep 25, 2017)

JohnG said:


> This is absolute BS. One of the few ways to keep a score coherent is to write something intuitive and then apply theory to it in order to inform your choices later in the score. I'm not talking about slavishly adhering to a narrow idea or set of ideas, but that it pays to know, from a sound, theoretical point of view, what you've done so far.
> 
> I'm not talking about augmented 6ths or something like that.
> 
> People who try to write purely through intuition are going to have a challenge producing (at least with only one composer) 60-70 minutes of orchestral music to picture in three or four weeks. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's needlessly harder.




JohnG hits the point here for me. I am retired from media writing now (early retirement, I'm not an older ****er yet) but I absolutely agree with and have experience of, what John says about going on instinct for a long stretch of time - you are going to have to be inspired, lucky and work incredibly hard to achieve a coherent score in a short amount of time. I too think it can and often is, done, but life can be so much easier if you have technique that gives you the ability to see and weave thematic material into different psychological states - it just gives you starting options if nothing else, and takes away (some of) the insecurity of what comes next. That is not to say that the 's**t how long have I got left' hands down approach does not work because sometimes the panic comes up with some remarkable moments, but all in all a musical intellect that can calculate effect whilst also giving the more shall we say 'inspired' moments their place is going to be more effective in my opinion. Of course it is all subject to change once the director hears it and all the best laid plans will probably get wasted, but it is a good place to start composing - one reinforced with a theoretical foundation.


----------



## Rohann (Sep 25, 2017)

I think I should have named this thread something else, as I didn't want to get into a "is theory important" debate. I personally believe theory is a multi-fold concept:
-knowledge of abstract principles (i.e. structure, notation, scales, etc)
-knowledge of convention and "rules"
-codification for the purpose of analysis and communication

I really do believe everyone learns it, some understanding it declaratively and others intuitively (I know people that don't know formal theory who can improvise on guitar -- there's intuitive knowledge there, without doubt).

What I was mainly wondering was about the importance of theory in one's ability to compose, and where it lands in the hierarchy of learning.
I do think some people compose better intuitively, and others in a more "formalized" manner, if self-reporting is any indication. It seems like it depends how it was learned -- Mike obviously knows his stuff but has played and written music from a young age.
What I have personally found is that _no _theory means I often get stuck, or wonder what a composer/songwriter was doing without any real idea of how to understand it. It was frustrating, and I found myself meandering and noodling a lot to no avail.
What I found _with _theory is that trying to write a song with theory _only_ (I'm talking simple melody with the litmus test of "do I like this") made for something annoyingly predictable, and disconnected me from the process.

Positively, it's a fantastic skill to help you get out of corners, or how to understand how to get "that" particular sound. I know what a major 7th chord "feels" like, what a minor add 9 "feels" like, etc now, and have an idea of what certain modulations will sound like, etc. Overall it's been quite useful.

I do see what Mike was saying though, in that learning theory before simply learning songs or writing simple ideas doesn't really help, and relying on it as one's main composition tool seems short-sighted. It's a tool, and a useful one, but theory does not equate a capable composer or a creative mind. They're linked, to be sure, and the extremes of mutual exclusivity and marriage don't really seem to apply, at least for where my understanding is currently at.

It really does seem like experience, repertoire, instrument skill, etc are the foundations of the craft, though, and I find as I transcribe more, study structure and other components more, write more, etc, all the tools in my metaphorical toolbag become a hell of a lot more useful.

I do appreciate all the replies and input so far, and I've certainly come away from the extremes of the theory-phobic world that some guitar players tend towards and the theory-obsessed world that others come from, I think to positive effect (that remains to be seen in the long term).



Phryq said:


> As a teenager I went through a strange avant-guard phase. I wanted to develop my own voice, and believed any music I heard would 'taint' my voice, making me sound more like something else. I tried to actively forget everything I knew and stopped listening to music altogether. The result was total $5!#&.


Whenever I'm feeling completely dry and out of ideas I know it's because I haven't been exploring music enough. I really do think input and output are inextricably linked -- the most creatively interesting musicians/composers I'm a fan of tend to listen to a ridiculous amount of music. My biggest musical influence has a legendary vinyl collection of thousands if not tens of thousands of records _that he's actually listened to_. I completely get where you're coming from though; I think I was talked out of this mentality (or rather, watched interviews that changed my mind) and realized the opposite tends to be the case -- listen to and learn a _lot _of music.


----------



## Rohann (Sep 25, 2017)

Re: musical skill vs. compositional skill. How do you guys balance these? I want to be good on my instrument(s), but I find myself torn between practice and writing. Writing is more fulfilling, and is what I want to do primarily, but my lack of ability to play what I want and do so quickly is limiting as well. I've more or less concluded that I likely won't be considered a virtuoso at any point in time, but I'd like to be competent. My problem is that I started on guitar and don't really want to lose that, but I don't find maintenance to take more than about 30-40min of quality playtime per day. Fitting in piano practice, transcription, and writing into a day as well is tricky sometimes.


----------



## Saxer (Sep 25, 2017)

In every creative process you have to divide your mind into split personalities.

- At first you have to be the playing child.
- Then you have to be the adult who watches the process and sorts and structures things.
- And you have to be an independent listener who just want to get emotional input.

It's very important that these personalities support each other. The adult isn't there to regiment the child but to put the results of the child into the right place. And the adult can give different ways to think. The listener just wants to be entertained and gives feedback on the results.

The adult part of this trio is the only one who knows about theory. If the listener says: I want some tickeling fun part there and the child plays some try and error 'meh' parts everybody gets tired. If the adult comes in and offers some strategies like "have you already tried chromatic approach on some high staccato woodwinds?" the child got some new toys to play with and all can have fun again.

If the adult wants to control the situation and starts the day with: "listen kid, today we are avoiding parallel fifth and make some clean and correct counterpoint" there will be no fun and it will block the output instead of pushing it.

This situation is something all the theory avoiders are afraid of. But you are all of the split personalities yourself. You should have the control. If the child plays randomly or already known things and the listener is happy you can send the adult to have some beer. But if you're stuck you can always call him back for help or to clean the room.


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 26, 2017)

douggibson said:


> Ahh.... so it's your video. That's cool. I respect that. I know that not easy to do.
> 
> I only watch the 60 seconds JJP mentioned, and I have to say I firmly agree with JJP. There are too many assumptions in your video.
> 
> ...



Its not my video, and I dont necessarily agree with everything he says either. 

Im sorry, but your post really demonstrates that you've missed the point I made (either that, or I'm not following your arguments here), which is essentially this: If you dont practice composition early on, it becomes incredibly difficult to do in later years.


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 26, 2017)

douggibson said:


> One other point..... your argument about "Theory" is purely within a classical / conservatory setting. What about jazz "theory" that teaches - or aims to- improvisation as it's foundation. You could make a very good case for the need to include improvisation within classical theory classes. There are some schools that still do so.
> 
> If someone goes to a class and learns a 12 bar blues on the piano and the blues scale (AKA theory), then is asked to do a basic improv to apply those concepts, it's hard for me to see how your argument holds up.
> 
> It seems to me you are actually offering a critique of conservatory pedagogy and not Theory.



Apparently, you missed what I wrote in one of my posts.


----------



## ZenFaced (Sep 26, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Phryq,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed. Theory is good for analysis. I never found it useful when writing - When it comes to creating music I don't want to feel bound by rules. But for those who have the unique ability to compose with pencil and paper away from the keyboard I could see how theory comes in handy.


----------



## Kyle Preston (Sep 26, 2017)

douggibson said:


> Thelonious Monk released his first album at 39. Brahms wrote his 1st symphony at 40.



Thelonious Monk began learning piano at the age of 6 and Brahms was already playing cello and violin before he began learning piano at age 7.

Which doesn't support the point you're trying to make but does support Mike's. Understanding any language grows in difficulty as our brains age. Even more difficult if you don't have those fundamentals. Anything is possible, there are always exceptions (and I will listen and support). But Brahms started with a solid foundation. Thelonuius Monk developed his own foundation to build from and toured plenty in his teens. 

John has made great points about theory in this thread. To summarize and (hopefully) correlate his point to Mike's: 

Knowing how to cook doesn't make someone a chef. But a chef is better for learning how to cook.

No more analogies from me. I just love chefs and the food they make .


----------



## mikeh-375 (Sep 26, 2017)

ZenFaced,

Forgive me but I have to seriously take issue with your misconception here. None of what you say makes sense - are you suggesting that music with pen and paper away from a keyboard is different in some way and only written with theory!! Is theory to be condemned to something used by composers who can use their imagination and write it down. Or are you trying to say that those of us who can write away from a keyboard have to rely on theory because we don't use a DAW or loops?- what do you mean?
If you have never found theory useful for writing, then you haven't studied enough to learn its power. I apologise for coming on strong here, but a glib post like yours is a misconception too far for me to not respond, so please take this as a beg to differ in the strongest terms post, rather than an ad hominem hatchet job.

I can respect that from a certain perspective that comes from computer based production that theory might well be a pain in the ass, but even folks on that side of music creation could benefit from some theory. I find it incredulous that I have to defend the artifice of writing music to composers.
Theory is often misunderstood and I have always tried to defend it in a doubtless very boring way, but I am passionate about what it can do for a composer if they are of the right mind. It is not a straight jacket it is the key to the great big door that opens a vast expanse of possibility. It does not restrict you it frees you and gives you options.

Mr Z. this is just a tirade from a composer who managed to do reasonably well and retire early and is now writing music that almost no-one wants to hear, but don't let that fool you into thinking theory is bad and limiting - it aint, but to get to that conclusion takes years of study and experience - or a smart mind.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 26, 2017)

Rohann said:


> Re: musical skill vs. compositional skill. How do you guys balance these?



Easy. By sucking at both.


----------



## Replicant (Sep 26, 2017)

It never ceases to amaze me; the justification musicians try to find for _not_ knowing more about music and how it works.


----------



## jononotbono (Sep 26, 2017)

Just found out about these so I bought them. Maybe someone else might find them useful...

https://www.udemy.com/music-theory-complete/


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 26, 2017)

jononotbono said:


> Just found out about these so I bought them. Maybe someone else might find them useful...
> 
> https://www.udemy.com/music-theory-complete/


No brainer for that price!


----------



## ZenFaced (Sep 26, 2017)

mikeh-375 said:


> ZenFaced,
> 
> Forgive me but I have to seriously take issue with your misconception here. None of what you say makes sense - are you suggesting that music with pen and paper away from a keyboard is different in some way and only written with theory!! Is theory to be condemned to something used by composers who can use their imagination and write it down. Or are you trying to say that those of us who can write away from a keyboard have to rely on theory because we don't use a DAW or loops?- what do you mean?
> If you have never found theory useful for writing, then you haven't studied enough to learn its power. I apologise for coming on strong here, but a glib post like yours is a misconception too far for me to not respond, so please take this as a beg to differ in the strongest terms post, rather than an ad hominem hatchet job.
> ...



I have undergraduate degree in music theory so take my opinion for what it's worth. I never suggested theory should be condemned nor did I suggest that those who write away from keyboard have to rely on it. You are over analyzing my comment. I just never cared for it except when analyzing of other's work then its interesting. My simple philosophy when writing music is if it sounds good who gives crap about theory? You would be amazed that there are a lot of successful artists that create good music that don't even read music LOL and I'm not talking about loops and shit. LOL

So chilllll mannnn! It's cool


----------



## ZenFaced (Sep 26, 2017)

Information vs exploration. Some people like to rely on information when writing music. It's comforting. I like the the exploration. It leads me to discover something that invokes a certain kind of response, emotion. That's all I need when I'm writing music. That's all I care about. I don't care how good your theory is, if the music doesn't strike some kind of emotion, dare I say it, but then it's not art, it's not music.


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 26, 2017)

ZenFaced said:


> Information vs exploration. Some people like to rely on information when writing music. It's comforting. I like the the exploration. It leads me to discover something that invokes a certain kind of response, emotion. That's all I need when I'm writing music. That's all I care about. I don't care how good your theory is, if the music doesn't strike some kind of emotion, dare I say it, but then it's not art, it's not music.



This just might be the best post in this entire thread.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 26, 2017)

douggibson said:


> If someone wanted to learn music and begin at age 40, practiced 2 hours a day - everyday- for 15 years they would reach an advanced or expert level. Certainly high enough for a Masters Degree in music.



I'm not sure. Some people would, but I think the foundations have to be built in childhood.

That's not an "it's too late" attitude, it's a matter of brain development.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 26, 2017)

mikefox789 said:


> This just might be the best post in this entire thread.



Not to me, not at all. It makes me grumpy as a matter of fact!

Good musicians don't separate "information and exploration." They're completely intertwined, along with the vocabulary you build up and your technique.

A lot of people - only people who haven't studied - seem to be missing what "theory" is *not.*

It's not a bunch of stifling rules that must be followed, it's not a substitute for creativity, it's not a path to sounding derivative (although most people have to go through that before finding their own voice). On the contrary, it broadens your horizon to know what you're hearing.

I can't put my finger on what it is that's so frustrating about this thread, but as I said early on: nobody who's studied anything - not just theory - regrets having done so. Really, I'd like to go back through Berklee knowing what I know now!


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 26, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Not to me, not at all. It makes me grumpy as a matter of fact!
> 
> Good musicians don't separate "information and exploration." They're completely intertwined, along with the vocabulary you build up and your technique.
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone in this thread is even saying those negative things about theory that you mentioned. Good musicians do combine exploration and information, but theres plenty of good musicians who only incorporate one or the other, and sometimes its deliberate. Theres nothing wrong with that. I do find it odd that musicians who are perfectly happy without deliberately applying theory when composing make you grumpy and frustrated. What's up with that? Music is art, and should be expressed in any shape or form.


----------



## ZenFaced (Sep 26, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Not to me, not at all. It makes me grumpy as a matter of fact!
> 
> Good musicians don't separate "information and exploration." They're completely intertwined, along with the vocabulary you build up and your technique.
> 
> ...



Nick I did study music theory a while back but I did not enjoy it. It's like math and didn't seem to make me a better writer at the end of the day.

Once I start analyzing (left brain) it interrupts my creative flow (right brain). That's where I like to be when creating. Kinda like a state of "Zen". I don't want to be thinking about circle of 5ths and Dorian scales, and inverted 9ths, etc. when I'm writing.

A musician came up to me after listening to something I recently wrote and asked me, "Hey Steve, that was an incredible chord progression leading up to the Chorus. I would have never thought of using Gsus2add4 there. What made you think of using that?" And I'm like, "Is that what it was?"

Theory has its place for sure. Heck maybe when I'm dead someone will discover something I wrote, and for lack of something better to do, analyze the shit out of it wondering what my music theory state of my mind was for that piece and would be surprised to find out that it was nothing more than "my ears!" LOL

Anyway, I'm sure whatever theory I learned in "school" is intertwined with my writing, good or bad. But I just don't approach writing that way. But I'm no Jacob Collier either. But I think even he did not study theory until later on.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 26, 2017)

ZenFaced said:


> if the music doesn't strike some kind of emotion, dare I say it, but then it's not art, it's not music.



Rubbish. There is plenty of music, including a good bit of devotional (religious) music, that is not intended to evoke an emotional response. 

In fact, I think film music these days often does well when it avoids being anything except "just" music -- not "sad," "happy," "cheerful," "wistful." None of the above.


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 26, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Rubbish. There is plenty of music, including a good bit of devotional (religious) music, that is not intended to evoke an emotional response.
> 
> In fact, I think film music these days often does well when it avoids being anything except "just" music -- not "sad," "happy," "cheerful," "wistful." None of the above.



His post makes a lot more sense If you dont take it at face value.


----------



## Rohann (Sep 26, 2017)

douggibson said:


> Ha !! I answered this in detail on the Redbanned forum. Yeah man...... you worry about this waaaaay too much. Here is a rule for you: Every time you begin to type a long forum post...... stop. Go play your instrument.


I appreciated your response, but (respectfully) it didn't fully answer my question regarding practice, knowing what to practice, etc. I think the strategy of setting that sort of future goal is immensely helpful compositionally, but knowing where to spend my time in regard to becoming better at instruments in order to become better at composition is more obscure (to me at least). I'm not sure if simply getting a teacher is the best bet here, it may well be.
Haha, pretty good advice, but again how much and what are equally important considerations. I can sit down and practice arpeggios all day, or simply learn to play difficult pieces, but I'm not sure what will be most productive as a composer.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> Not to me, not at all. It makes me grumpy as a matter of fact!
> 
> Good musicians don't separate "information and exploration." They're completely intertwined, along with the vocabulary you build up and your technique.
> 
> ...


I know what you mean about the feeling of frustration -- this sort of debate isn't what I intended, it was more to boil down the application of what Mike (Verta) was saying in regard to "order of operations".

I think the frustration arises from the fact that it seems to be largely a problem of intention and perception, rather than an objective one. Approaches to writing are different, based on temperament, background, training, etc. In many ways they're the same, but even how we perceive our personal process varies, or so I conclude at least.
We could have a discussion for hours about whether or not a hammer is a good or bad thing and not really go anywhere -- there's no sound argument for why it would be a bad thing, only what it is and isn't good for. Even then you could find creative ways to apply it which wouldn't be objectively "bad" or "wrong" in terms of its intended purpose.


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 26, 2017)

Rohann said:


> I think the frustration arises from the fact that it seems to be largely a problem of intention and perception, rather than an objective one. Approaches to writing are different, based on temperament, background, training, etc. In many ways they're the same, but even how we perceive our personal process varies, or so I conclude at least.
> We could have a discussion for hours about whether or not a hammer is a good or bad thing and not really go anywhere -- there's no sound argument for why it would be a bad thing, only what it is and isn't good for. Even then you could find creative ways to apply it which wouldn't be objectively "bad" or "wrong" in terms of its intended purpose.


Well said. I think I've contributed too many posts that have helped derail this thread from your original purpose. My apoligies. With that said, I think I will bow out and bid everyone a good night. No hard feelings to anyone I hope.


----------



## Rohann (Sep 26, 2017)

mikefox789 said:


> Well said. I think I've contributed too many posts that have helped derail this thread from your original purpose. My apoligies. With that said, I think I will bow out and bid everyone a good night. No hard feelings to anyone I hope.


Certainly not! No need getting bent out of shape because of a forum post now .


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 26, 2017)

mikefox789 said:


> I don't think anyone in this thread is even saying those negative things about theory that you mentioned



I think some people in this thread are absolutely saying that!


----------



## ZenFaced (Sep 26, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Rubbish. There is plenty of music, including a good bit of devotional (religious) music, that is not intended to evoke an emotional response.
> 
> In fact, I think film music these days often does well when it avoids being anything except "just" music -- not "sad," "happy," "cheerful," "wistful." None of the above.



Just because the colorful wallpaper I made ehances the look of a room doesn't mean it's art. But that is a topic for another thread.


----------



## Replicant (Sep 26, 2017)

ZenFaced said:


> Just because the colorful wallpaper I made ehances the look of a room doesn't mean it's art. But that is a topic for another thread.



and this is the heart of all anti-theory arguments, IMO.

"Art" as defined by an elitist perspective rather than the literal one. "Art" is "the expression or application of human creative skill or imagination", as such, a wide variety of things can satisfy that definition. All this is, is the classic hipster handwave to dismiss anything that isn't to their personal taste (which they consider to be the highest regard) as invalid. It's literally the "no true scotsman" fallacy, just applied to things instead of people.

The reason that people are, in any way, anti-theory for composition (in my experience), is because it shatters the illusion of creative genius and/or because it requires work to learn it. It seems as if by magic that you came up with that cool guitar riff or catchy melody line and you find yourself in awe of the "genius" of your favorite musicians when you don't know what you're doing. 

Finding out that the melody was limited to some logic of scales, modes, structure, contour etc. and that there was a logical reason for choosing the chords they did or how they got 4 completely different melodies to work together perfectly shatters the illusion of the music "coming from the soul" or whatever. Truth is, if it "sounds good" or "like X" to you, there is a logical reason why.

I believe I've read Vangelis saying that he feels music is more science than art. I agree; music is just the manipulation of the physics of sound and psychoacoustics. Creating the kind of music you like to listen to or are trying to create is not a subjective thing like "art" — the art is the decisions you make to make the style and piece sound uniquely yours.


----------



## Rohann (Sep 27, 2017)

Replicant said:


> and this is the heart of all anti-theory arguments, IMO.
> 
> "Art" as defined by an elitist perspective rather than the literal one. "Art" is "the expression or application of human creative skill or imagination", as such, a wide variety of things can satisfy that definition. All this is, is the classic hipster handwave to dismiss anything that isn't to their personal taste (which they consider to be the highest regard) as invalid. It's literally the "no true scotsman" fallacy, just applied to things instead of people.


I think you might be presenting this side a little pedantically -- I can't speak for ZenFaced but it's really no secret that aside from the "is it art" debate, the thing that _actually _matters is the "is it good art?" question. Subjectivity abounds, of course -- like what you like. But it's extremely widely agreed upon that there are objective qualities by which to appraise art in a general sense, and an egalitarian approach to art usually comes across as dishonest, or simply blind.



> The reason that people are, in any way, anti-theory for composition (in my experience), is because it shatters the illusion of creative genius and/or because it requires work to learn it. It seems as if by magic that you came up with that cool guitar riff or catchy melody line and you find yourself in awe of the "genius" of your favorite musicians when you don't know what you're doing.
> 
> Finding out that the melody was limited to some logic of scales, modes, structure, contour etc. and that there was a logical reason for choosing the chords they did or how they got 4 completely different melodies to work together perfectly shatters the illusion of the music "coming from the soul" or whatever. Truth is, if it "sounds good" or "like X" to you, there is a logical reason why.


In regard to my OP, Mike isn't "anti-theory" for those reasons -- he's "learn theory down the road" because he's seen beginners learn a boat load of theory and then think they're able to write something worth listening to, which most often isn't the case.

Of course there is structure in which we operate, but to pretend that music is some sort of _purely_ mathematical and logical exercise is missing the mark as much as thinking it's magic. The "shattering of the illusion of music coming from the soul" comes from conflating structure with intent.



> I believe I've read Vangelis saying that he feels music is more science than art. I agree; music is just the manipulation of the physics of sound and psychoacoustics.


You can apply a hyper-reductionist approach to just about anything in this manner, but it vastly oversimplifies why and how we engage in music. I don't think it's a very meaningful approach in this context, personally.



> Creating the kind of music you like to listen to or are trying to create is not a subjective thing like "art" — the art is the decisions you make to make the style and piece sound uniquely yours.


I'm not sure how these two things are different (creating music vs. making the decisions about how to create your music), but you could apply the same "more science than art" line of thinking to any artistic endeavour by reducing it to constituent parts. I.e. "painting is just the manipulation of colours and shapes in liquid form on a two dimensional medium", or "sculpting is simply the physical reduction of an object into a different object, usually one that we recognize", etc. All of these art forms, including music, require technical training and tend to be benefited by theory, but also require taste, experience that leads to intuitive choices, exploration of the previously inexperienced, etc, to be anything other than fitting the generic (and meaningless) definition of art.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Sep 27, 2017)

All chilled Zenface ..sorry, but I get too upset when I see the opportunity for people not to learn their craft go by because it is those very people who may well be missing out on what their full potential can be.

There really does seem to be a misunderstanding about how theory works hand in hand with creativity and expression. At the end of the day my ears and aesthetic proclivities have the final say irrespective of theory. Theory or shall we just call it technique - compositional technique that is, not your basic music education theory, is a means to an end - that end is always determined on principles unknown to us all but we all feel it when it happens and go with it. Compositional technique gives us tools to hunt out those gems and those moments that are hidden within a riff or a theme or a chord - that's all it is, a search tool, the results of which are arbitered by your instinct, which has been honed by study and experience. Technique will then allow you to dress it up for presentation in its best light.
Now, tell me who would not want to have the ability to see options almost immediately when you stumble on what Stravinsky called the 'lucky find'. That is how powerful the synergy between heart and intellect can be......honestly.


----------



## Mike Fox (Sep 27, 2017)

douggibson said:


> You know.... I just thought of something. You DON'T have to reply. I get that we have been reliving the famous "Cool Hand Luke" scene in this thread.... so I may not be any use to you anyway.
> 
> I just recalled: Wasn't it about 9 months ago you posted that you were thinking of taking your first piano lessons and wanted to know if it would help with the orchestration. I had the impression you never had piano lessons before that, (could be wrong) and I think (could be wrong) I advised at the time in finding a jazz based instructor as it is common to find the "Abused Child" personality in classical piano teachers. Not all of course. I have gone through this..... it can really suck actually. In my case the teacher had a DMA in performance from Juilliard and could play the hell out the piano. The lessons were miserable....awful. It was just due to the stresses and demands of what they have devoted themselves to. They were trained to play a Rachmaninoff concerto (or fill in any other really hard piece) in front of an audience, usually by memory.... and god forbid a mistake. The fear of "mistakes" can indeed really hinder musicians in other areas.
> 
> ...



Good memory! I made that thread a while back, and was asking If piano lessons would help with orchestration/composition. I took lessons from two different insructors ( both classically trained) a couple of years prior to that thread, and it didnt help at all with composition. I was thinking about taking lessons again, but was hesitant, so I wanted to see what people on here recommended. To be fair, I ended up moving, so who knows where those lessons would have taken me? Your advice is really helpful though! I think I will try to find a jazz pianist for lessons. Ive been really busy composing music for the haunted attraction industry, but I still plan on picking up piano lessons since I'm not the greatest. If I could trade my guitar skills for piano skills, I would in a heartbeat, lol!


----------



## mikeh-375 (Sep 27, 2017)

Doug,
It is very refreshing to hear music that does not compromise here. Just out of curiosity, why do you not like this piece and are you still writing with this language if you don't mind me asking. (I mean the cello and piano piece)


----------



## Kyle Preston (Sep 27, 2017)

Doug,

Didn't you lecture Rohann about writing long forum posts?



> I really think it is "social" factors that hinder adult learning easily as much as any brain function.



Then you have a limited understanding of Neuroscience and need to read more current science lit.

Also, you're framing musical understanding in terms of receiving a music degree. Which is fine if that's what you want. But that doesn't make you an artist or composer earning a living. It also doesn't apply to autodidacts.



> Any fool should know reading a book on theory will not make you a genius. I have never seen a theory saying it would. Why is this even mentioned ?



I imagine this would be your response to that. Which misses my point. Being a chef doesn't make you a genius. It makes you a chef. Why is _genius _even mentioned?



> A 5 year student would never say "Knowing how to cook doesn't make someone a chef. But a chef is better for learning how to cook." They just fucking do it.



Neat. Not everyone in this thread is a 5 year music student. If you want that, I'm sure there are posher options. Attempting to explain a creative process does no disservice to "Just fucking doing it". If you want to get better at "just fucking doing it", learn more theory. Just don't hide behind it.


----------



## Publius (Sep 27, 2017)

mikefox789 said:


> Good memory! I made that thread a while back, and was asking If piano lessons would help with orchestration/composition...If I could trade my guitar skills for piano skills, I would in a heartbeat, lol!



My thought here was that I could not meaningfully study theory if I didn't have some level of piano skill. Theory books have lots of examples of written music, and one needs to be able to play them in order to connect the theory with the sound. I may have been able to master classic guitar enough to do these things, but there are some limitations on what sort of chord voicings are possible on a guitar, and when it came to preparing music on a computer, the keyboard is the most accessible and functional instrument. Perhaps there is some sort of midi guitar, but I don't know.

I also wanted to be able to visualize the range of notes in a linear fashion, I felt it would open my mind.

I play bass as well as guitar, and I recall a video where a very talented jazz bass player is discussing how to play the stand up bass--his name escapes me. He is explaining how the walking bassline supports the chord structure and he says "Let me show you what I mean" then he walks to another part of the stage and plays the bass and chords on piano. So I started thinking about piano as sort of the foundational tool for any musical aspirations.

Will piano lessons help with composition? Maybe or maybe not in a creative sense, but in my mind, definitely in the sense of mastering some essential tools. Is this the case for you or others? I don't know--I can only speak to what I think I needed to get moving.

Can piano lessons hurt? I find that very hard to believe except in the case of teachers that are critical and take the fun out of learning music (true for many children including my brother). My teacher is a friendly elderly woman (I am 57 years old). When I play a song the way I feel it would sound better, she will re-direct me to how the music is written. Is that discouraging my creativity? If I let it, but if I am there to learn how to read and play music as written, and that is an important skill. I can play my own versions on my own time, or in addition to playing it the 'right' way during the lesson. To learn composing, perhaps that would be another teacher, another approach, but I imagine said composing lessons would be painfully slow if I could neither read nor write music on a staff.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 27, 2017)

ZenFaced said:


> Nick I did study music theory a while back but I did not enjoy it. It's like math and didn't seem to make me a better writer at the end of the day.
> 
> Once I start analyzing (left brain) it interrupts my creative flow (right brain). That's where I like to be when creating. Kinda like a state of "Zen". I don't want to be thinking about circle of 5ths and Dorian scales, and inverted 9ths, etc. when I'm writing.



Right, it doesn't sink in immediately and automatically become second nature so you own it. That's with everything.

Hey, do you like Donald Fagen, Stevie Wonder, Miles Davis, Igor Stravinsky, Jerry Goldsmith, Ludwig von Beethoven, Aaron Copeland, Richard Carpenter, Burt Bacharach, Nelson Riddle, Henry Mancini, Sting, Tom Scott, or Snarky Puppy?

Those are a few examples of musicians who know exactly what they're doing, and I haven't noticed any of them sounding like they've been tripping over their own brains.


----------



## Rohann (Sep 27, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Right, it doesn't sink in immediately and automatically become second nature so you own it. That's with everything.
> 
> Hey, do you like Donald Fagen, Stevie Wonder, Miles Davis, Igor Stravinsky, Jerry Goldsmith, Ludwig von Beethoven, Aaron Copeland, Richard Carpenter, Burt Bacharach, Nelson Riddle, Henry Mancini, Sting, Tom Scott, or Snarky Puppy?
> 
> Those are a few examples of musicians who know exactly what they're doing, and I haven't noticed any of them sounding like they've been tripping over their own brains.


I'll offer some musing from my neuro/psych background as a hypothesis here:
A good many of my favourite musicians _don't_ know music theory declaratively, and they've written a ton of cohesive yet experimental music over the course of their careers, being credited with starting entire new genres.

I think the problem again comes down to accurately defining terms -- what does music "theory" mean, anyway?

While these musicians don't "know" theory, I'm absolutely convinced they understand it intuitively. They might not be able to tell you about secondary dominants, or what scale they're soloing in, but they sure as hell know what a major 7th chord, or minor add 9 chord sounds like. They know what a major and minor 3rd sounds like. They know what a I-IV-V-I sounds like. They can improvise, albeit not like some of the great virtuosos, but enough to write really lovely melodies and solo parts that connect with me emotionally instantly. They know how to justify weird non-functional harmonic choices, and are also magnificent producers.

I really think I do agree with Mike in that music is akin to language learning. To what degree, I'm not sure -- it seems exceptionally so in children. In regard to the aforementioned musicians, they're been playing since a very young age, and as such their career demonstrates that while theory may not hurt what they do, they sure as hell don't need to learn it formally, and don't write with it in an _intentional, analytic _sense, i.e. prescriptively. But they've definitely picked it up from decades of learning pieces, experimenting, and listening to a _ridiculous _amount of music. I think it stems from the neurological principle that "procedural memory does not equate declarative memory" -- just because you can do something, doesn't mean you understand it analytically. Just watch Yngwie try to teach guitar.

I obviously see the value of transcription and learning pieces in that "language immersion" sense. This is by far the best way to learn a new language: be immersed in it and deal with the overwhelming complexity on the fly. I can also see why learning grammar first (i.e. prescriptively) before being immersed in the language can lead one to a false sense of safety -- the failure of many university language classes to teach conversational language demonstrates this clearly. It certainly seems useful, though, as an adult, to learn language structure as one is immersed in the language, or begins to have a decent understanding of it. It quite obviously breaks some of the confines and "hunting and pecking" for expanding ideas, and accelerates the learning process.

I think either way, theory needs to "sink in", as you say, and move from the abstract to the concrete. I think the frustrating difficulty of this conversation (as I verbosely try and fail to articulate in different ways) is that the "intuitive" factor seems really difficult to pinpoint. That elusive "taste" component. You can know a ton of theory and still not know what a good piece _sounds_ like, qualitatively. Doesn't mean it's unimportant, though. Understanding how the system of the piano has made it a lot easier to navigate.



douggibson said:


> Congrats on the professional success ! I wish you the best with the piano learning.
> 
> It's hardest in the beginning.... just like guitar.
> 
> ...



Ooh, I really like that piece. I wonder if she's a Porcupine Tree fan (or perhaps Opeth?). Sounds a bit like the Storm Corrosion record.

Haha Dream Theater is the "gateway drug" into progressive metal. Their old concept albums still have a special place in my heart, but truthfully their guitar writing never did much for me. I found the more structurally and "mood" oriented progressive bands did a lot more for me, and still hit me as hard as when I first heard them. Then again, they're not very noodle-y or..."academically indulgent", technically. They don't do obscure things for the sake of being obscure, they do them only if they sound cool. It's kind of like "guitar music" in disguise -- it sounds great to the average listener (even though they tend to be a slow-burn group of needing to listen to them a few times before "clicking"), but what they do on guitar is really damn fun. I think I'll also always adore '70s rock and metal music and what they influenced more than the late '80s.
They move from heavy to soft quite fluidly, and this kind of acoustic writing still hits me every time. It's a skill I deeply envy and am getting better at, but along with the frontman being an absolutely melody-sniper (incorporating Abba melodies into progressive metal is _absolutely _the way to go), I haven't found anyone else as capable in terms of writing this sort of moody classical "gothic" sound. Maybe I need to listen to more Camel and Nick Drake.



Glad to hear guitar skills aren't useless in composition. I really don't find I can write on guitar the way I do piano, it tends to be much more shape and "experiment around the fretboard" oriented. I think it's simply the nature of open strings and a large range of octaves in a small space. I'm considering guitar teaching as side-income -- is it something you enjoyed?

PS -- No worries about the ribbing, tone is simply hard to read on here sometimes . In terms of creating a goal for instrument skill (over composition) -- perhaps simply getting a teacher is a good enough "risk", in that regard? I mean, you pay for lessons every time so you'd better make use of them.


----------



## Rohann (Sep 27, 2017)

douggibson said:


> _ Just watch Yngwie try to teach guitar. _
> 
> Dear lord I have. The blues part of his old VHS tape is .....


After 10 minutes of watching him "teach" I conclude that his lesson is to play fast by being Yngwie Malmsteen.




> _I think either way, theory needs to "sink in", as you say, and move from the abstract to the concrete. I think the frustrating difficulty of this conversation (as I verbosely try and fail to articulate in different ways) is that the "intuitive" factor seems really difficult to pinpoint. That elusive "taste" component. You can know a ton of theory and still not know what a good piece sounds like, qualitatively. Doesn't mean it's unimportant, though. Understanding how the system of the piano has made it a lot easier to navigate._
> 
> I agree. Piano has been wonderful for me. Over time I just started to think about it all - theory, instrumental, orchestration etc.... - as a snow ball going down a mountain. I do think the things that worked for me, and those things I found un-interesting fell off. My practice is intentionally more mixed in post conservatory life.


Great way to put it. No need getting hung up on one aspect -- if you're not moving downhill (in the snowballing sense), change things.




> _Haha Dream Theater is the "gateway drug" into progressive metal. _
> 
> I have spoken with the guitarist and keyboard player a few times. Really nice ! They have chops galore,.... and more power to them..... just not my thing.


Oh absolutely. He's highly respected in the progressive world and an absolute ace of a keyboardist. That said, many people who respect him aren't massive fans of DT either.




> _I'm considering guitar teaching as side-income -- is it something you enjoyed?
> _
> I did yes. I worked at a store so when people bought a guitar the up-sale option was there.
> Basically the only ones I dreaded were the kids who did not really want to take lessons. You'll find out, a number of parents want a) educational activities for the kids.....b) 30 - 60 minutes alone away from them. When B takes over A... that kinda sucks.... but you can get paid to transcribe !
> ...


Great points and glad to hear that. Few things worse than a student who doesn't want to learn.



> Just ribbing you as I am still waiting for a transcription from you if I recall correctly


https://redbanned.com/threads/transcription-requests.77/page-2#post-1526

This one's been sitting unattended to for a while ! Working on a few others. Was transcribing by hand but my lizard-brain-laziness was being put off by transcribing more densely orchestrated pieces, and as such I've converted back to keyboard shortcuts in Musescore again.


----------



## Publius (Sep 27, 2017)

douggibson said:


> Is that your real photo ? You look pretty tough, so I am sure you can kick most 57 year ladies asses...



That is the character Randy from a tv comedy, Trailer Park Boys. In one episode somebody got mad at him and shaved his head. Then, as part of the apology and making amends, they drew hair back on his head with magic marker and told him it looked really great--and he believed it. Might be time for me to look for a new avatar as if they are too realistic, people do wonder if its an actual photo of the poster.

I much appreciate the discussion here. My own musical goals are quite attainable for me as they are modest and do not include any expectation of being a paid composer or orchestrator. What I am shooting for is to have some fun with pop songs and orchestration thereof--playing around with arrangements.

I have a passion for music and want to be able to have a fun hobby if social security in the USA does not go bankrupt, and I am able to retire in 8-10 years. Your discussion about 'Bob the accountant ' is way off base for me as I am a database administrator.  Seriously, a very interesting explanation of a professional level music education.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 27, 2017)

Rohann said:


> I can also see why learning grammar first (i.e. prescriptively) before being immersed in the language can lead one to a false sense of safety -- the failure of many university language classes to teach conversational language demonstrates this clearly. It certainly seems useful, though, as an adult, to learn language structure as one is immersed in the language, or begins to have a decent understanding of it. It quite obviously breaks some of the confines and "hunting and pecking" for expanding ideas, and accelerates the learning process.



Grammar is the perfect analogy, but actually I have strong feelings about that! Sorry for the tangent... okay, sort of. 

I've long believed that the reason so many people in the US can't write a coherent sentence is exactly because they teach how to diagram sentences in English class! In England they teach you how to write well.

I'm a professional writer and editor, I'm kinda in control of grammar to the point that I could tell you when I'm breaking a rule (if you asked)... but I couldn't diagram a sentence beyond telling you the subject and object. It always irritated me when the teacher wanted to slow me down with such stupid bullshit.

So when you talk about intuitive musicians, well, I agree. Also, I think it's safe to say that Stevie Wonder knows his chord scales!

Anyway, to quote someone's grandmother: THE EARS COME FIRST.


----------



## Publius (Sep 27, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> ...I've long believed that the reason so many people in the US can't write a coherent sentence is exactly because they teach how to diagram sentences in English class! In England they teach you how to write well...



At the Pilgrims’ Dinner in London, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Baldwin, remarked that “the fact that we speak a common language” is really sometimes a hindrance to good relations between Great Britain and America. He may have been vaguely recalling what *Bernard Shaw* once said, that the use of a common language merely enabled England and America to understand the “insults” offered by the representatives of one to those of the other. (From the interweb--I was going to use the 'divided by a common language' quote but I liked this one better...  )


----------



## Kyle Preston (Sep 27, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Good musicians don't separate "information and exploration." They're completely intertwined, along with the vocabulary you build up and your technique.



These are probably my favorite sentences in this thread.


----------



## Rohann (Sep 27, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Grammar is the perfect analogy, but actually I have strong feelings about that! Sorry for the tangent... okay, sort of.
> 
> I've long believed that the reason so many people in the US can't write a coherent sentence is exactly because they teach how to diagram sentences in English class! In England they teach you how to write well.
> 
> ...


Interesting! I'm not sure I encountered that in my Canadian education, but I've marveled at the ability of, say, the articulation of a Swedish or Norwegian English speaker who happens to be fluent versus the everyday English speakers I encounter on a regular basis. I'm baffled at how grammatically (and basically linguistically) incompetent many native English speakers are. I'm not sure if this relates to what you're referring to, but it seems as though simply reading and studying a lot of good writing (though the tools used to study it broadly are quite helpful, and bingo -- the relation to theory) tends to improve language.


----------



## ZenFaced (Sep 27, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Right, it doesn't sink in immediately and automatically become second nature so you own it. That's with everything.
> 
> Hey, do you like Donald Fagen, Stevie Wonder, Miles Davis, Igor Stravinsky, Jerry Goldsmith, Ludwig von Beethoven, Aaron Copeland, Richard Carpenter, Burt Bacharach, Nelson Riddle, Henry Mancini, Sting, Tom Scott, or Snarky Puppy?
> 
> Those are a few examples of musicians who know exactly what they're doing, and I haven't noticed any of them sounding like they've been tripping over their own brains.



You spit out a lot of names there Nick but are you sure about each one? Did you know that Miles Davis was actually enrolled in Juilliard to learn music theory but then he dropped out because he felt it was limiting his creativity? I could go ahead and name a bunch of other artists as well, perhaps Jimi Hendrix, Paul McCartney, Neil Young, how about Michael Jackson just to name a few. Some believe Mozart as well. These are just off the tip of my tongue. 

It seems you think that unless someone has a formal training in music theory they are limiting their potential to be great artists, composers and musicians? Maybe maybe not. But Holy Moly Musical Guacamole, it is kinda weird why you are feely grumpy over all this. Kinda like someone hit a nerve.

Bottom line is, I don't need theory to advise me which notes sound good or not good in something I'm writing. If you don't have an instinctive sense of rhythm and good "ears" no amount of theory will help you. And that's the truth.

BTW - who are you to even judge how my brain works when writing music? Geez.


----------



## Rohann (Sep 27, 2017)

I will say this: one area where it seems non-negotiable to learn theory is for a composer wanting to work with orchestra or live players. You don't have to get overly technical, but not being able to speak the language seems awfully limiting in a setting where wasted time is rather expensive.


----------



## ZenFaced (Sep 27, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Good musicians don't separate "information and exploration." They're completely intertwined, along with the vocabulary you build up and your technique.



You're right but great musicians do. If you don't want to sound like everyone else then sometimes the hardest thing for a musician to do is separate information from exploration. And it's not easy. And it's also not for the faint of heart.


----------



## jononotbono (Sep 27, 2017)

Rohann said:


> I will say this: one area where it seems non-negotiable to learn theory is for a composer wanting to work with orchestra or live players. You don't have to get overly technical, but not being able to speak the language seems awfully limiting in a setting where wasted time is rather expensive.



Definitely one of the reasons I have been endeavouring to learn Music Theory.


----------



## Publius (Sep 27, 2017)

douggibson said:


> ...Man, what the hell has happened to this place ? It's a fucking sanatarium now.
> 
> Some of these comments are just straight up bat shit crazy.



"...But what's really sad is, it never got weird enough for me..."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 27, 2017)

Hans Zimmer posted an interesting quote here a while ago:

"My style is determined by my limitations."


----------



## ZenFaced (Sep 27, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Hans Zimmer posted an interesting quote here a while ago:
> 
> "My style is determined by my limitations."



How funny you would quote the man who also said lack of formal musical education was good for him because he wasn't constrained by convention and able to come up with novel ideas that other composers wouldn't consider. Oh the irony. LOL


----------



## gennadij (Sep 28, 2017)

Just read this thread, few thoughts:

I don't think it's possible to play well, without knowing theory. 

Old-timer frailing banjo in the Appalachian porch, surely knows his stuff if he is any good. He knows how any note is gonna sound against the tonic. He knows dominant, subdominant, relative minor,some substitute chords. He knows couple of tunings, some of them leads to modal playing. He feels the different between temperament and JI. 

Of course everything is in his context. But thinking that someone who has no formal education and can't read notes, doesn't know theory, is misunderstanding. Think about Charlie Christian.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 28, 2017)

ZenFaced said:


> Sorry for shitposting in this thread. Does anyone have any Gasex?



No problem, you're forgiven.


----------



## gtrwll (Sep 28, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> No problem, you're forgiven.



Is this to be taken as an example of good moderation?

ZenFaced has had some good points, as have many others on both sides of the debate. Surely there's no need to sink down to this level even if you don't agree with someone?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 28, 2017)

gtrwll said:


> I have zero sense of humor.



No problem, you're forgiven.


----------



## gtrwll (Sep 28, 2017)

Sorry, but reading through this thread, that doesn't really come through as humour, but as a lack of argumentation and trying to get the last word by putting someone down with a "funny" made up quotation.

But yeah, zero sense of humour can also explain it if that's what suits you.


----------



## Seiklos (Sep 28, 2017)

"I've had multiple piano teachers tell me that they simply cannot write and never have any music floating in their head. They've played their entire lives, yet they have never written a simple melody."

I don't want to come across as a jerk or anything but, to go from saying the above, to saying this:

"They let learning by the book get in the way of their creative skills."

Is a pretty radical jump to conclusions. I mean wouldn't it be kind of absurd if I made the following judgement: I have been to the moon and you haven't? You've looked at the sky your entire life, yet you have never been in outer space. You let all this music playing get in the way of your astronomical skills.

Some people don't want to compose, some people don't want to teach music, and some people even don't want to star in adult films...nobody is great at everything and it doesn't make anyone less of a person, creative or otherwise.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 28, 2017)

gtrwll, I'm much better at amusing myself than you are at amusing me.


----------

