# Daniel james live on twitch now with an important topic!



## MarcelM (Jun 8, 2019)

is music theory essential for the modern music composer?

come and join. we have some kind of talkshow running...


----------



## RogiervG (Jun 8, 2019)

Link?


----------



## MarcelM (Jun 8, 2019)

RogiervG said:


> Link?


----------



## Michael Stibor (Jun 8, 2019)

But I can answer that right now.

Yes. Yes it is.


----------



## Daniel James (Jun 8, 2019)

Haha it was a fun topic for sure. I tend to play devils advocate on things like this XD

Here is the stream on Youtube with what people had to say:



-DJ


----------



## Daniel James (Jun 8, 2019)

mikefrommontreal said:


> But I can answer that right now.
> 
> Yes. Yes it is.



I would have loved you to call in, we could have had a good convo about it 

-DJ


----------



## Consona (Jun 9, 2019)

Dramazone, here we go. 

For a "modern music composer"? No. All you need to know to be one of those is there are major and minor chords and that you can arrange you composition like it was a rock song without nearly anyone even batting an eye.

Once you start to listen to guys like Herrmann, Goldsmith, Williams and such, you start to realize how fricking utterly embarrassing your compositions are in the larger context.

But how many people give a damn these days? Not even composers, so why the average movie goers or gamers would. Every time I read youtube comments under some teaser with trailerized Williams music or Mission Impossible Fallout soundtrack video about how great that piece was, I despair.

I don't know what exactly "music theory" means. But one thing is certain. If you want to be as good as possible, you need to study music. And not just some "music theory", but all those things related to composing pieces that go into films and games and whatnot.

You need to know which various chords to use to make your music more stable or more transitional at a specific moment and some more complicated chords to make your music more colourful, not just learn some popular chord progressions. You need to know how to orchestrate, develop your piece through orchestration, how to keep colors fresh, not just that you need a low pounding synth and some strings + brass. You *need* to start to practise composing in a sonata form and a free-form manner, to be able to make meaningful long compositions and very fluid, agile, flowing yet meaningful compositions. You need to study the works of masters to learn their magic. So you don't need to study "music theory" per se, but you need _to study_.

I don't think that's something surprising. Scientists read science articles and make experiments, philosophers read books and think, composers should study compositions, transcribe them, etc.

What I mean when saying you need to study those things?
Here, a simple idea incredibly orchestrated and developed:


Here, the vivid and elaborate development yet so seamless:


Here, the smoothness, over 8 minutes long action track that supports the picture yet flows perfectly to create one cohesive symphonic piece:


Now compare those things with guys who compose for Rambo and Star Trek these days... It's sad. Horner maybe stole half of those ideas from Prokofiev, yet he was still able to compose those amazing flowing pieces themselves.


And I think specifically you @Daniel James are a really really talented guy. And I must say, my personal wish is you start to delve deeper into the golden era composing and start shift things a bit. Since I believe you have the talent and potential to bring back these more intricate, subtle, rich and interesting sensibilities the modern music era has lost, even if in the new modern sound or whatever (that's actually what I'm waiting for, I know muted brass or woodwinds are not trendy anymore, and I'm not saying modern hybrid music does not sound cool, but it lacks the skilfulness and level of compositions those old-school masters had and I'm still waiting to hear a modern sounding score that will flow like Horner's Star Trek).

My personal problem is, I have a very rigid, structured thinking. It takes me a lot of effort to make something very fluid, it's a rather exhausting mental exercise to me. But I've noticed, you are good at that by nature. Some passages of your music are so nicely fluent yet comprehensible. So it's just me, but I wish I could hear more Goldsmith-esque and Herrmann-esque pieces from you.
And since you have quite a relatively big following of people who are into modern orchestral music, and you actually are in the business, it could start make them think about their compositions or music they are listening to more deeply.


At least I hope and think it's a trend that has to come back anyway. Where do you want to go from the current state? To even bigger sound-designy minimalism?
The problem is, when directors and producers don't have problems with having something like MI Fallout music in their films and when expectations for music are so low these days, with all that pop and rap music and whatnot, plus where do you want to learn to compose like Horner?.. It's just... the situation is not easy, the bar is low, maybe even the demand is not there except for some nerds like some of us here, but... Where do you want to go from the current state? When, at least in your conscience you know, there's someone like John Williams. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I have this old-school notion of when knowing what can be done, I can't settle for less. Hence I study music.

This may run over to off-topic, but I used to listen to a lot of rock and metal and such, but once I started listening to those golden era hollywood maniacs and their ilk, I can't get excited for new Tool or Immortal or Dimmu Borgir or whatever as much as I'd want to because I know it will be 4x riff A, 4x riff B, repeat, solo, verse, chorus, the end. I've noticed people have nice musical ideas, but they can't _compose_. They are songwriters and not composers, or how to put it, I think you understand me. I'm now used to these wealthy developments and modulations and what not and I'm listening to the new Abbath songs and thinking "this could have been way more interesting and lead to somewhere or something". Anyone can grab a guitar and repeat some riff 4 times, then add some another riff and repeat it 4 times and here you go, a new song. Then you go listen to some piano only piece from Mozart or an organ only piece by Bach and you realize you can do so much more with your ideas even when they are simple and using just one instrument. I think all musicians should start to study more, not just us who try to replicate an orchestra with samples.


So, yeah, that's like my opinion on this topic.  Cheers!


----------



## Ruchir (Jun 9, 2019)

Some great scores referenced above Consona!
However, I disagree with you.

I think everyone has a role to play in great music, from those who experiment at the edges of music theory, to those that experiment at the edges of sound design. 

There are only so many hours in a day, and it’s quite right that some composers will work at a higher level, manipulating phrases and samples produced by others. Some might also simply have the qualification of having a good ear, and play a role by remixing tracks. Not everyone involved in creating great music needs to delve into music theory, and in fact it could get in the way at times. 

Let’s make composing less of a solitary activity, and more a collaborative one.


----------



## Daniel James (Jun 9, 2019)

Consona said:


> Dramazone, here we go.
> 
> For a "modern music composer"? No. All you need to know to be one of those is there are major and minor chords and that you can arrange you composition like it was a rock song without nearly anyone even batting an eye.
> 
> ...



Lovely and well put post! Again I wish you would have called in with it!! For the record I actively study music theory, I see the value in it absolutely. My personal task is to be better today than I was yesterday. The topic of the show was if it was essential, and I did clarify in the show it was a question more aimed at the accessibility of the industry given modern technology filling the ignorance gap making it easier for newer people to get involved 

Back before sample libraries you HAD to know your shit pretty much back to front inside out in order to compete. In the Information Age you can reference anything you need to know in a practical instance, so my inference was that it’s no longer essential to get going. I wasn’t passing a judgement on it at all and everyone has their own journey 

Thanks for the detailed response!

-DJ


----------



## Saxer (Jun 9, 2019)

In a young age you think you know what 'modern' music is about. But this changes every 10 years or so. So all you learn now to be modern is dated in a couple of years. Younger guys will come and tell you how old fashioned your DAWs and drums and arrangements and sound designs are. But if they want to work with live musicians all this now called 'dated' theoretical knowledge is needed. So be flexible. Learn everything.


----------



## Vik (Jun 9, 2019)

MarcelM said:


> is music theory essential for the modern music composer?


That depends on what kind of music that modern composer want to make. Some of the popular film music put there can be written without much knowledge about music theory - or harmony, but the more a composer learns, the larger palette of 'colours' will be available. The potential caveat: Many of those who have studied how others do things end up with either sounding like those they have studied - or as someone who _want_ to sound like those they have studied. 

String the obvious: One needs to learn everything that's needed in order to be able to create the music one want to create. And - there's of course a very simple way to measure if your method works: are you capable of creating the kind of music you want to make?

The other essential aspect is IMO to check if one is capable of creating something which _is different _ from those one is inspired by. If you can do that without learning whatever one sees as 'music theory', fine – but why would someone _not_ learn as much as possible (and relevant) for whatever creative process one is into?


----------



## Zero&One (Jun 9, 2019)

I think these radio style streams are great and look forward to more thanks.

On topic, I personally think the _basics_ of MT are required. 
Even tools like Scaler and EZ Keys etc still need the basics to understand what it's actually doing?

My version of your catapult theory is, a poet/writer/blogger who has a good grasp of grammar. He/she will be more effective and probably write better quality material.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jun 9, 2019)

Seems like a silly question to me, personally. 

Of course, you do. Even when anyone says, they only know the 'basics' - that itself is also music theory. You cannot do anything without learning the basics. 

And from there on - it is up to you and the sort of music you want to pursue and get better at. Composing music is a life long pursuit for most and I think it goes on for your whole life. 

Now, the level at which you need to know things will depend on the kind of music you write. Honestly, trends come in and go. Anyone who has been around for at least a decade in a professional setting will tell you that things are always moving and changing. A musician grounded in any sort of tradition - synthesis, orchestration, composition or a combination of things, is well prepared for a long career. 

I started in advertising, moved to films, produced songs, did some production music as well as trailer music. All of these things require different approach and experience. And thanks to my early days in advertising, it helps me to this day to get adverts as well as occasionally nail genres I would have never touched on my own. 

Music theory is essential for all of those areas. 

I will say this though - I think these days there is a fear of music theory for some people - dont worry about it! I stressed about it for years. Start small and slow. You can absolutely learn things as you go even if you did not have a traditional background. And trust me, you will be sooo happy learning all these things and being able to understand and incorporate the best of music from humanity in the last 500 years - that is worth something!


----------



## Zero&One (Jun 9, 2019)

Tanuj Tiku said:


> Of course, you do. Even when anyone says, they only know the 'basics' - that itself is also music theory. You cannot do anything without learning the basics.



But I could show a person how to use a DAW. No music theory required (NMTR).
They could then load Scaler. Select a preset. Export midi to DAW. (NMTR)
Replace each track with different Kontakts, (NMTR)
Load Damage. Press a few keys. Quantize (NMTR)

I'm not convinced music theory would have been involved in this would you? I'm not disagreeing with you, just looking at what DJ is hinting at.

Personally, I've never met a musician who said they wish they hadn't studied theory. I've met countless players who said they wished they had done more.


----------



## IoannisGutevas (Jun 9, 2019)

Tanuj Tiku said:


> Of course, you do. Even when anyone says, they only know the 'basics' - that itself is also music theory. You cannot do anything without learning the basics.



Exactly that, even if all you know is just a basic C major scale or even if you understand the tonal difference between a C and a D note then you already using music theory. Music theory is essential if you want to compose music.

Even if you are into the sound design of things and you try to make a pad you are already trying to find the correct pitch of that pad and essentially you are using subconsciously music theory to fit the pad or drone for example in the composition, but instead of looking at it at like notes you are looking at the frequencies of the sounds which is the same thing. Same applies at rhythmic stuff and everything that has pitch in it.



James H said:


> But I could show a person how to use a DAW. No music theory required (NMTR).
> They could then load Scaler. Select a preset. Export midi to DAW. (NMTR)
> Replace each track with different Kontakts, (NMTR)
> Load Damage. Press a few keys. Quantize (NMTR)
> ...



Music theory is most certainly involved in this too but instead of you using it you let the machine do all the work and make all the decisions for you. And as a wise man said, f&*k the machine


----------



## asherpope (Jun 9, 2019)

A bit off-topic, but I find there's a lot of glorification of Williams/Goldsmith/Herman style scores, and a yearning to get back to that style. That orchestral style is undoubtedly great for big dramatic epics etc, but how many of us are scoring huge blockbusters? Some projects call for ambient Eno esque minimal score, some for gritty Reznor ish industrial harshness. Are these styles not as 'worthy'? Personally I feel more of an emotional connection to Music For Airports than Braveheart, and I assume others may too...rant over


----------



## Zero&One (Jun 9, 2019)

IoannisGutevas said:


> Music theory is most certainly involved in this too but instead of you using it you let the machine do all the work and make all the decisions for you. And as a wise man said, f&*k the machine



Yes it's involved in the process, but not by the composer. The question was "does a modern composer need..." 
It seems they don't. I'm not saying that's good... I'm just saying no theory is required given my above example (on the users part).


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 9, 2019)

Modern _media_ composers don't need theory..absolutely true. But even in that discipline why one might think _not_ knowing is ok is beyond this old git. How good do you want to be? I always wonder if the DAW has made it too easy for everyone to _think_ they can compose. Still, good music can and is written from scratch, so it's cool I suppose....

Postlude....Threads like How do I...? Why can't I?.... etc. are all symptoms of not knowing theory.


----------



## muk (Jun 9, 2019)

If you love music it is completely beyond me how you could even ask this question. "Hey, there is this woman I fancy, and I want to be in a relationship with her. Do I really have to listen to her telling me about her hobbies, her job, how she grew up, what food she does and doesn't like, how she thinks about politics, and all that other boring stuff?" No, of course you don't have to. If you love her you'll want to. 

I could stop here. But here's an analogy about tools letting you do what you want without understanding what you are doing: if you are stock trading, do you need to learn about economics, markets, the products you are trading? Of course not. You can register at the right place, fire up a computer program, and trade away. Chances are good you'll even earn some money on some of your trades. A computer or even a telephone is all you need. It's just that an educated trader will have much higher chances to make a profit, and not ineffectually waste a lot of time and/or money on mistakes that are known to not work.

Anyway, if you do want to know about music, Robert Schumann had amazing advice for young people. One of them being: "Don't be afraid of the words 'theory, counterpoint... '. If you approach them with good intentions, they will do the same for you".


https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...FjADegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw1S9cmu6vn8MlgYUvlhZOkE


----------



## Zero&One (Jun 9, 2019)

mikeh-375 said:


> Modern _media_ composers don't need theory..absolutely true. But even in that discipline why one might think _not_ knowing is ok is beyond this old git. How good do you want to be? I always wonder if the DAW has made it too easy for everyone to _think_ they can compose. Still, good music can and is written from scratch, so it's cool I suppose....
> 
> Postlude....Threads like How do I...? Why can't I?.... etc. are all symptoms of not knowing theory.



I 100% agree. Whilst there are tools that allow composers to bypass these essential skills, why would you want to?
The best part of my musical journey has been theory! Certainly not sitting slowly dying in front of a DAW screen and checking out the Deals section.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 9, 2019)

lol...I'm doing that just now James...crap.


----------



## MarcusD (Jun 9, 2019)

Love the stream and the idea behind it! Good job Dj. Now, all you need to do is learn a few magic tricks so you can say "ta-daaaaa"


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jun 9, 2019)

James H said:


> But I could show a person how to use a DAW. No music theory required (NMTR).
> They could then load Scaler. Select a preset. Export midi to DAW. (NMTR)
> Replace each track with different Kontakts, (NMTR)
> Load Damage. Press a few keys. Quantize (NMTR)
> ...



Yes, perhaps that works a few times, scoring a video for a local cable TV promo. But, if you want to have a long career in music - you will absolutely need to know music theory at 'some' level. What that level is, will be determined by what sort of music you are doing.

By the example you are giving, it sounds much more like finding holes in an argument for the sake of it. Which is absolutely fine but in a larger context, it will not work. And I am not disagreeing with you either - yes, it can be done. But, it does not sound like a real world, practical setting.

A person who is going to be a 'Professional', working on projects where people are going to pay them, using Damage loops won't take you far or get you high paying, desirable gigs.

There really is no discussion here, as far as I am concerned.

Knowing music theory at a _high level_ is not a mission critical requirement - but not understanding _any of it _ is simply not possible in a pro setting for a sustained career.

And this is coming from someone who cannot read or write music in a professional setting or even at college level. But, I have still had to learn the theoretical side to actually compose music, write the parts (even if on a computer) and learn orchestration by reading books, studying scores at a snail pace. You need to understand all of this to even learn music properly in the first place.

I am not convinced that you can be a working musician worth any salt, without knowing absolutely nothing. That makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Zero&One (Jun 9, 2019)

@Tanuj Tiku I agree. I'm just throwing some thoughts into the discussion


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jun 9, 2019)

James H said:


> But I could show a person how to use a DAW. No music theory required (NMTR).
> They could then load Scaler. Select a preset. Export midi to DAW. (NMTR)
> Replace each track with different Kontakts, (NMTR)
> Load Damage. Press a few keys. Quantize (NMTR)



It’s really is that easy. That is how I got into music licensing. The more complex stuff is cool but takes up too much time to learn.


----------



## MichaelB (Jun 9, 2019)

I could train myself to use AutoCad and design an office block by simple choosing from menus what style of interior and exterior designs I want, how many floors, what floor layouts etc but it doesn’t make me an architect. Similarly composing a piece of music by just throwing together some instruments (usually ensembles), some rhythmic patterns and keep on copy and paste to other instruments to make a decent sounding piece of music doesn’t make me a composer. Composers with music theory knowledge will apply that knowledge to compose for each individual instrument, blending it together to balance the sound and achieve a soundscape with the desired sound. 

With the age of computer software everything is becoming ‘paint by numbers’ and it is now so easy to choose this or that type of library because the library will “ evoke movement, speed and atmosphere by creating interlocking orchestral rhythms’ to quote one example (no disrespect to any software companies) and then the ironic thing is that these libraries are always dedicated to the work of actual great composers. Those great composers had no specialized libraries to help them compose their great works, they achieved the great compositions by applying theoretical knowledge in their music and use their skills to obtain the success of composition. Just my two cents. Good old fashioned composer skills like writing ostinatoes, counter melodies, voicing the harmonies, creating sound textures, blending and balancing the instruments are being replaced by loops and special libraries, this and that effects and Bob is your uncle.


----------



## IoannisGutevas (Jun 9, 2019)

James H said:


> Yes it's involved in the process, but not by the composer. The question was "does a modern composer need..."
> It seems they don't. I'm not saying that's good... I'm just saying no theory is required given my above example (on the users part).



But it's the composer who makes the conscious choice to load up Scaler in your example. So even if he lets say not knowing or understanding anything about music theory he understands that the tool he is using is needed in order to put the random notes in order for the notes he inputs to sound in a musical fashion and that tool, in turn, is made up from music theory concepts. 
So by not even realizing it, the composer feels the need that he is lacking the knowledge to compose the track he wants and uses the tool to compose it for him but instead of calling it music theory Ableton calls it scaler.

So even if the modern composer doesn't understand that he needs music theory because he uses tools that use music theory in order to make his music he understands that he needs the tools in order to compose. So, in the end, essentialy he needs music theory even if you call it Scaler, or any other plugin that does the work for you.

At least that's the way I see it


----------



## j_kranz (Jun 9, 2019)

I personally think having a strong theoretical knowledge, and learning every day (including your technical tools!), is vastly important. But I also believe that in this day and age, the one thing even more important than that, is having a unique musical voice. The reality of scoring today is that deadmau5 is scoring studio films... and young film makers know who he is. So rather than trying to sound like Williams (which is great for study), try and sound like yourself.


----------



## Consona (Jun 9, 2019)

Ruchir said:


> Some great scores referenced above Consona!
> However, I disagree with you.
> 
> I think everyone has a role to play in great music, from those who experiment at the edges of music theory, to those that experiment at the edges of sound design.
> ...



Yea, well, nothing against sound-design or experiments of any sorts, of course. And I know delving deep can be very time consuming and not everybody has time for that.

What I wanted to say is, be aware there's (waaay) more to the scoring or composing in general than what you hear these days. In the end, it will benefit you, and not the contrary.



Daniel James said:


> Lovely and well put post! Again I wish you would have called in with it!! For the record I actively study music theory, I see the value in it absolutely. My personal task is to be better today than I was yesterday. The topic of the show was if it was essential, and I did clarify in the show it was a question more aimed at the accessibility of the industry given modern technology filling the ignorance gap making it easier for newer people to get involved
> 
> Back before sample libraries you HAD to know your shit pretty much back to front inside out in order to compete. In the Information Age you can reference anything you need to know in a practical instance, so my inference was that it’s no longer essential to get going. I wasn’t passing a judgement on it at all and everyone has their own journey
> 
> ...



I wasn't aware of your show so I couldn't contribute. 

Just yesterday I was trying to imagine how knowledgeable those old-school guys had to be, just sitting next to the piano with only a pen and paper, composing symphonic pieces that support and enhance the drama in the film. No DAW, no actual footage, nothing. Just some notes and a piano. The whole orchestra, the sound of that entire piece, all in their imagination only.

Now we have everything before us, all the instruments, sounds, compositions themselves, the film footage, yet we can't make anything even close to what those guys were doing... It's crazy.

I'm happy you are trying to get better and better since you are someone who can change things (at least to some extent), you work in the industry and have some online presence. And I was happy seeing you posting that piece in the James Bond brass thread, which was more of a period piece rather than another loud hybrid track.  Don't get me wrong, you are the king when it comes to the big hybrid stuff, but me personally, I'm fed up with those and was really glad seeing you making something different and more traditional.
Partly for the reasons I stated above. You are an inspiration for some young aspiring composers and things like this show them the broader picture. They need to discover there are other soundtracks than Dark Knight and Inception.  The sooner they learn this, the better for their growth as composers. (I'm talking from my own experience.)

Plus I really want to hear some non-big-hybrid music from you. More so when knowing you are trying to do some John Barry-ish things, etc. I'd definitely want to see you being the composer of the next Nolan espionage mind-blowing thriller or the next Rambo (well, there's no need for another Rambo after the first film, but you get the point ) over those guys doing it today.

I'd love to see the next generation of composers who are, like you, truly trying to get better and better every day, helped and inspired by people like you or @mverta (who should be, of all the people, the one scoring Star Wars and Star Trek films no question (yea, I wouldn't want to score something like The Last Jedi or Into Darkness either  I'm speaking strictly about the qualification and expertise here)) , who care about improving the skill level in this craft, so we can again have proper Rambo and Star Trek scores.

I believe in what Mike Verta says, these days the environment is very different to what it used to be some 60 years ago. We ourselves must create communities of composers who help each other to get better. There's no Jerry Goldsmith around giving you a helping hand when you lose your track while scoring a space battle anymore. (Lol, "track" like "a track", not like "a track".)
There's bazillion YT videos on composing and whatnot, but, where are those next Horners and Williamses?
Places of true interaction are the way. Sites like RedBanned, where you can get feedback on your piece and discuss it. Now I'm interested what you will do with TADAY.


Yes, everyone of us has his own journey and do the thing he's interested in... yet knowing that won't stop me from judging and criticising things, like MI Fallout. When the music is so 1) bland, 2) overdone, 3) inappropriate to what's happening on the screen/the scale of things, 4) making me considering whether I should leave the cinema because of how extremely loud and obnoxious it is multiple times, I'll just speak up. It's nothing personal againts the composer, it's just a commentary on the state of things as I see it. I know you weren't accusing me of any of that, but I feel I must point this out. I'm not mean-spirited, I hope my feedback is constructive or at least can serve as something to reflect upon.



asherpope said:


> A bit off-topic, but I find there's a lot of glorification of Williams/Goldsmith/Herman style scores, and a yearning to get back to that style. That orchestral style is undoubtedly great for big dramatic epics etc, but how many of us are scoring huge blockbusters? Some projects call for ambient Eno esque minimal score, some for gritty Reznor ish industrial harshness. Are these styles not as 'worthy'? Personally I feel more of an emotional connection to Music For Airports than Braveheart, and I assume others may too...rant over



The "Williams/Goldsmith/Herman" is not about a big cinematic orchestra, it's about the control over your composition. Twilight Zone or The Planet of the Apes are not big sweeping orchestral scores (Apes score is very ambient-ish, and Goldsmith loved to use non-orchestral instruments, and later synths, a lot). You can have minimalistic or industrial scores and yet have better control over those pieces, since you know how to compose in general. That's the point.
Like a year ago, I was listening to some Reznor's stuff and it's exactly what I was criticising about the rock and metal bands. There's no "proper" development, it's all flat, repeating riffs over and over again, layering. And it was film music, not NIN music (which is also about layering, it's just the ever-present modus operandi since people are not trained to compose the classical era way).


----------



## Daniel James (Jun 9, 2019)

Again I agree with all of you.

No one who learns theory will regret it. I also agree its incredibly important and is worth learning.

My point in the show was that with modern technology it is no longer a barrier to entry in the same way it used to be. There are tools literally designed to fill the ignorance gap (not using ignorance as a derogatory term, I'm using it literally) and so people can create amazing music without knowing or studying much about it. Would their creative process be more enriched and informed had they learned music theory...absolutely! but you can hit the ground running without it more so these days.

And as creatives I think the end result is all that really matters. The person listening doesn't care how well read you are on theory if the music moves them emotionally.

Haha again most of the points in favour would have been incredible for the listeners to hear. I wish I could have had some of you call in, genuinely, as you are making incredible points and comparisons 

-DJ


----------



## MichaelVakili (Jun 9, 2019)

My opinion is that music theory is important for a workflow and working fast, but ultimately all the books in the world won't teach you how to make good music, experience will. Music came first, all the academic studies later - based on good suggestions by the masters of this art, so it is not really essential. But if you are serious about music - you would have the desire to be better and that will lead you to music theory.

And the whole stream was very nice = ).


----------



## WindcryMusic (Jun 9, 2019)

Much of what I’d say about this topic has already been said by others here, but in the first part of DJ’s stream (which, alas, was all I had time to listen to) I was hearing one thing repeatedly that I very much disagree with, and that’s the idea that knowing music theory can be restrictive to one’s creativity. E.g., the idea was expressed that “I often don’t continue with something that I like because it is against the laws of music theory”, presented as a possible reason to avoid learning the theory.

I can’t imagine that being the case. While I’m not as steeped in music theory as some and will probably still be endeavoring to learn more until the day I die, I do at least know a fair bit about it, and never once have I said “wait, I can’t do this because it’s against the rules”. If something sounds good but doesn’t fit into the rules that I know, I assume that it is either using some aspect of music theory that I’m just haven’t come across yet, or else that it is something that music theory just isn’t yet able to explain. Music theory can open up new doors for you, but in my opinion it never closes any of the other doors.

After all, music theory is just an attempt by others to reverse-engineer and explain music that already works, after the fact of its creation. If you’ve come up with something that sounds amazing and doesn’t follow the existing rules, maybe years down the road someone will come up with a new bit of music theory that crystallizes why your idea worked. Which might be characterized as a reason to not learn theory ... but that suggests a level of arrogance about having such great ears that you can hear everything that could work without any knowledge from the rest of musical history, and I don’t think anyone should make such a claim. Rather than restricting a person, I think music theory primarily teaches them to hear new things, things that in many cases wouldn’t even have occurred to them before.

When I was much younger and doing my best to pick up some jazz music theory from a Berklee grad with whom I was working in a band (I would buy him lunch and then bring a notebook along and scribble notes while he ruminated on things like tritone substitution), he told me that one of his instructors put it thusly: “first you learn the rules, then you learn to throw the rules out”. While I’m not sure it needs to be in that order (in fact I think Mike Verta would suggest that is backwards), I think the point is that the more advanced your music theory knowledge is, the more you are able to set it aside and trust that your ears will tell you what works, regardless of what the rules say.

One other thing I’ll throw in: as far as whether you need it to work in today’s market, in my opinion you can do some things without knowing theory, but people who do have the theory in their pocket will be able to do everything you can do and much more. So if you want to be able to compete in the marketplace, who would you want to avoid learning theory and make yourself compete with one hand tied behind your back?

Besides, if you love music, then learning theory can be very fun, especially in those “oh, THAT’s why that works!” moments where some of the magic of music is revealed to you. I can’t imagine why someone who loves music would want to deny themselves those revelations and reveries. Even back in my touring days, when I knew far less than I do now, I would still get irritated whenever a bandmate would say something to excuse their inattention to musical details (you know, like playing the right notes/chords) with the well-worn excuse “it’s only rock & roll”. I was always inclined to respond “but why wouldn’t you want to make it BETTER rock & roll?”


----------



## Daniel James (Jun 9, 2019)

WindcryMusic said:


> and that’s the idea that knowing music theory can be restrictive to one’s creativity



Yeah I don't believe that, I was playing devils advocate. Its one of the more common misconceptions (I believe I mention multiple times its a misconception in the show) 

Just to nip that in the bud xD

-DJ


----------



## Michael Stibor (Jun 9, 2019)

Can you get by with just knowing the basics? Yes
Can you make great music with just knowing the basics? Also yes. 
But how far is that going to take you? Unless you're an exceptional visionary with a unique sound, my guess is you'll be in 'epic' music hell for the rest of your life.


----------



## Digivolt (Jun 9, 2019)

Isn't making music without learning traditional theory, still teaching and using theory just through trial & error ?

I don't think any one can escape making music without some theory whether it's by traditional teaching or through trial & error, both are ultimately different methods of reaching the same goal of creating something musical


----------



## Henu (Jun 9, 2019)

WindcryMusic said:


> ...with the well-worn excuse “it’s only rock & roll”. I was always inclined to respond “but why wouldn’t you want to make it BETTER rock & roll?”



I've always used to say that if you want to play "only rock'n'roll", the door is over there. If you want to do better stuff with the rest of us, feel free to stay and contribute.


----------



## Michael Stibor (Jun 9, 2019)

Henu said:


> I've always used to say that if you want to play "only rock'n'roll", the door is over there. If you want to do better stuff with the rest of us, feel free to stay and contribute.


I don't know about "better" necessarily. I think a good pop song or three chord rocker can be as good as anything else. 
But it's not what inspires me creatively for my own music.


----------



## novaburst (Jun 9, 2019)

Music theory is a training exercise that will enable you to perform better, 

There are people who perform gymnastics, in the athletic world and train very hard to stay in shape and perform to some standard degree, there are also people that can naturally do some kind of gymnastics but will never out perform someone that is trained.

The person that is trained would have been trained by people that understand the body, how to eat, how to exercise, how long to sleep, what food are good for the bones, this train of thought would have come from many combined experienced people who have been through trail and error
and pass it down to people who desire to become a gymnast so he or she does not need to go through that same trail and error but can better concentrate on becoming better armed with some very good training tools.

it the same as music theory, there can be nothing worse than creating a piece and not knowing where you are going wrong and that is what normally happens when people neglect theory.



Daniel James said:


> and so people can create amazing music without knowing or studying much about it



this is two sided, its not that the one who created the music does not know much about what he or she is doing, its that the listener does not know or understand much about what they are hearing at most the listener is being led down the garden path.

At Most as long as it comes from a certain group, or singer, or band it does not matter what it sounds like, you got the job.

In a world that is governed by the quick buck very rarely will you get honesty in the music, media performance and a mare child can make it big in that world given the correct circumstance.

The problem is theory is not desired by music performers because its not needed in this generation of a mixture of anything goes, and the attitude of .....i want that piece of music now weather its completed or not because we need the cash.

Something becomes hip weather its nonsense or not because the majority and the media dictates what people listen to, so something that is nonsense can well become great.

Question is are we falling in the same direction theory is some ones idea but its not so you can be like them its so you can become better.


----------



## babylonwaves (Jun 9, 2019)

j_kranz said:


> The reality of scoring today is that deadmau5 is scoring studio films... and young film makers know who he is.


who by the way knows some theory...


----------



## WindcryMusic (Jun 9, 2019)

mikefrommontreal said:


> I don't know about "better" necessarily. I think a good pop song or three chord rocker can be as good as anything else.
> But it's not what inspires me creatively for my own music.



I agree with that. But the people I was talking about were often saying “it’s only rock & roll” to excuse them not bothering to learn that the V chord was supposed to land an eighth note before the downbeat (for example), or that the bass (even in a 3 chord rocker) isn’t always playing the root of the chord, etc. I.e., too lazy to even learn a 3 chord rocker properly. If you’re going to play something simple, then at least make the effort to play the simple parts right.


----------



## Henu (Jun 9, 2019)

mikefrommontreal said:


> I don't know about "better" necessarily. I think a good pop song or three chord rocker can be as good as anything else.
> But it's not what inspires me creatively for my own music.



Yeah, sorry, a bit bad choice of words. What I mean was what @WindcryMusic also said. It's surely not about 3-chord song couldn't be good (hell, my favourite genre of music besides orchestral has always been black metal since 1995 :D ) but the fact that laziness isn't an excuse.


----------



## Consona (Jun 10, 2019)

This thread. 



Daniel James said:


> My point in the show was that with modern technology it is no longer a barrier to entry in the same way it used to be. There are tools literally designed to fill the ignorance gap (not using ignorance as a derogatory term, I'm using it literally) and so people can create amazing music without knowing or studying much about it. Would their creative process be more enriched and informed had they learned music theory...absolutely! but you can hit the ground running without it more so these days.
> 
> And as creatives I think the end result is all that really matters. The person listening doesn't care how well read you are on theory if the music moves them emotionally.


I mean, how awesome is Inception's Time by Hans, yet it's 4 and a half minutes of the same non-modulated chord progression with things just layered atop of it.

I agree the end result is what matters, no matter how simple it is, or how it was achieved.

But, again, as Verta says, the result should be about our decision, and not about our limitations. Meaning, a piece should be minimalistic and with limited development because that was the composer's choice, not because he can't compose anything else.
Can't agree more.

The other important thing I took from Mike's classes is, composing is totally free-form.
That's why my head is not preoccupied with chord progressions, or parallel fifths "laws", or whatever. I sit in front of a piano with my mind totally clear, figuring out the piece as my fingers run around the keyboard.
This mindset will make some YT videos so funny, when academically trained guys (with much much deeper knowledge than me, of course) are commenting on some Williams' piece, totally making excuses for his parallel fifths, how it's ok the way he uses them, or when they are trying to describe some Mozart piece saying he modulated here from here yet even using chords out of that scale... It's like these academic guys have theory before music, but these composers do music before any theory. (Or maybe there's theory behind it since they know it so well, but some chromatic movements, chords and modulations are so wild that I doubt they were done with theory in mind.)

What I'm personally training now is going from a chord to chord, figuring out how changing those chords from major to minor to other ones changes the overall feeling. Because just the other day, I was checking out the Lord of the Rings scores, and Shore moves in thirds a lot, there are no standard chord progressions in those parts, it's very free-form.


So like nice, we have the technology that helps us overcome our ignorance gap, but in the end, that gap is about experience more than musical theory. That's why I rather study actual pieces by Williams, Horner, Shore, than reading books about parallel fifths.


And at the end of the day, when the result is the most important thing, you go listen to Star Wars and realize that maybe your one piece made an impact on people, but it failed in other different categories, like being a fitting part of an overarching narrative, to subtly communicate some things because the structure was so rigid, or your harmonic vocabulary is rather plain to capture what was really going on in the story.



j_kranz said:


> I personally think having a strong theoretical knowledge, and learning every day (including your technical tools!), is vastly important. But I also believe that in this day and age, the one thing even more important than that, is having a unique musical voice. The reality of scoring today is that deadmau5 is scoring studio films... and young film makers know who he is. So rather than trying to sound like Williams (which is great for study), try and sound like yourself.


Hm. Like nothing against the guy, but I hope our current situation won't escalate to the state where people like him score the next Star Wars. (Unless they somehow get to the level of Verta-like guys, of course.)


Dunno, I get this whole post-modern thing, it makes sense, yet on the other hand, it shows the pointlessness of it all. 4 days ago I visited our local art gallery here. You literally can't tell whether someone forgot his handbag on a showcase or whether it's the actual exhibit you should admire... There was a projector showing a footage of a girl randomly running and writhing on a meadow. Put's all your f*cking effort to be as good as Goldsmith into perspective.  No wonder the ability to just click midi notes in the piano roll is now the threshold to become a movie composer. It's way more about production rather than composing itself these days, be good at sound-design and mixing and that's basically it.

Art became so democratized, not only due to technology, but our post-modern mindset does this, basically anything can pass as an art now. Is it good, it is bad? I don't know. I personally feel a lot of things is getting more and more retarded. Especially when listening to music or visiting those galleries.

The real question is, can you personally reconcile with that, knowing you suck compared to those old-school guys yet you have the audacity to call yourself a composer and score movies? 

I'd be fricking embarrassed to put my shoes on a piedestal and call it an artifact when I know, somewhere, there's a Buonarroti's Pieta on display.

To be fair, I remember visiting some modern art exhibition where there were really interesting paintings that made you really think about them and stuff, and you know how this goes... what if those shoes on a piedestal instil more inside you than the Pieta due to some latent psychological association... Eh.


There's no intrinsic value in anything, or rather, there's some intrinsic value in everything... Does that mean we should settle for being unable to compose like Horner just because... it's too difficult and we can score films even without that skill level anyway?.. 

It's just me, but f*ck that question, one listen to Wrath of Khan's Epilogue tells me I do want to be as good as that guy even if nobody on this planet except me appreciates that. Even if I should be flipping burgers at McDonalds (which's gonna happen anyway ) while all those producers deem that old-school symphonic notion outdated hiring those so sought after low synth pattern composers to score their next huge budget Captain SuperAwesome-Meh movie.  (Nothing like being catharsistically melodramatic.)



Lol, remember those days when action scenes were scored with pizzicati?! Me neither. Jerry, you madman.


----------



## robgb (Jun 10, 2019)

Two things are essential: talent and ears.


----------



## I like music (Jun 10, 2019)

Consona said:


> This thread.
> 
> 
> I mean, how awesome is Inception's Time by Hans, yet it's 4 and a half minutes of the same non-modulated chord progression with things just layered atop of it.
> ...




I don't think you should be bringing Goldsmith and Horner into this. That raises the bar far too much for the mortals still trying to muddle our way through this. Let us consider those guys aberrations, a wobble in the Matrix, an accident that this universe should not have allowed to happen. They only make me feel worse about myself. In fact, those two (and I guess Williams) inspire me to want to make music more than anything else, yet they also single-handedly kill my inspiration, because everything I try to write, I try to compare with them (not consciously, it just happens). And then I stop writing because I know it ain't going to be as skilful as them.

And yes, madman indeed.

Out of all this, one big question comes forward for me. Imagine that you have 30 minutes (one hour tops) per day to "do" music. You don't have any formal musical training. You don't play an instrument, but you *really do* want to learn the theory. Where do you begin? What do you focus on?

Assume that you also can't pay for a teacher because your kids eat so much food that all the money goes on that.


----------



## Zero&One (Jun 10, 2019)

robgb said:


> Two things are essential: talent and ears.



... and electricity.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 10, 2019)

James H said:


> ... and electricity.



candlewax and booze too.


----------



## VinRice (Jun 10, 2019)

The minor pentatonic is all I need man...


----------



## fish_hoof (Jun 10, 2019)

Just need to play the good notes.


----------



## Mason (Jun 10, 2019)

Even if you think music theory is not essential for you, you use more music theory than you think you are. If you play chords, you are using music theory, if you have the root notes in the bass you are doing basic music theory, if you make something in 3/4 or 4/4, that’s music theory as well.

If you don’t want to use music theory, what would the music be like? I can tell you it would be far from the music you write. It would probably be without a meter, without any specific key, without any logical melody, etcetera.

And I don’t think anything is different for “modern composers” compared with old-fashioned composers or the old historical ones. If you want to write music that changes lives and are remembered 200 years from now, more theoretical knowledge might be needed, but the most important is the talent to write a good melody.


----------



## Michael Stibor (Jun 10, 2019)

robgb said:


> Two things are essential: talent and ears.


I agree. And critical listening is key. It's also where - in my opinion - the talent lies. In the ability to listen, and discern.
However the execution of one's own ideas requires a certain level of competency and education in order to effectively, and efficiently create your own music.


----------



## robgb (Jun 10, 2019)

Mason said:


> Even if you think music theory is not essential for you, you use more music theory than you think you are. If you play chords, you are using music theory, if you have the root notes in the bass you are doing basic music theory, if you make something in 3/4 or 4/4, that’s music theory as well.


I'm pretty sure all of this existed BEFORE the theory did, but, yes, there is theory built around these concepts and many more. Do you need to actually study them to succeed as a composer? Depends on the individual. Some learn by careful study, others learn by osmosis. Some play chord progressions and have no idea what the names of the chords are, or what specific notes create them, others have the Circle of 5ths, etc. firmly in their minds. There is no single path to successful composing. Like anything, it varies from individual to individual.


----------



## Pixelpoet1985 (Jun 10, 2019)

Consona said:


> It's just me, but f*ck that question, one listen to Wrath of Khan's Epilogue tells me I do want to be as good as that guy even if nobody on this planet except me appreciates that. Even if I should be flipping burgers at McDonalds (which's gonna happen anyway ) while all those producers deem that old-school symphonic notion outdated hiring those so sought after low synth pattern composers to score their next huge budget Captain SuperAwesome-Meh movie.  (Nothing like being catharsistically melodramatic.)



Hope I understood correctly what you wanted to say. 

I'm a huge John Williams fanboy, and miss his and these kind of themes in current movies. The only hero movie with acceptable music is maybe Shazam, in my opinion. The others are all trash. 

Why is this? Is this kind of music not asked for? Of course, directors have their influence on the music, and maybe it's a trend to go the synthy and epic way. But there is no melody you can hum or whistle, or remember. I don't like it at all.

For John Williams' music you have to know about music theory and, definitely, about orchestration, too. And if modern composers don't have a clue about these two, we will only hear the soundtracks which are composed nowadays. For me, there is no question, it's essential to know about these two, like in every other job you have to learn the tools. I want more John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith etc. in the future. *dreaming*


----------



## robgb (Jun 10, 2019)

Pixelpoet1985 said:


> The others are all trash.


In your opinion, of course. Some might prefer it. While I love a lot of Williams's work, I've never particularly cared for his Star Wars stuff. Too over the top, derivative, and melodramatic for my taste. Worked fine for the film, but on its own? For me, not so much. I much prefer, say, Schindler's List. I think it's important to accept that fact that film music has changed drastically over the years and new fads will become old fads and, really, not much of it is trash as long as it served the movie.


----------



## Pixelpoet1985 (Jun 10, 2019)

robgb said:


> In your opinion, of course. Some might prefer it. While I love a lot of Williams's work, I've never particularly cared for his Star Wars stuff. Too over the top, derivative, and melodramatic for my taste. Worked fine for the film, but on its own? For me, not so much. I much prefer, say, Schindler's List.



Yes, of course, in my opinion. I can't imagine a Star Wars movie without his scores. John Powell did a great job on Solo, in my opinion. And the Star Wars Battlefront II soundtrack is also very well done. This gives me some hope (if this is the right word). It's all about taste, too, as you said.



robgb said:


> I think it's important to accept that fact that film music has changed drastically over the years and new fads will become old fads and, really, not much of it is trash as long as it served the movie.



I agree, maybe the music served well, but it could served way better. Who knows... I simply want to hear more of John Williams-y music in movies.


----------



## Consona (Jun 10, 2019)

I like music said:


> I don't think you should be bringing Goldsmith and Horner into this. That raises the bar far too much for the mortals still trying to muddle our way through this. Let us consider those guys aberrations, a wobble in the Matrix, an accident that this universe should not have allowed to happen. They only make me feel worse about myself. In fact, those two (and I guess Williams) inspire me to want to make music more than anything else, yet they also single-handedly kill my inspiration, because everything I try to write, I try to compare with them (not consciously, it just happens). And then I stop writing because I know it ain't going to be as skilful as them.


Well, I haven't released any new composition in like 3 years. That's exactly the time I've started to take composing seriously, started to watch Verta's classes, etc.
Every time I do something, I inevitably compare it to those guys and I realize it's crap. But that doesn't prevent me from trying to get better. I want to be able to compose like those men, or at least be somewhere close to that level.
Maybe that goal is way too high to reach there, but... like... what's the point otherwise... making crappy compositions, knowing they are crappy and be ok with that? Maybe someone could be ok with that, but me, I can't. 



I like music said:


> Out of all this, one big question comes forward for me. Imagine that you have 30 minutes (one hour tops) per day to "do" music. You don't have any formal musical training. You don't play an instrument, but you *really do* want to learn the theory. Where do you begin? What do you focus on?
> 
> Assume that you also can't pay for a teacher because your kids eat so much food that all the money goes on that.


I've realized one thing. It takes time. And there's no shortcut. I needed to watch like 20 Verta's masterclasses before it all started to make some sense to me. You slowly absorb all that stuff and you just need some time to grasp and process it. A year, two, just to make some basic sense out of that.
Add to that Mike actually doesn't teach music theory and it starts to feel kinda funny, but he made me understand what I need to study and what not.

If spending money is not an option I would... Watch Mike's Unleashed Classes on Youtube. I think Unleashed 3 and 4 are the best. (Bad thing when not having much time is, they are like 12 hours long. ) Then I would watch something like Music Matters on topics you are interested in.

Honestly, I would wait for another sale when Verta's classes cost $18 each and I would buy Structure, Theminator, Mod Squad, and Rhythm & Perc. Those are absolute must-haves for anyone interested in composing, IMO.
Then after watching them, I would begin to practise those things, watched some theory videos on YT when needed, then I would watch those Mike's masterclasses again, since that will make some new connections in your brain, realizing things you missed the first time.
Just IMHO.



Pixelpoet1985 said:


> Hope I understood correctly what you wanted to say.
> 
> I'm a huge John Williams fanboy, and miss his and these kind of themes in current movies. The only hero movie with acceptable music is maybe Shazam, in my opinion. The others are all trash.
> 
> ...


Musical illiteracy. Seems like directors and producers these days know next to nothing about music. Feels like they just hire someone who was recommended to them and that's that.

And wouldn't say that "the others are all trash", but the quality has definitely dropped a lot.
Shazam was at least a try to make more old-school-ish soundtrack. But you can tell Remote Control is not the right place to learn golden era composing. Don't know how else to put it, sorry.  No offence.
I actually made a breakdown of the main theme in some of the threads here. It was quite a mess. When you listen to real Goldsmith or Williams music, you realize how well are their pieces structured, how well they flow. And we're not even talking about guys like Steiner, Rózsa or Korngold. Jeez, that's some utterly next level sh*t. 


GG, game over, rip in peace.


----------



## CT (Jun 10, 2019)

Everyone should just write what they're inclined to write: what they like, what moves them, regardless of how they think it compares to this or that other thing.

I enjoy Williams and that general style (and its classical antecedents) as much as the next person, but I don't lose sleep over the fact that 90% of the time, I don't want to write anything like that. I took a pretty standard classical route to composition, but the classics were always side by side with lots of other stuff, whether from the world of film music or other genres entirely. I always saw it all as a big open field of possibilities, not peaks and valleys of quality/worth....

Everyone should also strive to be as aware of the intricacies of their chosen craft/art as possible. Sure, there are some who have enough sheer natural ability and vision to get by without it, but you're unlikely to be one of those few, whereas you're highly likely to benefit from learning as much as you can to augment what you already have inside you.


----------



## Mason (Jun 10, 2019)

robgb said:


> I'm pretty sure all of this existed BEFORE the theory did, but, yes, there is theory built around these concepts and many more. Do you need to actually study them to succeed as a composer? Depends on the individual. Some learn by careful study, others learn by osmosis. Some play chord progressions and have no idea what the names of the chords are, or what specific notes create them, others have the Circle of 5ths, etc. firmly in their minds. There is no single path to successful composing. Like anything, it varies from individual to individual.



I definitely do not think you have to study this formally at a school. I did though, however I learned more from my own studying. An ear for good melodies and harmonies is what’s most important though and that’s not something you can learn at school anyway.


----------



## CT (Jun 10, 2019)

Agreed. Learning theory = good. Learning it on your own, without going to a conservatory or studying with a great great great great grandstudent of Beethoven = entirely possible.


----------



## Robert_G (Jun 10, 2019)

mikefrommontreal said:


> I agree. And critical listening is key. It's also where - in my opinion - the talent lies. In the ability to listen, and discern.



And yet there are tonnes of new composers who post their first few pieces in the members composition forum and never get a reply....


----------



## VinRice (Jun 10, 2019)

Robert_G said:


> And yet there are tonnes of new composers who post their first few pieces in the members composition forum and never get a reply....



There's probably a reason for that...


----------



## WindcryMusic (Jun 10, 2019)

miket said:


> Agreed. Learning theory = good. Learning it on your own, without going to a conservatory or studying with a great great great great grandstudent of Beethoven = entirely possible.



I concur. Personally, I learned my first basics of music theory in high school ... but from a band director who was so ingrained in “you must follow all of the rules by rote” rather than actually teaching students to listen that it really turned me off to any thought of continuing. It was only later on, when I worked in various touring bands with at least a couple of musicians who’d learned some music theory (and in a less clinical fashion), that I began to really get interested in theory, and ever since then it’s been a process of self-directed learning for me.


----------



## Robert_G (Jun 10, 2019)

VinRice said:


> There's probably a reason for that...



Id rather have 20 comments telling me what i did wrong then not learn anything


----------



## SoNowWhat? (Jun 10, 2019)

robgb said:


> Two things are essential: talent and ears.





James H said:


> ... and electricity.





mikeh-375 said:


> candlewax and booze too.


Well I have electricity, ear-wax and booze. I reckon I've got a shot.

Also which joker has the user name Sackbutt Power on the stream?  I love it.


----------



## Consona (Jun 11, 2019)

miket said:


> I enjoy Williams and that general style (and its classical antecedents) as much as the next person, but I don't lose sleep over the fact that 90% of the time, I don't want to write anything like that.


This is something different...
You don't care you don't compose classical style music even though you like it. *X* But when I compose classical style music, I'm aware there's someone like Williams, and I act accordingly.

Of course when you compose rock, new age or whatever, you don't need to be nervous the result is not Williams-like. On the other hand, If you can compose like Williams, and you do rock, eletronic music or whatever, your compositions will be way better no doubt. The knowledge of development, structure, chords, etc., is transferable.

Ultimately, it's everybody's choice. When I was playing metal with my friends in my teenage years, I was making songs that were like the music I was listening to. Now after I discovering the music of all those old-school composers, I know how extremely limited that metal songwriting was, and I know knowing what they knew would made me better at any music style.
It's everybody's choice whether they are content with their skill level, while knowing there's more, or not.


----------



## robgb (Jun 11, 2019)

All of this said, there are few composers in the world, schooled or not in theory, who could come up with a chord progression and melody as hauntingly beautiful as Blackbird, which was written by a guy with zero formal education in theory who couldn't read a note of music.


----------



## erica-grace (Jun 11, 2019)

robgb said:


> All of this said, there are few composers in the world, schooled or not in theory, who could come up with a chord progression and melody as hauntingly beautiful as Blackbird, which was written by a guy with zero formal education in theory who couldn't read a note of music.





That???


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jun 11, 2019)

“Any tone can succeed any other tone, any tone can sound simultaneously with any other tone or tones, and any group of tones can be followed by any other group of tones, just as any
degree of tension or nuance can occur in any medium under any kind of stress or duration. Successful projection will depend upon the contextual and formal conditions that prevail, and upon the skill and soul of the composer.” Persichetti


----------



## CT (Jun 11, 2019)

InLight-Tone said:


> “Any tone can succeed any other tone, any tone can sound simultaneously with any other tone or tones, and any group of tones can be followed by any other group of tones, just as any
> degree of tension or nuance can occur in any medium under any kind of stress or duration. Successful projection will depend upon the contextual and formal conditions that prevail, and upon the skill and soul of the composer.” Persichetti



That was one of the books I learned from. What an opening line!


----------



## dpasdernick (Jun 12, 2019)

My drum teacher/septic tank repairman said "If you can't tell you story with a Roland Sound Canvas and 3 chords then get the fuc k out of the business". 

I got the fuc k out of the business.


----------



## Brian Nowak (Jun 13, 2019)

On the subject of music theory, I have only one real input:

As with anything on the internet, a lot of people are totally full of shit and have not even the slightest idea what the hell they're talking about, but will go on and on for some time as though they are experts on the matter. 

The end.


----------



## Van (Jun 13, 2019)

My comment doesn’t necessarily answer the original I question but I know this:

The greats study the greats.


----------



## purple (Jun 13, 2019)

Learning more about music theory is *the quickest if not the only way to reliably become a better composer*. Yes, you can just write stuff that "sounds good", and it probably will! But you simply will not reach your full potential as a composer by just trial and error at a piano without any direction. If nothing else, it is apparent that someone doesn't know music theory when their pieces or cues have no sense of structure or macro planning. There is no special sauce or eureka moment where you'll suddenly be able to write like Williams or Steiner or Korngold etc. It's practice and dedication, just like practicing an instrument, or becoming a surgeon, or mastering a martial art. Nobody is born a legend. If you want to be one, you have to study and practice like one.

I say this as someone who thought I just had a good enough ear to write great stuff. To be honest, if I had just started composing without any theory knowledge, I'd probably get away with it, especially these days. I played in a lot of musical things in and out of school in high school and did arrangements and small composition, and then went for a music degree and learned very quickly just how big of a difference proper music theory can teach you about the composing process. For the first two years of undergrad I and all the other music students had to take 2 years of theory/history. Literally _*every day*,_ the things our professors taught us completely changed some aspect of my composing process, whether it was opening my eyes to new ways of harmonization, to new pieces, composers, and genres to listen to and study, to something as simple as an instrumentation choice. I cannot stress enough how happy I am I took those classes, and I can't say I'd be a composer doing the great things I am these days were it not for the stuff I learned in those two years.

Knowing more about music theory changes the way you experience music. It makes it much much easier to find out why a particular song, whether it's a movement from a bruckner symphony, or a billie eilish tune, works the way it does, and that's something every composer should be able to do in order to hone their craft. It also makes it a lot faster and easier to try and decipher what a client wants when they say "more epic" or "more sad" or give you a temp track and tell you they want the same "feel".

*TL;DR: You are not going to become the next John Williams, Korngold, Rosza, etc. By following your ears alone. Nobody is that good. Take music theory classes, read a book, study some scores, do some counterpoint excercises. Listen actively to music. Instead of just thinking "that song makes me feel sad :(", figure out why. How can you capture the energy that song was able to transfer to you? How can I implement that energy into my own sound and identity?*


----------



## I like music (Jun 14, 2019)

Curious to know what general content is covered in theory classes (e.g. for those of us who want to find their own resources to do this, for money reasons). To me, when I hear 'music theory' I'm often not sure what people are describing. I'm guessing it covers a lot of aspects, but are there things you should learn _before_ you learn other things?

Can one dive into counterpoint or is there something else they need to have nailed down first? etc etc


----------



## pmcrockett (Jun 14, 2019)

I like music said:


> Curious to know what general content is covered in theory classes (e.g. for those of us who want to find their own resources to do this, for money reasons). To me, when I hear 'music theory' I'm often not sure what people are describing. I'm guessing it covers a lot of aspects, but are there things you should learn _before_ you learn other things?
> 
> Can one dive into counterpoint or is there something else they need to have nailed down first? etc etc


The progression of theory study that they had me follow as an undergrad was basics first -- scales, keys, relationships among chords in a key, Roman numeral analysis -- then counterpoint and part writing, then large-scale form, then 20th century and jazz theory.


----------



## I like music (Jun 14, 2019)

pmcrockett said:


> The progression of theory study that they had me follow as an undergrad was basics first -- scales, keys, relationships among chords in a key, Roman numeral analysis -- then counterpoint and part writing, then large-scale form, then 20th century and jazz theory.



Thank you! This is already very helpful


----------



## LudovicVDP (Jun 14, 2019)

I've been doing music since the day I was born. I know (almost) no music theory and it hasn't blocked me from doing some nice things. Yet, the frustration is real. There's not a single day that passes without regretting not to know more. I feel like there's a lot of things I can do but there's nothing I can really do well (at least well enough to my taste).


----------



## purple (Jun 14, 2019)

I like music said:


> Curious to know what general content is covered in theory classes (e.g. for those of us who want to find their own resources to do this, for money reasons). To me, when I hear 'music theory' I'm often not sure what people are describing. I'm guessing it covers a lot of aspects, but are there things you should learn _before_ you learn other things?
> 
> Can one dive into counterpoint or is there something else they need to have nailed down first? etc etc


In order to start working on counterpoint, I'd imagine as long as you have a basic understanding (you know intervals and how to notate music, basically), you should be able to at least do the basics.


----------



## halfwalk (Jun 18, 2019)

Van said:


> My comment doesn’t necessarily answer the original I question but I know this:
> 
> The greats study the greats.


Who decides upon who the "greats" are? Popular consensus? Kanye West ans Taylor Swift are some of "the greats" then.


----------



## Denkii (Jun 18, 2019)

Tanuj Tiku said:


> I am not convinced that you can be a working musician worth any salt, without knowing absolutely nothing. That makes no sense whatsoever.


While I think I understand where your are coming from when you talk about the necessity of theoretical knowledge when it comes to composers, I have to disagree with your last statement from experience.

Yes there are full time musicians who do this and really don't know what they are doing. All they know is it sounds good. Also there are a lot of them who produce their stuff on their own, including programming arrangements for demos before something becomes a final product.

Is it really the composer who needs to have the knowledge or is it rather a social and work environmental expectation that they have to live up to?

I'm not saying theory doesn't serve a purpose. I just believe it's more on the prestige side than we are willing to admit.


----------



## Van (Jun 18, 2019)

halfwalk said:


> Who decides upon who the "greats" are? Popular consensus? Kanye West ans Taylor Swift are some of "the greats" then.


When I made that comment I had in mind, for example, that Brahms studied Beethoven, who studied Mozart, who studied Haydn and they all studied Fux. Pop singers didn’t come to mind but I supposed they too, “study the greats.”


----------



## halfwalk (Jun 18, 2019)

Van said:


> When I made that comment I had in mind, for example, that Brahms studied Beethoven, who studied Mozart, who studied Haydn and they all studied Fux. Pop singers didn’t come to mind but I supposed they too, “study the greats.”



My point is... "the greats" is an arbitrary notion that will vary based on the perspective of the individual. What makes e.g. Mozart a "great?" Is it because people have studied his music for a really long time and regarded it as great? What if I can't stand Mozart, is he still one of "the greats" just because other people say so? And wouldn't that mean that he is only "great" because of popular consensus? Because then we start to get outside the territory of his music, and more into a weird dogmatic circular logic (i.e. "Mozart is great because we have studied him extensively" and then "We study Mozart because he's great" and then "What is greatness? Well, just look at Mozart")

So if I think Mozart isn't great, does that make me wrong? And thus, by not studying Mozart, do I not have potential for greatness?


----------



## Denkii (Jun 18, 2019)

halfwalk said:


> My point is... "the greats" is an arbitrary notion that will vary based on the perspective of the individual. What makes e.g. Mozart a "great?" Is it because people have studied his music for a really long time and regarded it as great? What if I can't stand Mozart, is he still one of "the greats" just because other people say so? And wouldn't that mean that he is only "great" because of popular consensus? Because then we start to get outside the territory of his music, and more into a weird dogmatic circular logic (i.e. "Mozart is great because we have studied him extensively" and then "We study Mozart because he's great" and then "What is greatness? Well, just look at Mozart")
> 
> So if I think Mozart isn't great, does that make me wrong? And thus, by not studying Mozart, do I not have potential for greatness?


----------



## purple (Jun 18, 2019)

halfwalk said:


> My point is... "the greats" is an arbitrary notion that will vary based on the perspective of the individual. What makes e.g. Mozart a "great?" Is it because people have studied his music for a really long time and regarded it as great? What if I can't stand Mozart, is he still one of "the greats" just because other people say so? And wouldn't that mean that he is only "great" because of popular consensus? Because then we start to get outside the territory of his music, and more into a weird dogmatic circular logic (i.e. "Mozart is great because we have studied him extensively" and then "We study Mozart because he's great" and then "What is greatness? Well, just look at Mozart")
> 
> So if I think Mozart isn't great, does that make me wrong? And thus, by not studying Mozart, do I not have potential for greatness?


It has more to do with mastery of the craft than it does personal preference. While people do often argue about who are the "greatest" greats, it's not just "well I don't like that person's work, so they're not a great". I'm not personally a huge fan of Messiaen, for example, but his influence in music is unavoidable in the classical world, and if anybody asked me to name a list of great composers he'd probably be on it. Another example: I don't really like Christopher Nolan's style personally. Is the guy great at what he does? YES! If I were studying film, I would not want to skip over him because, again, I can still learn a lot from him and his extensive list of really well made and successful films. I think if you were an aspiring pop star, Taylor Swift might be one of your "greats" and the same goes for Kanye West and aspiring music producers. His influence on the music industry has been massive as well!


----------



## muk (Jun 18, 2019)

halfwalk said:


> So if I think Mozart isn't great, does that make me wrong? And thus, by not studying Mozart, do I not have potential for greatness?



Well, it's absolutely clear that 'greatness' does not depend on any individuals opinion. It's a legacy that is shared in our culture. Who knows how exactly a composer ascends to 'greatness' in the collective mind of our society. I would argue that one important part is the influence that said composers music had on the music of his/her contempary and later composers. You may admire Georg Christoph Wagenseil's music above all else, or the music of the Stamitz family. You may thus personally hold the opinion that they were 'greater' composers than Mozart. Still the fact remains that Mozart's music has influenced almost all composers that came after him. And so did Haydn, Beethoven, and many others. In this way Mozart left deep and lasting traces in the history of music, while Wagenseil and the Stamitzes did not. In our culture, Mozart is thus much, much more important - and hence considered 'great' - than Wagenseil and the Stamitzes. Simply because his music influenced the course of music history in our culture, and theirs did only to an almost immeasurably small degree.

Thus, I would answer your questions:



halfwalk said:


> So if I think Mozart isn't great, does that make me wrong?



Yes. Based on the influence he had on the history of our cultures music, absolutely you are wrong.



halfwalk said:


> And thus, by not studying Mozart, do I not have potential for greatness?



No, that doesn't follow. By not studying Mozart you are missing out on an important part of music history. You are missing out on knowledge that could help you understand what our society receives as great and important music. Knowledge that you could - but not necessarily have to - use in your own music.


----------



## Denkii (Jun 18, 2019)

muk said:


> Well, it's absolutely clear that 'greatness' does not depend on any individuals opinion.


But in order to be influential for society, in this case the majority of the small society of composers that came after him had a positive opinion about him, thus becoming influential for following compositions leading to what became a status quo for "the" society.

Collective opinions can only be born in individuals.


----------



## Van (Jun 18, 2019)

halfwalk said:


> My point is... "the greats" is an arbitrary notion that will vary based on the perspective of the individual. What makes e.g. Mozart a "great?" Is it because people have studied his music for a really long time and regarded it as great? What if I can't stand Mozart, is he still one of "the greats" just because other people say so? And wouldn't that mean that he is only "great" because of popular consensus? Because then we start to get outside the territory of his music, and more into a weird dogmatic circular logic (i.e. "Mozart is great because we have studied him extensively" and then "We study Mozart because he's great" and then "What is greatness? Well, just look at Mozart")
> 
> So if I think Mozart isn't great, does that make me wrong? And thus, by not studying Mozart, do I not have potential for greatness?


Throughout history there are many contemporaries doing a ‘thing’ at the same time as any given ‘great’ artist. There were many sculptors in Michelangelo’s day and many architects in Brunelleschi’s just as there were many composers in des Prez’s. The great ones are not only masters of their craft, but having typically studied their predecessors and contemporaries, their work also does something new, usually pushing the boundaries and stands out and above the rest. You don’t have to like an artist to acknowledge their ‘greatness’ or contribution or even the mere fact that they changed history. 

My original point is irrefutable: great composers studied great composers, (even if you don’t want to acknowledge that great composers exist because...‘who’s to say who’s great?’)

And yes, if you don’t consider Mozart one of the greats, you are in fact, to answer your question, wrong. You don’t have to like his music. But he is, without a doubt, one of the most talented and ingenious composers ever to have lived. This is not an objective thing. The statue of the David IS great. The dome of the cathedral in Florence IS great. Mozart’s music IS great. Whether or not one acknowledges those achievements doesn’t make them not so. 

And to answer your question in regards to whether or not you can be great if you don’t study the greats—I don’t know. Guess I’d say, ‘the greats study the greats.’


----------



## purple (Jun 18, 2019)

Van said:


> Throughout history there are many contemporaries doing a ‘thing’ at the same time as any given ‘great’ artist. There were many sculptors in Michelangelo’s day and many architects in Brunelleschi’s just as there were many composers in des Prez’s. The great ones are not only masters of their craft, but having typically studied their predecessors and contemporaries, their work also does something new, usually pushing the boundaries and stands out and above the rest. You don’t have to like an artist to acknowledge their ‘greatness’ or contribution or even the mere fact that they changed history.
> 
> My original point is irrefutable: great composers studied great composers, (even if you don’t want to acknowledge that great composers exist because...‘who’s to say who’s great?’)
> 
> ...


You can be _great_ without much studying of the greats but you will never be one of _the greats._


----------



## VinRice (Jun 18, 2019)

Denkii said:


> Is it really the composer who needs to have the knowledge or is it rather a social and work environmental expectation that they have to live up to?
> 
> I'm not saying theory doesn't serve a purpose. I just believe it's more on the prestige side than we are willing to admit.



This is just nonsense I'm afraid. There's no 'prestige' in learning theory. There's no peer pressure to learn theory. It's simply a collection of tools for the job. Much more importantly it's a collection of tools for analysing music because the learning never stops, nor should it. No client or casual listener gives a flying fart whether you have learnt theory or not, it's all a magic trick to them. But they'll know in an instant whether it sounds genuinely Baroque, Death Metal, 20th Century Modern, 80's Pop or whatever. They'll know in an instant whether it's 'good' or not. Now if somebody want to be an 'artist' who ploughs a unique furrow and never learns how they are doing what they do, have at it. Maybe they will be one of the 0.0001% of artists who anybody gives a shit about.


----------



## Denkii (Jun 18, 2019)

VinRice said:


> This is just nonsense I'm afraid. There's no 'prestige' in learning theory. There's no peer pressure to learn theory. It's simply a collection of tools for the job. Much more importantly it's a collection of tools for analysing music because the learning never stops, nor should it. No client or casual listener gives a flying fart whether you have learnt theory or not, it's all a magic trick to them. But they'll know in an instant whether it sounds genuinely Baroque, Death Metal, 20th Century Modern, 80's Pop or whatever. They'll know in an instant whether it's 'good' or not. Now if somebody want to be an 'artist' who ploughs a unique furrow and never learns how they are doing what they do, have at it. Maybe they will be one of the 0.0001% of artists who anybody gives a shit about.


It is a plausibility check for your work, yes. But not only will clients know in an instant whether it sounds good or not and/or whether it fits the desired mood, so will you - even without the theory. And if you don't, theory doesn't help much. That was my point basically. Also this whole "you need to know the rules in order to break them" is something I disagree with. Not knowing the rules hasn't stopped anyone from breaking them. It's simply the awareness that's nonexistent. Does it matter for the product? I don't think so.
Also if you think that the solemn reason as to why people who actively work in music learn theory is to apply it, I disagree yet again.
At least I can agree to disagree and don't call your opinion nonsense.

I also never said it's not helpful. Just not obligatory.


----------



## VinRice (Jun 18, 2019)

Denkii said:


> It is a plausibility check for your work, yes. But not only will clients know in an instant whether it sounds good or not and/or whether it fits the desired mood, so will you - even without the theory. And if you don't, theory doesn't help much. That was my point basically. Also this whole "you need to know the rules in order to break them" is something I disagree with. Not knowing the rules hasn't stopped anyone from breaking them. It's simply the awareness that's nonexistent. Does it matter for the product? I don't think so.
> Also if you think that the solemn reason as to why people who actively work in music learn theory is to apply it, I disagree yet again.
> At least I can agree to disagree and don't call your opinion nonsense.
> 
> I also never said it's not helpful. Just not obligatory.



It's not a question of disagreeing, you are simply incorrect.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 18, 2019)

Denkii,

Sorry my friend, as Vin says, you are flat out wrong about some aspects of theory (provisos do apply though). It _is_ about the end product, just not in the way you might imagine. It's about the composer and their development and search for deeper personal understanding that translates into more potent work. Theory _*is*_ applied at the composing stage for certain musics but don't discount it being applied to media too as many here will attest.
I'm not sure why in the context of composing, you wouldn't apply theory (actually it should be called technique), even at a subliminal level. You do not seem to understand what technique actually does for a composer so as a metaphor, you presumably gained technique to master a DAW, did doing so improve your work?..most likely.
Can you play a concerto without instrumental technique - no. Can you mix in a DAW without post-prod skills - no. Can you compose without technique - yes, but can you write to your utmost ability - probably not, because you wont have found out what you are capable of, which can only be done by deep learning and personal reflection from a position of knowledge and the experience one gains from prolonged practise and study....on the assumption that you want to excel in certain genres.


----------



## Denkii (Jun 19, 2019)

mikeh-375 said:


> Denkii,
> 
> Sorry my friend, as Vin says, you are flat out wrong about some aspects of theory (provisos do apply though). It _is_ about the end product, just not in the way you might imagine. It's about the composer and their development and search for deeper personal understanding that translates into more potent work. Theory _*is*_ applied at the composing stage for certain musics but don't discount it being applied to media too as many here will attest.
> I'm not sure why in the context of composing, you wouldn't apply theory (actually it should be called technique), even at a subliminal level. You do not seem to understand what technique actually does for a composer so as a metaphor, you presumably gained technique to master a DAW, did doing so improve your work?..most likely.
> Can you play a concerto without instrumental technique - no. Can you mix in a DAW without post-prod skills - no. Can you compose without technique - yes, but can you write to your utmost ability - probably not, because you wont have found out what you are capable of, which can only be done by deep learning and personal reflection from a position of knowledge and the experience one gains from prolonged practise and study....on the assumption that you want to excel in certain genres.


Mikeh I did not say that theory is not about the product, I said it doesn't matter for the product how you got there.

You guys can tell me I'm wrong all you want but it simply doesn't matter whether or not someone was able to analyse their score if the score is good.
I am not talking about skills you apply because you have a lot of practice. That can happen subconsciously without necessarily being actively applied knowledge about theory. But actively diving into e.g. analysis is not a prerequisite to sound great.


----------



## Leon Willett (Jun 19, 2019)

muk said:


> Well, it's absolutely clear that 'greatness' does not depend on any individuals opinion. It's a legacy that is shared in our culture. Who knows how exactly a composer ascends to 'greatness' in the collective mind of our society. I would argue that one important part is the influence that said composers music had on the music of his/her contempary and later composers. You may admire Georg Christoph Wagenseil's music above all else, or the music of the Stamitz family. You may thus personally hold the opinion that they were 'greater' composers than Mozart. Still the fact remains that Mozart's music has influenced almost all composers that came after him. And so did Haydn, Beethoven, and many others. In this way Mozart left deep and lasting traces in the history of music, while Wagenseil and the Stamitzes did not. In our culture, Mozart is thus much, much more important - and hence considered 'great' - than Wagenseil and the Stamitzes. Simply because his music influenced the course of music history in our culture, and theirs did only to an almost immeasurably small degree.
> 
> Thus, I would answer your questions:
> 
> ...



Composing music with regard to what, as you put it, "society receives as great and important music" is composing out of fear. Fear of not being received. Fear of being ridiculed.

We must compose out of love. Love for how the music sounds. And then it will be received however it is received.

We cannot compose music with regard for what other people think.

This brings fear into every bar, every note. And it will be mediocre. It will be shadow of what it could be. Musical cowardice.

Ironically, Mozart would agree with this.

As an aside, you appeal to authority (the consensus of society) as a definition of musical greatness. This is poisonous to the thinking of a composer, who must follow his/her heart when it comes to their influences, and what they study. Studying hated music because its famous is poisonous for a composer's development. An act of "should" and fear, rather than an act of love. Study what you love.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 19, 2019)

Denkii said:


> Mikeh I did not say that theory is not about the product, I said it doesn't matter for the product how you got there.
> 
> You guys can tell me I'm wrong all you want but it simply doesn't matter whether or not someone was able to analyse their score if the score is good.
> I am not talking about skills you apply because you have a lot of practice. That can happen subconsciously without necessarily being actively applied knowledge about theory. But actively diving into e.g. analysis is not a prerequisite to sound great.



Technique (not theory) doesn't matter for the product, true enough, but it matters on a deep subjective and personal level to the composer. If you want to be _the best you can_ at orchestral music then you need to know what you are doing, you can't wing it at levels beyond a DAW and samples and even in that scenario, your work will be better if fully informed.
Likewise with composition because _good, best practice_ composition is inextricably bound with good writing for the orchestra and not something you can wing or do subconsciously, knowledge, musicianship and hard training and practice with technique is required. (you can wing it with samples, but so can everybody else). The same applies to all aspects of composition, the more you know, the better informed and the more options you have at the creative stage.
I've often acknowledged that great music is written without technique, we have no truck there but the thing missed is that theory/technique is a sure bet road leading the way to you finding you as a composer. You might not get this, but it is true.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 19, 2019)

Leon Willett said:


> ..........who must follow his/her heart when it comes to their influences, and what they study. Studying hated music because its famous is poisonous for a composer's development. An act of "should" and fear, rather than an act of love. Study what you love.



This is a truism, but only once you have studied enough to be able to discard with confidence what doesn't resonate within and to do that requires familiarity. Learning technique will in this sense help you find yourself and your natural inclinations....that is why all composers should learn imv...for their own aesthetic sake. if you find a technique you feel able to work in (it will just feel right), master it, own it and let it inculcate your aesthetics.


----------



## muk (Jun 19, 2019)

Leon you completely misunderstood my post. Not in one single word I am writing how a composer should or should not write music. I was trying to answer the question why we consider some composers to be great.

If you wanted to deduce how you have to compose to become one of the great composers from my post - something I'd decidedly advice not to do - it would not be: compose in a way that the society likes your music. Another complete misunderstanding of what I wrote. It would be: compose in a way that your music influences other composers, which is something completely different.

Apart from these misunderstandings I disagree with your statement that you should only study the music you love. Bad advice in my opinion. Be open minded, study a lot of music. Study music you love, and music you don't love. It will help you to understand what you do and don't like in music, and that will be of great help for your own writing.

I, for example, do not particularly love Wagner's music. On an intellectual level I do acknowledge that the music is fantastic, some of the best that has been written. I just don't enjoy listening to it as much as I do to other music. Does that mean I should not have studied Wagner's music? Absolutely not! Because I learned a whole lot on all levels doing it (form, orchestration, melodic writing, dramaturgy, harmony etc.). And I learned that quieter, subtle music is closer to my heart than loud, large, overwhelming music - however well it may be written.


----------



## Leon Willett (Jun 19, 2019)

muk said:


> Leon you completely misunderstood my post. Not in one single word I am writing how a composer should or should not write music.



I see, my apologies! 



muk said:


> compose in a way that your music influences other composers



But aren't we still worried about what other's think of it in that case? Why do I have to be an influence to others? Still not really writing from the heart. There is still a hidden attitude in there: "I want to deeply affect others with my writing" or "I want to be an influencer". How about just: "this is exactly what I want to write"  



muk said:


> I disagree with your statement that you should only study the music you love. Bad advice in my opinion. Be open minded, study a lot of music. Study music you love, and music you don't love.



OK fair enough, valid point! 

But we have to be careful: it is dangerously close to "I know you hate this music but you should study it anyway because it's famous", which is part of a common ecosytem of beliefs (common to many music teachers and institutions), which goes somewhat like this: "The music you like is invalid. Study what I tell you." 

To be clear, I realise this isn't what you are saying! 

But this position is held so commonly that we have to point it out, I think, as wrong and damaging to a student, and hope the student understands the fairly nuanced point: "your influences and everything you love are valid, but you should also study music you don't like so you know what not to do" -- or something along those lines  (I believe this is your point)

Still not sure I agree though! Analysing music is exhausting, and, given the choice I think I would recommend people only look at stuff they love. The motivation to analyse deeply goes up so much!


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jun 21, 2019)

Denkii said:


> While I think I understand where your are coming from when you talk about the necessity of theoretical knowledge when it comes to composers, I have to disagree with your last statement from experience.
> 
> Yes there are full time musicians who do this and really don't know what they are doing. All they know is it sounds good. Also there are a lot of them who produce their stuff on their own, including programming arrangements for demos before something becomes a final product.
> 
> ...



We can agree to disagree!

I think, this is going around in circles. In short, by this logic, a food scientist, with no training or understanding of music can suddenly become a working composer, making real income. 

It makes no sense to me whatsoever. 

And if you read my sentence again, it does say - 'Absolutely Nothing'. To compose something, you need to know chords, harmony, rhythm, bass, structure, form, scales - something! Even if you did not go to college, you can learn these things either by figuring out, being around other musicians or learning from YouTube videos etc.

This is also theoretical knowledge. I do not mean, you need to be able to read a complicated piano concerto or a full orchestral score on demand. But, you do need something. And anything you pick up - no matter what the medium - that is theoretical knowledge. 

Every professional will know 'some' theory. The level at which they know it, will depend on their background and the nature of music they compose. 

A lot of it is also practical which can paralyze you.

Example:

You are at a scoring session. There is a conductor and a session producer. You need to communicate to the conductor that a certain passage needs to have shorter staccato playing. If you do not know where on the page it is, how the hell are you even going to communicate that? 

If you do follow (at least your own music, like I can do), then you do have some understanding of theory and you can be in the room without costing the production a fortune to play 16 bars of music. 

None of this is required to compose electronic music for example and there you do not need these skills but to say - you need to know nothing - not even scales, key, intervals - nothing is absurd.


----------

