# Great article: "Against Music Theory"



## robgb (Jul 17, 2020)

"Good music theories are descriptive, rather than prescriptive. They look for patterns and structures that have been found to work. They don’t define what’s acceptable and unacceptable. Bad theory is the basis for codifying arbitrary value judgments. The classical rule against parallel fifths is nonsensical if you play rock power chords, or traditional music from a variety of world cultures for that matter. The rule against parallel voicings generally would throw out all of rock and a sizeable chunk of jazz. Maybe it’s time to stop thinking of the classical rules as rules at all, and instead call them what they are: a guide to the subjective preferences of people in powdered wigs."









Against music theory


I am mercifully finished with music theory in grad school and couldn’t be happier about it. You may find this surprising. My blog is full of music theory. How could a guy who enjoys thinking …



www.ethanhein.com


----------



## youngpokie (Jul 17, 2020)

I was taught that music theory is a term of convenience simply to name a collection of specific disciplines: harmony, polyphony, form, solfeggio, orchestration, etc.

And so, it sounds to me that this (rather primitive, I might add) rant against some abstract "music theory" is actually aimed at harmony and voice-leading.

To make an example against "music theory", he points out that modern rock and jazz music is not using the voice-leading principles from Baroque-Classical-Romantic eras. Seriously???

Those principles are integrated in the major-minor harmonic system which encompasses the totality of music from those 3 eras. It is a testament to the power and beauty of this system that parts of it survive to this day in pop and jazz.

His real issue seems to be with the fact that this harmonic system continues to be the foundation of all music education in US and Europe, despite the fact that other harmonic systems existed before and new systems have appeared since then.


----------



## Living Fossil (Jul 17, 2020)

robgb said:


> The classical rule against parallel fifths is nonsensical if you play rock power chords, or traditional music from a variety of world cultures for that matter.



Such phrases are the result when people with a very flawed knowledge of historical aspects feel the urge to speak.
There was never an absolute "classical rule against parallel fifths". Never.
(ok, except among people with a similarly flawed understanding of tradition).

The "classical rule against parallel fifths" has always – since the renaissance – been a rule which applies
only to certain styles of the epoch in question where the voice leading aimed towards polyphony.
If you look e.g. at the composer Orlando di Lasso (one of the most important renaissance composers), you will see that while he completely avoided parallel fifths in some of his work (mainly the sacral part) he very well used them in other parts of his work.

Knowing theory very well is a great thing.
Knowing no theory but having a great musicality is a great thing too.
The area in between – half knowledge – is quite problematic.


----------



## sinkd (Jul 17, 2020)

Agreed. I've come across this blog before. The title conflates "Music Theory" (all musics can have a "theory") with "The voice leading, forms and harmonic progressions typically found in 17th through 19th century common practice music." He's not really railing against anything when he points out examples of pop music that have parallel fifths, etc.


----------



## Rob (Jul 17, 2020)

my impression is that the author is late... most of what he says was already passed at the end of the 19th century...


----------



## SupremeFist (Jul 17, 2020)

Hasn't everyone always known that a) theory is a post-hoc codification of practice, and b) the "rules" are never absolute but may (must) be broken for the sake of beauty, as all great composers in fact did?


----------



## GNP (Jul 17, 2020)

I've taken quite a few counterpoint classes before, and I have to say I actually can appreciate why parallel fifths are not appreciated. Classical loves parallel 3rds and that sounds sweeter. It's like listening to Bach on chocolate.

That said, I can also say, fuck all of that shit, and eventually the line between "breaking the rules" and "not knowing what you're doing", becomes increasingly blurred. That's just how it is.

Then when you mentally travel all over the world and listen to world music, you're like....whoah. Too much differences to keep up with them!


----------



## ism (Jul 17, 2020)

Not so much "Against music theory" as "against badly taught and badly understood music theory". 

Which I can't help feeling has been covered before on more or less every thread on music theory.


----------



## nolotrippen (Jul 17, 2020)

SupremeFist said:


> Hasn't everyone always known that a) theory is a post-hoc codification of practice, and b) the "rules" are never absolute but may (must) be broken for the sake of beauty, as all great composers in fact did?


Schoenburg did. His UCLA students wanted to learn serial techniques. He told them they had to learn traditional theory and harmony and counterpoint first because you have to know what the rules are before you can break them.


----------



## nolotrippen (Jul 17, 2020)

robgb said:


> "subjective preferences of people in powdered wigs"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As someone who wears powdered wigs, I'm offended.


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 17, 2020)

nolotrippen said:


> Schoenburg did. His UCLA students wanted to learn serial techniques. He told them they had to learn traditional theory and harmony and counterpoint first because you have to know what the rules are before you can break them.


I think most modern composers who radically broke from tradition all had solid grounding in formal theory. You need that foundation before you can deviate from it. Or at least, it’s helps quite a bit.

my prof in university was James Tenney who was a super intellectual and had explored various avenues of music perception via electro acoustic work. He himself was a student of Varese so timbre and texture superseded tonality as most of us know it. I didn’t fully appreciate his teachings at the age of 20 and it would take me another decade to even appreciate Varese work as well as his own. But he had solid grounding in formal music theory and could also play Ives’ Concord Sonata which is not an easy feat..


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jul 17, 2020)

robgb said:


> Maybe it’s time to stop thinking of the classical rules as rules at all, and instead call them what they are: a guide to the subjective preferences of people in powdered wigs."



I suggest you read this:









Voice Leading


An accessible scientific explanation for the traditional rules of voice leading, including an account of why listeners find some musical textures more pleasing than others.Voice leading is the musical art of combining sounds over time. In this book, David Huron offers an accessible account of...



www.google.com


----------



## Macrawn (Jul 17, 2020)

I think it's a great article. In truth it's the rule breaking or dissonance that isn't typical that often sets a song apart and later becomes a model for how people want to do something. If you want to compose something new, you have to ignore rules at times or even often. If you want to create music that is similar to what already exists embrace the theory wholeheartedly. It won't ever be innovative but it will still sound good. 

In a way we think through our language. If you speak English there are words and terms you think through. When you learn a different language you see how those ideas are expressed in a different way, talking about a similar concept but the meanings are not the same. Perspective is different and the frame of that thinking is different. I've always been facinated for example with German words that require 3-4 english words to describe. You can't even see the box of thinking that you are in until you break out of it and examine another language. In music exploring eastern sounds for example would open some doors.

I took a class in psychology by C. Martindale back in the day when I was in college. It was a phychology class on the evolution of art. Basically it was about how art evolves and how the tolerance for dissonance increases over time. Musicians for exmple tend to have a higher tolerance for dissonant sounds than the general public because they are surrounded by music. But you can see over time how the public aquires that dissonance but it just takes them longer. Then museums embrace it. Then theory professors embrace it. 

If you are a creator just looking through the lens of todays rules you are writing in the past. That's not a bad thing. You can write really great music that's pretty much been done before and it's enjoyable. I'm sure you can write a great "Disney" sounding theme. I'd love to be able to do that well. Theory and rules serve you well there. In fact there is a whole set of "genre" rules to follow if you want a 
"Disney" sounding track. I'm all for that. To innovate you have to get outside of those rules.

There was a thread I saw that had a lot of death metal tracks on it. Damn, every track had the same thing going on. Some artifically deep male singer, guitars that all sounded the same, playing same rifs and runs. I couldn't stand it, but I also couldn't say the guitar playing wasn't masterful for what it was. I couldn't stand it because every darn track each by a different band sounded like every other band. 

I can see the article ruffled some feathers, but it is absolutely correct in what it says. That doesn't mean you need to throw away theory, or even deviate from it. You can create great music that pretty much already exists forever. 

I think the article is just saying you need to get over theory too, and he's right that when you look at theory you are looking into the past to some extent. Newer music will have more dissonance in it, or break those rules more often. He's a theory guy, I don't think he's saying ignore all theory.


----------



## jsg (Jul 17, 2020)

robgb said:


> "Good music theories are descriptive, rather than prescriptive. They look for patterns and structures that have been found to work. They don’t define what’s acceptable and unacceptable. Bad theory is the basis for codifying arbitrary value judgments. The classical rule against parallel fifths is nonsensical if you play rock power chords, or traditional music from a variety of world cultures for that matter. The rule against parallel voicings generally would throw out all of rock and a sizeable chunk of jazz. Maybe it’s time to stop thinking of the classical rules as rules at all, and instead call them what they are: a guide to the subjective preferences of people in powdered wigs."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I find the article has some truth in it, but is also a bit reactionary. I'll explain. The theory and practice of an art are both important. It's equally important to understand that music doesn't follow rules; the theory comes after the practice; musicians analyze, codify and categorize elements of composition and a theory comes into being. I think of theory as like the scaffolding of a building that is being built: Once the building is complete the scaffolding is removed. For a music student, studying theory is very useful. Its primary purpose is not to determine or predict how music will, or should, be composed. Its primary function is to sensitize the ear and mind to the deep subtleties of tension and the lack thereof between intervals and their motion. Another function of theory, as the article pointed out, is to define things, to describe what is going on. Music theory is also unfailingly linked to musical style, which is why some musicians reject theory---they aren't interested, say, in classical or jazz, so they don't study classical or jazz theory. My opinion is that studying theory is always helpful if you have the courage to be yourself and write whatever you want to write--theory can help you become more sensitive to tensions between chords and their progressions, to voice-leading and contrapuntal motion. Not instead of listening to music, but in addition to listening.

When I sit down to compose, after 50 years of writing music full time, I use my ear, just like I did when I was a kid before I knew any theory at all. But knowing theory helps a composer to think_ about_ music, which is different from thinking _in_ music, which is what we do when composing. Both have value and when immersed deep in the creative process, the two modes of thinking can merge and the difference between thinking about music and thinking in music becomes fuzzy.

Many great songwriters and even some media composers have little or no theoretical background in music. When writing a 2 or 3 minute song, or a short media cue often measured in seconds, one can get by without theory if natural talent is there. This is not true when writing extended-form music such as symphonic movements, opera, ballet, etc.; musical forms where the music stands alone without supporting elements and all the transitions must work and be seamless, the themes must be developed and undergo variation--music where the musical form is determined by _only_ the music and nothing else. If you try writing a 10 or 15 minute (or longer) piece of music with no theoretical background or knowledge, well, you'll have to have a genius imagination to pull it off and even then it probably will have far more repetition than variation and genuine development of the ideas.

When I was working toward a college degree in classical music theory I understood that natural talent and imagination are the driving forces in one's growth as a composer, but knowledge really does help. The best music students I have taught over the years took advantage of their theoretical studies to further their own creativity, and didn't view it as something that would box them in and limit their artistic freedom. It's not just the knowledge that we're exposed to and learn that is important, it's also our reaction and attitude towards that knowledge that helps to determine whether it works for us or against us.

Aaron Copland once said that he loves Chopin as much as the next guy. But when he sits down to write music, the music he has studied written by others is not much help. He's right, I think, in the sense that each composer is alone with their own thoughts and ideas and must organize them in the way that only he or she can. One size never fits all in the arts.


----------



## youngpokie (Jul 17, 2020)

jsg said:


> ...Music theory is also unfailingly linked to musical style, which is why some musicians reject theory ....



I think this nails it exactly


----------



## JJP (Jul 17, 2020)

Okay, I'll bite on this trolling simply to say that I studied a lot of theory over the years both in academia and on my own. Theory education in both locations included studying techniques used in rock, jazz, pop, and other contemporary music along with classical. (Yes, I looked at rock and pop tunes as part of college music theory coursework and also had hard studies of Bach and other classical composers.)

I've found it all to be very valuable and immensely useful for understanding the music around me and being able to fluently move through different styles as demanded in my career.


----------



## Macrawn (Jul 17, 2020)

jsg said:


> I find the article has some truth in it, but is also a bit reactionary. I'll explain. The theory and practice of an art are both important. It's equally important to understand that music doesn't follow rules; the theory comes after the practice; musicians analyze, codify and categorize elements of composition and a theory comes into being. I think of theory as like the scaffolding of a building that is being built: Once the building is complete the scaffolding is removed. For a music student, studying theory is very useful. Its primary purpose is not to determine or predict how music will, or should, be composed. Its primary function is to sensitize the ear and mind to the deep subtleties of tension and the lack thereof between intervals and their motion. Another function of theory, as the article pointed out, is to define things, to describe what is going on. Music theory is also unfailingly linked to musical style, which is why some musicians reject theory---they aren't interested, say, in classical or jazz, so they don't study classical or jazz theory. My opinion is that studying theory is always helpful if you have the courage to be yourself and write whatever you want to write--theory can help you become a more sensitive to tensions between chords and their progressions, to voice-leading and contrapuntal motion. Not instead of listening to music, but in addition to listening.
> 
> When I sit down to compose, after 50 years of writing music full time, I use my ear, just like I did when I was a kid before I knew any theory at all. But knowing theory helps a composer to think_ about_ music, which is different from thinking _in_ music, which is what we do when composing. Both have value.
> 
> ...


Well said. Your work is innovative and I appreciate your insight into it.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jul 17, 2020)

..well I'm with @JJP.
If you don't know something, it wont be a creative option for you.
Learning stuff enables self discovery and frees creativity. You get this or you don't.


----------



## José Herring (Jul 17, 2020)

robgb said:


> The classical rule against parallel fifths is nonsensical if you play rock power chords, or traditional music from a variety of world cultures for that matter. The rule against parallel voicings generally would throw out all of rock and a sizeable chunk of jazz. Maybe it’s time to stop thinking of the classical rules as rules at all, and instead call them what they are: a guide to the subjective preferences of people in powdered wigs."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OMG, I haven't read the whole thing but I can tell he's off to a bad start with a lot of misunderstandings regarding "parallel" voicing.


----------



## Macrawn (Jul 17, 2020)

youngpokie said:


> I think this nails it exactly


Very true I think. And the truth is, the "reader" or listener I would say needs a framework to understand the piece as well. When you read a book the structure of the genre helps you understand it because of it's structure. Sometimes literature that doesn't follow the structure of the time takes a generation to pass for people to embrace it. Usually it takes a lot of other artists influenced by the style to emulate it. Then it becomes mainstream, and rules are created around it. Like the impressionists for example. The context around the piece of work does help understand it, and without that context it's very hard for people (who are not artists themselves) to appreciate it. When I say context in terms of music I'm thinking genre, or style. It sets people's expectations which does enhance enjoyment.


----------



## robgb (Jul 17, 2020)

Folks, please keep in mind that I didn't write this article, I merely posted a snippet from it. I don't know fuck all about music theory, and couldn't care less about it in general.. I just found it interesting to read a contrary opinion to the standard. My music is entirely by ear, and completely instinctual. So I'm in no position to argue the merits of this particular article. But again, I found the author's willingness to challenge the system refreshing. Clearly, he struck a nerve.


----------



## jsg (Jul 17, 2020)

josejherring said:


> OMG, I haven't read the whole thing but I can tell he's off to a bad start with a lot of misunderstandings regarding "parallel" voicing.



I thought the same thing, another young, rebellious composer out to reinvent the wheel. Parallel intervals in general, and particularly parallel 5ths and octaves, tend to (not always however) reduce the individuality of melodic lines from a contrapuntal perspective because of the level of tensions these intervals lack, which is why, at least in the common-practice period (1750-1900) composers tended to mostly avoid them (and to avoid sounding like medieval composers!). This in no way, shape or form makes them "good" or "bad". It simply is a fact: if you want to write interesting counterpoint, your melodic lines must have individuality of direction, contour and harmonic tension. Now, of course Debussy and Bartok used parallel 5ths and 4ths to their heart's content and wrote good music in the process. It's really more about the sound you want, rather than what's right or wrong.

In general, the larger your chords (say a 7-note chord rather than a triad) the more problematic contrapuntal writing can become. A famous example of fantastic 6-part contrapuntal (fugal, imitative counterpoint) writing is a passage by Mozart, I think it's from his Symphony #40 in G-minor, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Rory (Jul 17, 2020)

*”Great article”*

I can‘t get real excited about a “great article” that turns out to be a website blog post that’s almost eight years old. Mr. Hein, who is currently finishing up his doctorate, has used a few choice phrases for the very purpose of provoking the reaction that he’s getting. This is commonly known as clickbait. He wanted to get a rise out of people, and almost eight years later he’s succeeded here.

However, if one reads the blog post, it becomes apparent that he has chosen his words pretty carefully. His actual target is certain professors, who he says he endured as an undergrad, who push a dogmatic position on what’s right, what’s wrong, what’s good and what’s bad in music.

So what.

None of this has anything to do with Susan Sontag, either.


----------



## giwro (Jul 17, 2020)

Whenever I see an article like this, I confess I bristle a bit, but I'm also conflicted...

I get what he's trying to say, I do.

But, it always makes me think of a sort of anti-intellectual "I don't need to learn anything, I'm so good that I came out of my mother's womb a fully-formed composer, I don't need to be bound by your silly rules, nor have anyone teach me...."

Then, again, I have sympathy for his point of view....

I was a theory/comp major - I had to study not only basic theory, but also Form and Analysis, Orchestration, Choral Arranging.... my senior composition recital asked that I write in different forms - Variation, Fugue, etc....

Later in life, I felt like I'd benefit from some coaching - I tried to work with a teacher, and he refused to look at any of my stuff, but demanded I go back and re-do all of the basic theory (basically telling me that 25+ years of successful composing was mere sh*t in his eyes, and that I sucked)

I stopped working with him pretty quickly, but was so discouraged I didn't compose much for a couple years.

Fast-forward to 2017, and one of my organ works was performed by a fantastic colleague for a concert sponsored by a chapter of the American Guild of Organists.... and, it received a nice review.

I realized that I DON'T suck, and that while I may not hardly ever write in common-practice anymore, nor do I always consciously follow those rules, that doesn't mean I'm a bad composer.

I think common-practice theory is good to learn, and I support composers learning as much as they can - I became so much more aware once I'd studied even basic theory.

But, when theory is used as a weapon to control, exclude and demean (rather than a means to encourage and lift up) that's when it's being used wrongly, IMHO. Studying it and learning it will almost certainly help you, but not if your teacher is a raging a**.


----------



## GNP (Jul 17, 2020)

Here's the thing though - if you need to know something in order to deviate from it - why not just start with an innocent mind? Just do whatever the fuck you want! Yes, having to know something in order to deviate from it builds "street-cred" (*eyeroll*), but if that's the case, why not just do whatever inspired you, and do whatever the hell you want?

Hmmmmm.


----------



## jsg (Jul 17, 2020)

GNP said:


> Here's the thing though - if you need to know something in order to deviate from it - why not just start with an innocent mind? Just do whatever the fuck you want! Yes, having to know something in order to deviate from it builds "street-cred" (*eyeroll*), but if that's the case, why not just do whatever inspired you, and do whatever the hell you want?
> 
> Hmmmmm.



Two reasons: 

1. You'll think you're doing something completely original when it's been done before just as you're doing it.

2) Having curiosity about what's been done before is to me a positive trait, not just to appear credible in the eyes of others, but to experience the empathy and fellowship of relating to what others have done. Without curiosity and empathy you'll find yourself pretty lonely and others will find you a bore.


----------



## GNP (Jul 17, 2020)

jsg said:


> Two reasons: 1. You'll think you're doing something completely original when it's been done before just as you're doing it.
> 
> 2) Having curiosity about what's been done before is to me a positive trait, not just to appear credible in the eyes of others, but to experience the empathy and fellowship of relating to what others have done. Without curiosity and empathy you'll find yourself pretty lonely and others will find you a bore.



True, but I just don't like the idea of this "forced community" upon "originality". I'd rather a delinquent come to realize how unoriginal he/she is, rather than being told from the onset "this is what it takes to be original", and to have "street cred". Know what I mean? I think far too many assholes keep using "originality" to bring down others, than the other way around. Having to be original has become so weaponized to a point that it just simply acts as a deterrent, rather than an encouragement. *And by this point in time, it has been weaponized in very unreasonable terms, often without lack of empathy or understanding.*

I'd say to an innocent soul, "Just do what you want, you'll come around later", rather than "What you're doing sucks, isn't original, you must be more original, blah blah blah" - when in fact, many in this day and age often mean - "in my eyes, you'll NEVER be original, there's always something to tame your pride, no matter how cruel it sounds or how INACCURATE it is".

Know what I mean?


----------



## youngpokie (Jul 17, 2020)

Macrawn said:


> Usually it takes a lot of other artists influenced by the style to emulate it. Then it becomes mainstream, and rules are created around it. Like the impressionists for example.



My view is slightly different, but goes along similar lines.

I think as music evolved, it went through a number of harmonic systems (or "theories"), all based on the intervallic organization available at the time.

It went from simple two-note consonances and Modal system in the beginning of Renaissance madrigals to triad system of Classical major-minor era to chromaticism of Romantics, to microtonality and atonality of today. From only perfect consonances to full acceptance of dissonance.

Each time such new system became technologically available in instruments, a style was created around it, depending on how successful the system was with the public and musicians.

The majority of composers started out by directly imitating and copying those they admire (Tchaikovsky --> Schumann, Rachmaninov --> Tchaikovsky, and so on) and then added something of their own. Some of the "rules" required in prior system became unnecessary or counter-productive in subsequent systems, such as parallel 5th in multitone dissonant chords.

But because each of these styles lasts a while, it becomes ingrained. So, when @robgb says he writes by ear and instinct, I think he instinctively follows some of the "rules" or stylistic conventions he absorbed by listening to the music he likes.

The major-minor triad system with its TSDT pattern, however, turned out to be the most successful and resilient system, because it flourishes to this day in concert halls and its greatly simplified components live on in pop and jazz. No other system comes close.

So, when people rebel against "music theory" I think they reject the pervasiveness of major-minor without recognizing the amount of tools (rather than rules) that the mastery of it would provide.


----------



## Kent (Jul 17, 2020)

robgb said:


> The classical rule against parallel fifths is nonsensical if you play rock power chords, or traditional music from a variety of world cultures for that matter. The rule against parallel voicings generally would throw out all of rock and a sizeable chunk of jazz.


This reads to me like:

_The Latinate rule against split infinitives is nonsensical if you speak English, or analytical languages from a variety of world cultures for that matter. The rules of Classical Italic inflectional morphology generally would throw out a vast majority of English and a sizeable chunk of Chinese._

...In other words, it is a non-sequitur statement.

(And there is no Latinate rule against split infinitives, but most Latin infinitives were only one word, so it would have been impossible anyways)


----------



## José Herring (Jul 17, 2020)

For me, I just feel that he's allowed to have any opinion he wants just don't start it with a fundamental misunderstanding of parallel motion, then claim they are illegal in "classical music" then claim that it's the aesthetic of people in "powdered wigs". All are false assumptions and ridiculously so and just smacks of somebody who never took the time to really understand counterpoint and dismissed it. Retarded. 

Plus the rules of strict counterpoint which is what I think he's referring to were intended for vocal music during church services. I think it gets misunderstood today because we've lost all connection with how powerful the church was in everyday society in the 17th/18th century. But, by the time you get to Bach secular works and then 100 years later Mozart, then after that Beethoven and then after that Debussy, Ravel and then Stravinsky, you can pretty much toss the ideas of strict counterpoint out the window as those ideas just gave way to good voice leading and chord voicings and great melodic writing.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (Jul 17, 2020)

Boo to anti-intellectualism.


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 17, 2020)

GNP said:


> Here's the thing though - if you need to know something in order to deviate from it - why not just start with an innocent mind? Just do whatever the fuck you want! Yes, having to know something in order to deviate from it builds "street-cred" (*eyeroll*), but if that's the case, why not just do whatever inspired you, and do whatever the hell you want?
> 
> Hmmmmm.


Try that with a real group of musicians and learn the hard way why theory in music is essential...at least for orchestral music...


----------



## robgb (Jul 17, 2020)

GNP said:


> Here's the thing though - if you need to know something in order to deviate from it - why not just start with an innocent mind? Just do whatever the fuck you want!


I don't think anyone starts creating music with an innocent mind. Those of us who compose and play by ear have spent years LISTENING to music, and we learn what sounds good through osmosis. So unless you started composing out of the womb, you're bound to know a lot more about music than you think you do.

But different people learn in different ways. Some prefer to go the formal route and that's wonderful if it works for them. Others do it the way I do. By ear. Neither way is right or wrong. Neither way is better or worse, no matter what type of music you're composing. Whether you're steeped in music theory or you don't know a thing about it, you will ultimately have to sit down and come up with something that sounds good. 

And both types of composers have the potential to come up with music that could last for generations. A hundred years from now we'll still be listening and marveling over The Beatles, just as we'll still be listening to Mozart—who each had completely different approaches to the music they made.



dcoscina said:


> Try that with a real group of musicians and learn the hard way why theory in music is essential...at least for orchestral music...



I think you're talking about something entirely different. If you're trying to communicate with musicians trained in music theory and notation, clearly you'll need to know how to speak their language. But that's a different animal altogether.


----------



## robgb (Jul 17, 2020)

Gene Pool said:


> What standard?


The standard music theory that is taught in schools. 



Gene Pool said:


> Welcome to the club. But if you're doing okay for yourself, then why persist in this same nonsense, over and over? It seems to be a real axe to grind for some reason.


There's really no need to get nasty about this. I could turn around and ask why what I have to say upsets you so much? Really, I'm not interested in personal attacks. Take it to the drama zone.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 17, 2020)

Rob you keep pressing on this in thread after thread -- "I don't need no stinkin' theory" -- but as far as I understand it you have limited experience with orchestras. 

*Too Many Notes*

You simply can't expect to write 50-80 minutes of orchestral music "by ear" in anything like the amount of time people get for a movie. There will be too many range problems, arranging problems -- things that you can't fix while players are sitting there getting paid $150 an hour each.

For a game with a budget for an orchestra, it's arguably even more overwhelming because the amount of music is so large. Yes, if you have an unlimited budget, you can hire a team of people who know all those rules, but if your orchestration team has to more or less rewrite everything you did, you will be paying sooo much money and you still might run out of time.

*Mockups*

Besides, creating really great-sounding mockups is just easier if you know what 'works' and what doesn't -- formally absorbed or just by reading scores. My mockups are reviewed sometimes by a heck of a lot of people, and if there were a large divergence between that and the actual recordings, there would be some cranky executives.

*By Ear?*

Certainly many songs we all love were written and arranged by people who probably don't know one end of an oboe from another, so I'm not suggesting you 'can't write music' without training. Everyone cites The Beatles, but they are one band of many who started off not knowing much more than I IV V IV ii V I.

But you couldn't do the work I do with no training, unless you had an extra few hundred thousand $ or £ lying around for each project. I'm over six hours of music for this current project and if I had to hire people to arrange all of that I would have had to sell the family jewels. 

And we don't have any!


----------



## robgb (Jul 17, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Rob you keep pressing on this in thread after thread -- "I don't need no stinkin' theory" -- but as far as I understand it you have limited experience with orchestras.


First, this is an exaggeration. I've mentioned it now and again, but certainly not "thread after thread." I suspect this is a sensitive subject to you, so you're more aware of it. I could be wrong.

That said, I've seen many, many posts here (including many of yours) that stress the critical importance of "formal music training," which reminds me of the high school english teachers and college writing professors I encountered in the past who couldn't get a book published, while I was publishing regularly despite a complete lack of formal training. 

I think it's nice to counter this "wisdom" once in awhile to say that it simply isn't true and that every composer (or creator in general) can and does approach composition in their own personal way. We all have our own compositional "workflow," you might say, and all that matters is the end result. If people keep insisting that being well-versed in music theory and notation is the ONLY way to succeed, they're doing a disservice to the many people whose minds don't work that way, and have no desire to take that path. It's the kind of snobbishness that I see all too often, and that can kill some young aspirant's desire to continue to be creative for fear that they're "doing it wrong."

Yet I can point to many successful composers who haven't taken the "formal" path. And I do so now and again to show others that there isn't only ONE way to compose.

I'm not talking strictly about orchestral composition or writing to picture (the article mentions both jazz and rock), but since you brought it up, my lack of experience with an orchestra is irrelevant to the point I'm making. There are plenty of film composers who hand their midi files off to people who can transcribe their work. Some do it because they lack the time and others because of their limited ability to notate.

I find it interesting that my bringing this up gets people to question my motives. But if you need a motive, perhaps it's because I have often had the feeling that—despite my success in the writing field (I make a comfortable living writing novels)—my work is considered by some to be "less than" because I have no formal training to back it up. I don't have a degree in literature or creative writing and there are plenty of people who are happy to point out that out. 

So maybe my motivation for bringing this up every once in awhile stems from personal insecurity (and name me a creative person who doesn't have insecurity), but also a desire to let others who think the way I do know that they're not alone and they are not "less than," simply because someone who took a different path thinks that's the ONLY way to write.

We aren't doctors. We aren't lawyers. We aren't plumbers. We aren't mechanics. There are a dozen different ways to approach the creative arts, and I frankly get sick and tired of people acting as if there's only one.

End of rant.


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 17, 2020)

I think the other misconception about schooled composers might be that it’s all premeditated, which of course it’s not. After years of learning the fundamentals it becomes unconscious and instinctual.

I’d offer that those who did train had a latent ability for it anyhow and it was refined through exposure to academia or some form of theory training.

there’s so much information at ones disposal in this age of the internet That there’s no reason why someone cannot be exposed to these systems if only to become more enlightened as to why some music works for them while other music doesn’t.

I just recently interviewed Theodore Shapiro and I was discussing his process behind some of his music and he even stopped and said at some point compositional choices are made subconsciously or instinctually.
And he got his masters at Julliard studying under John Corigliano and David Diamond. So there’s the technique married with talent and creativity. The same applies to other well known big name composers.

I’m just resistant to this romanticized idea that all revolutionary artists were innovative despite their training or due to a lack of it. It’s simply not the case, at least with many pivotal music figures from the last 200 years..

p.s. this isn’t just relegated to orchestral music. frank Zappa was notorious for his rigorous auditions for band members. And these horror stories you hear are from giants like Terry Bozzio and Steve Vai.


----------



## Rodney Money (Jul 17, 2020)

Just wondering if this thread was started as an attack to my thread? https://vi-control.net/community/th...-organ-playing-a-chorale-hit-here-also.95876/


----------



## GtrString (Jul 17, 2020)

I dunno, the article seems to be more about dissemination of theory than theory itself. Its not theory that scares people off, its how theory is taught in some schools.

The author also seems to apply natural science criteria upon theories in the cultural field, which is a 101 science mistake. That way you set up a straw argument, which can never be verified.

So, while I can recognize some of the examples that the dissemination of theory can scare some students off, it can hardly be attributed to music theory itself. 

With good teaching applied, there is nothing as practical as a good theory. A "good" theory is nothing more than a constructive guidance of thought.


----------



## Rory (Jul 17, 2020)

Ethan Hein actually teaches music theory, and his YouTube channel assumes a good understanding of theory. He wrote a 10 paragraph, provocative blog post almost eight years ago that is being used in this thread to support a proposition that he almost certainly doesn’t endorse.

There are people who are hostile toward learning theory, and in many cases toward learning to read music. I don’t know what motivates them and I don’t care.

Adam Neely published a fascinating video yesterday about _The Girl from Ipanema_ and how cultural factors (as well as well-meaning students at Berklee) can affect how music is popularised and played. Knowing some theory is kinda basic to following what he’s talking about. Good stuff:


----------



## jsg (Jul 17, 2020)

robgb said:


> First, this is an exaggeration. I've mentioned it now and again, but certainly not "thread after thread." I suspect this is a sensitive subject to you, so you're more aware of it. I could be wrong.
> 
> That said, I've seen many, many posts here (including many of yours) that stress the critical importance of "formal music training," which reminds me of the high school english teachers and college writing professors I encountered in the past who couldn't get a book published, while I was publishing regularly despite a complete lack of formal training.
> 
> ...



There certainly isn't only one approach but the anti-intellectual currents that run so pervasively through American culture turn me off. Every once in a great while some gifted songwriter with little or no musical training comes along and creates the impression that anybody can call themselves a composer, educated or not. But the majority of untrained musicians are in reality not good at what they do, most suck. No one would dream of becoming an astronomer, a physician, an engineer or an automoble mechanic without some kind of formal training or informal apprenticeship. So, if one is going to call himself a composer then at least have enough integrity to take the time and energy to learn your craft. Have some respect for music.

When Haydn was in his 80s he wrote to a friend "I've just learned how to write for the woodwinds" - - and he wrote this after having written a large number of symphonies, chamber music and many other pieces. That's humility. When Debussy was dying of cancer, he said "I feel like I am just beginning to understand harmony". And when Beethoven was close to death he said "I feel like I haven't written much music". Mozart once remarked that "our music (human music) is _puny_ compared to the music of the spheres". If composers of such high levels of achievement can express such humility I think that those who are creating their four- or five-chord music without any real knowledge of composition should also get their pride out of the way and not hold ignorance up as a virtue.


----------



## robgb (Jul 17, 2020)

jsg said:


> There certainly isn't only one approach but the anti-intellectual currents that run so pervasively through American culture turn me off.


Come on, now. There is nothing anti-intellectual about playing music by ear and to conflate it with anti-intellectualism (which I also abhor) is not only disingenuous, but yet another example of the snobbishness I'm talking about.

I have absolutely nothing against music theory and those who want to learn it inside and out. As I've said, repeatedly, everyone has a different approach to creativity and no approach is wrong. There is nothing anti-intellectual about that argument.


----------



## robgb (Jul 17, 2020)

Rory said:


> He wrote a 10 paragraph, provocative blog post almost eight years ago that is being used in this thread to support a proposition that he almost certainly doesn’t endorse.


Wrong. I didn't post it to support any specific proposition. I stated why I posted it. This discussion only turned into that when I mentioned that I have no real knowledge of music theory and couldn't care less about it and for some reason that makes me the bogey man. But I never for a moment suggested that Hein was endorsing my particular method of creativity.


----------



## jsg (Jul 17, 2020)

robgb said:


> Come on, now. There is nothing anti-intellectual about playing music by ear and to conflate it with anti-intellectualism (which I also abhor) is not only disingenuous, but yet another example of the snobbishness I'm talking about.
> 
> I have absolutely nothing against music theory and those who want to learn it inside and out. As I've said, repeatedly, everyone has a different approach to creativity and no approach is wrong. There is nothing anti-intellectual about that argument.




OK, fair enough. I just know that I could not do what I do without years of training, study and learning from others.


----------



## robgb (Jul 17, 2020)

jsg said:


> OK, fair enough. I just know that I could not do what I do without years of training, study and learning from others.


And I think it's fantastic that you're in touch with that. I couldn't do what I do without training, study and learning from others either. I simply did it in a different way. I would never negate anyone's learning process. As I've said, all that matters is the results.


----------



## José Herring (Jul 17, 2020)

robgb said:


> Folks, please keep in mind that I didn't write this article, I merely posted a snippet from it. I don't know fuck all about music theory, and couldn't care less about it in general.. I just found it interesting to read a contrary opinion to the standard. My music is entirely by ear, and completely instinctual. So I'm in no position to argue the merits of this particular article. But again, I found the author's willingness to challenge the system refreshing. Clearly, he struck a nerve.



That's the problem. People that don't know anything about music theory think there's a "standard" opinion. Then form all these negative ideas about music theory that just aren't true. 

Maybe there's a "standard" opinion of music theory in music theory 101 in college. But, that gets quickly dispelled in the first month and certainly put to bed when you start getting into extended harmonic practices from Ravel and Jazz, ect.

But, it always strikes me as humorous that some composers and some rather successful in their own way say "I don't need music theory" when in actual fact that they don't understand it and if they are using chords and scales to that degree they ARE using music theory because it's not like that stuff grew up from a seed in the ground. Scales grew up in Egyptian and Greek music theory and the triad grew up in the music theory of Europe. In fact the modern day scales and triads ARE music theory and the keyboard we use today grew up from theories brought into being by Bach's friend Andreas Workmeister who first theorized on the idea of a well-tempered keyboard, then built one. Bach then of course tweaked it a bit and that's what we use today.

Where music theory gets into disrepute is when some wanker who couldn't write a note of music to save his life ends up writing a theory book and somehow that gets picked up by other professors and taught as "music theory".

But, believe me, I came across Mozart's explanation of figured bass and it was as liberating as all heck could get out. Good music theory leads to better music writing. I should post it someday. If you really take the time to understand what Mozart was saying in his explanation of figured bass one could realize how he came up with the works he did. He didn't just "hear it" and also explains why a composer like Beethoven who hung in the same circles could write music even when he couldn't hear it. It's a system of tones that can be organized along certain principles rather than "rules".


----------



## robgb (Jul 17, 2020)

josejherring said:


> That's the problem. People that don't know anything about music theory think there's a "standard" opinion. Then form all these negative ideas about music theory that just aren't true.


I think you're getting a little hung up on this. I don't really care whether there's a standard opinion or not. Whatever you want to call it, the article clearly posts a contrary opinion to what others think about music theory—otherwise no one here would be railing against it. I don't have a negative opinion about music theory. I have a negative opinion about people who insist it's the only way to understand and create music. You see the difference, right?

Story: I once saw an interview with Paul McCartney where he said he never really learned to read music and that always made him feel inferior because he'd been taught that proper musicians were supposed to know that stuff. Paul fucking McCartney, arguably one of the greatest musical minds of the last two centuries, felt inferior. Think about that for a moment.

Thank God it didn't stop him.


----------



## pinki (Jul 17, 2020)

robgb said:


> Story: I once saw an interview with Paul McCartney where he said he never really learned to read music and that always made him feel inferior because he'd been taught that proper musicians were supposed to know that stuff. Paul fucking McCartney, arguably one of the greatest musical minds of the last two centuries, felt inferior. Think about that for a moment.
> 
> Thank God it didn't stop him.


 
I think pop music and folk music work well without recourse to notation.

But like people have said here, extended forms and orchestral music require it.
Maybe the real crux of the matter is there is no single entity called 'Music'. Give me The Buzzcocks, give me Haydn, give me Bartok string quartets, give me Radiohead. All music.


----------



## robgb (Jul 17, 2020)

pinki said:


> I think pop music and folk music work well without recourse to notation.



I wouldn't call McCartney's music merely "pop." He has some of the most complex and innovative chord progressions and melodies in modern music. A song like Blackbird alone (even without the excellent lyric) puts him in the musical hall of fame.



pinki said:


> But like people have said here, extended forms and orchestral music require it.



Certainly, if you're working with an orchestra. But they don't require the composer to know it. Notation is merely a form of communication and can be handled by others.

At this point, I'm going to drop out of this conversation and let you all have at it. Clearly, only parts of what I say are read and things I never said are assumed. So, really, what's the point of repeating myself.

Take whatever road you prefer. It's all good.


----------



## Gingerbread (Jul 17, 2020)

robgb said:


> Wrong. I didn't post it to support any specific proposition. I stated why I posted it. This discussion only turned into that when I mentioned that I have no real knowledge of music theory and couldn't care less about it and for some reason that makes me the bogey man. But I never for a moment suggested that Hein was endorsing my particular method of creativity.


Frankly, I find that a little disingenuous. You clearly _do_ have a particular opinion and point of view (might I say, even an ideology) about this subject, which you have stated. But then you claim _not_ to have any dog in the fight, and merely posted the article in a vacuum, supposedly without any motive of your own behind the posting of it.

Of course it's fine if you have an _opinion_ about whether or not you find music theory to be helpful or important to composers. But at that point, you have a dog in the fight. You posted an article which ostensibly agrees with your own point of view. So you _do_ have a "specific proposition."


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (Jul 17, 2020)




----------



## Dewdman42 (Jul 17, 2020)

I find it humorous that this thread is even coming up again. Its like a broken record.

Some people just don't know what they don't know and they are not interested in the work needed to find out.

Usually when someone has an axe to grind on this topic its because they didn't wanna do the work and they are trying to justify it. Their way of justifying it is to attempt to discredit the learning of music theory knowledge, accusing it as being a waste of time. Meanwhile you have other people who have spent many years learning this information, assimilating it into their creative process, most of whom now feel it was not a waste of time at all and of course they feel they know things that the ignorant don't even know what they don't know. And they are right! They are defending the institution that has gotten them to where they are today... So if you seek to discredit all the time and effort these people have put into proper musical education, no duh, you will get a fiery response.

@Rob I strongly recommend you read the book I linked earlier. its not a large book and its a pretty easy read. This book actually explains in scientific terms why certain voice leading principles work the way they do. I found it positively fascinating and I've never seen anything else like it any other place. Usually the sacred rules of voice leading are taught almost like a religious writ...and then later you are allowed to stray from the writ but they never really explain later how to do that or when you should do that, the assumption is, I think, that since you have been fully put through the grinder to learn the holy writ, you will use your ability to stray from the writ wisely...

But this book actually breaks down scientifically how and why our ear hear things a certain way and audio related psychology, etc.....and suddenly an awful lot of this holy voice leading rules from the university have a meaning..."ah that's why they did it"...

And it exposes more detail that will help you understand better about how and when you might break those rules or follow those rules...but always purposefully. Very very good book, highly recommend. When you think of these things in terms of effect... I want such and such an effect, so this is what I need to do, and for that other musical effect I need to do something else. Purposeful.

Music Theory knowledge will give you the ability to do that. Lack of knowledge gives you nothing other then ignorance.


----------



## robgb (Jul 17, 2020)

Last post: I can only tell you my intention when I posted. It was not to promote any particular point of view, but to point out an article I found interesting and thought would create an interesting discussion rather than a pile on about my "motives." I'm not sure why some of you are threatened by it. As for the title, that's HIS title, not mine.

"Intolerance is the most socially acceptable form of egotism, for it permits us to assume superiority without personal boasting." ~Sidney J. Harris


----------



## pinki (Jul 17, 2020)

robgb said:


> I wouldn't call McCartney's music merely "pop."


I think you and I have a different understanding of the word pop. You seem to think it's in some way low-life. I do not.

(which is ironic given the subject matter)


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jul 17, 2020)

Good music can be written without theory and I love a lot of it. However I will say that for anyone who will get their head down and study - _no matter what the style_ - they will become a better composer if they master, assimilate and then subjectively apply the theory.
That in itself is all the reason you need, it's worth it. If you wish to find your maximal creative potential, well practiced theory is the best way to go about it.


----------



## gyprock (Jul 17, 2020)

There are plenty of people that can speak English but can't read or write. Likewise there are plenty of musicians that can play music having learnt by ear. Could the former write a master novel and could the latter write a symphony? Probably not.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 17, 2020)

if music theory serves you and your needs, go at it. information isn't the problem. its how its applied. At the end of the day, I can't help but think that this forum often proves some people who spent a lot of time studying theory ended up not finding the financial and career rewards they had hoped from it. information does not guarantee unique creativity or success. 

My theory is that knowledge doesn't cure ignorance. For every well-taught course on Music theory (or any subject really), there are people who weaponize knowledge for their egos and own priorities. 

Let's just be honest. some people out there do try and limit people's creativity using the laws of music theory as the weapon in their assault. That's not a flaw in music theory, but just a flaw of the people using it to try and control art. 

I'm finding more and more over time that when I want to escape a roadblock in my creativity, music theory helps me find a way out. However, theory becomes the roadblock when I second guess my intentions because "theory says this CAN'T be done".


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jul 17, 2020)

^^^ @chocobitz825 ...Theory is not a roadblock, it should be an access point.

Sorry guys, it's the broken record again......
There often seems to be a misconception about the relation between creativity and theory. Theory should underpin, not dictate. It should be a guiding hand, not a stranglehold. It's a foundation on which to build and will support and inform even the wildest of fantasies.
Here's a regular metaphor.
The instrumental player practises technique, scales and arpeggios etc. so that when they are encountered in music to perform, they have already been mastered and are not a hindrance. The mastery of technique, by supporting, actually frees the performers aesthetics so they can concentrate on expression.
All of that is obvious, but if you apply the concept for a composer and theory/technique, then the same result is evinced.

The trick is to make theory your own but you can't fully until you have understood it and more importantly written and practised with it. If you do that, your imagination will fire up and you'll also find your creative self....it's win, win, win.


----------



## pinki (Jul 18, 2020)

mikeh-375 said:


> The instrumental player practises technique, scales and arpeggios etc. so that when they are encountered in music to perform, they have already been mastered and are not a hindrance. The mastery of technique, by supporting, actually frees the performers aesthetics so they can concentrate on expression.
> All of that is obvious, but if you apply the concept for a composer and theory/technique, then the same result is evinced.



That's it.


----------



## Rob (Jul 18, 2020)

Dewdman42 said:


> ...
> 
> @Rob I strongly recommend you read the book I linked earlier. ...



?


----------



## David Cuny (Jul 18, 2020)

robgb said:


> I don't know fuck all about music theory, and couldn't care less about it in general..


Imagine you posted an article on a Car Talk forum saying *"Great Article: All Fords Are Junk"*, and then said that you didn't know anything about Fords, and weren't interested in talking about Fords, and you just liked the fact the author had a "contrary" opinion about Fords.

What could go wrong? 



> I just found it interesting to read a contrary opinion to the standard.


He's complaining about his grad school's grinding Eurocentrism, how theory is distantly removed from the present-day world, and that the subjective sensual pleasures of art are ignored.

Which is - *spoiler alert* - pretty much _every _student's complaint about their classes.



> But again, I found the author's willingness to challenge the system refreshing.


It's a screed against the educational system, not music theory.

He says that music theory is "fine and good", because "worthwhile theory teaches us specific skills: how to listen and understand, how to perform and interpret, how to compose and improvise new works."

He explains that the title "Against Music Theory" is a reference to the Susan Sontag's essay "Against Interpretation", and that _in the hands of the music academy _music theory is "dry, tedious, and worst of all, largely useless."



> Folks, please keep in mind that I didn't write this article, I merely posted a snippet from it.


You picked perhaps the most poorly thought out paragraph in the blog.

The example he gave is both cliche _and_ wrong - _my_ wheelhouse. 

Jazz and rock musicians actually _do_ care about avoiding parallel fifths and octaves when writing independent parts.


----------



## Michel Simons (Jul 18, 2020)

Rob said:


> ?



I guess he was referring to a different Rob.


----------



## Rob (Jul 18, 2020)

Michel Simons said:


> I guess he was referring to a different Rob.


too many Robs here 
gotta change my name


----------



## Loïc D (Jul 18, 2020)

As a member of the powder wigs society, I feel utterly insulted *again*.

You people obviously don’t know how heavy and hot it is. How much cleaning and grooming and powder it requires.

And there are as many powder wigs as there are people so don’t generalize.

I had a call lately with the president of the parallel fifth community and he feels tired also. He’s even thinking to switch to parallel octaves (lead & bass).

Hard times...


----------

