# Disregarding Music Theory. Is it just me? Change my mind or provide your insights.



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

Hello all,

I am by no means a pro as I have just started making my own tracks a little over a year ago. I got tired of hearing the same methods, beats, and the formulaic sounds of music today. From Pop, R&B, Rap, and Hip-hop, hell even some orchestral, they almost all sound the same to me now and are predictable which is sad. That is why I finally broke down to make my own tracks.

My only understanding of music was simply from playing instruments such as French Horn, Clarinet, Percussion, and Piano throughout middle school, high school band and marching band.

Now I understand there are those heavily into music theory and make it extremely technical. I am not one to venture down that path, I love to sit down and emotionally play what it is in my mind and build upon it. I want my own style, sound, technique, and signature and I never want to be clouded by the music theory world.

Now don't get me wrong, learning the many techniques to obtain a particular sound, effect, and mastering are things I am very open to continue learning. You can definitely tell from my tracks on SoundCloud (Link here). My tracks have no words, they are purely instrumental and are armature at best as I continue my venture to making them.

Are there those like me who love to make music without worrying about the music theory, key signatures, chords, etc..? I want to hear from you on what has help you complete your track and I also want to hear from those who believe music theory has assisted you without limiting your imagination due to technical no no of music.

My reasoning for posting in this section is I believe there are composing tips for those that are like me.


----------



## chillbot (Sep 18, 2021)

I listened to some of your tracks, you will benefit from learning music theory. Though if you don't want to, fine, then focus on production, first. But still study theory.

Music theory will not box you in or make your tracks sound scientific/technical. It's a language, once you learn it you hardly think about it anymore. Mostly it is the study of what has worked in the past, which is not something you should skip over, whether you intend to follow the rules* or break the rules*.

*More like guidelines, really.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic (Sep 18, 2021)

Hey there! Growing up with classical piano and theory lessons, I'm extremely thankful to have had them when it comes to composing and writing in general. 

However, I absolutely don't think it's essential to know; rather it helps name and identify what we're working on. I'd never recommend someone study it to the point that it becomes a crutch for them, and the only way they can continue is by following classical rules 100% of the time. 

Developing your inner ear is the most important skill to develop I'd say. Writing by feel and instinct is what makes music so much fun, so I'd embrace it. Good luck


----------



## Duncan Krummel (Sep 18, 2021)

Bit of a rant, I apologize:

I’m one person, but I think many people have a misunderstanding about what theory is. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive. It isn’t something to sit down with and say “what would Theory do?” Theory is an analysis of what other people have done, and an understanding of why some parts of it worked well, and others not so much.

I have a bachelors and a masters in composition from some really fantastic schools. I have taught for a few years as well, and really love music analysis and understanding the inner workings. But, you know what I don’t do? Sit down and try to bash my head on being perfectly technical. Some do, and there’s a purpose to that. There is valid music that benefits from that. Not my music, usually.

You start with inspiration, which you certainly have, and you run with that as long as you can. It’s fleeting, after all. But then, you analyze what you’ve written. YOU are the subject of theory analysis, and that helps you continue. It does not have to be hardcore numbers and science, although you SHOULD know the idiomatic writing and ranges for instruments you’re writing for. It’s having practiced the tools of analysis to use on your OWN work to help you move forward.

Anyways, rant over. I get sensitive first thing in the morning…


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

Duncan Krummel said:


> Bit of a rant, I apologize:
> 
> I’m one person, but I think many people have a misunderstanding about what theory is. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive. It isn’t something to sit down with and say “what would Theory do?” Theory is an analysis of what other people have done, and an understanding of why some parts of it worked well, and others not so much.
> 
> ...


Thank you, I don't perceive this as a rant but rather insightful from your thoughts, experiences, and knowledge!


----------



## clarkcontrol (Sep 18, 2021)

Learning theory will not make you less creative or less original. 

It WILL make you faster and more capable of getting the sounds you want. Just like studying production, you would be able to identify elements in the music that you wish to include, refine or change in order to take your tunes to the next level. 

The notion that theory will rob you of the “magic” of composing intuitively is a bit of a busted myth, mainly because a first attempt at using a theoretical device may sound contrived or amateurish. 

Think of it in other contexts: learning photoshop techniques or new moves in karate class. The theory will help I promise.


----------



## gamma-ut (Sep 18, 2021)

Here's the thing. If you learn from a grizzled blues player, you're still learning a theory of a type of music. It's just not written down or as formalised as regular common-practice theory. Aside from things like the harmonic series, there's actually precious little theory in even the common-practice classical stuff - it's more what you'd call guidelines (and even then the theory is primarily for analysis rather than composition). 

Where theory helps is that it gets you past trial and error as your primary method for composition and orchestration.


----------



## el-bo (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> Are there those like me who love to make music without worrying about the music theory, key signatures, chords, etc..?


One of my greatest regrets, thus far, is being someone who believed that music theory would somehow 'box me in', and dull my abilities to carve my music from some emotional centre. This illusion/delusion was strengthened to a large extent because having been exposed to so many types of music, for most of my life, and seemingly having the ability to 'ape' those styles, to varying degrees, I seemed (to the untrained ear...and quite a few folk) to be someone who knew more about what I was doing than i ever did.

But, at least for me, it has started to get harder and harder to just 'happen' upon ideas.

More and more I find that I get stuck in 4-bar ruts and composing vertically, and that what I lack is the knowledge to progress horizontally; at least, managing to do so in an actual progressive manner, rather than just rearranging the few bars I already have into slightly different forms.

It's very similar to learning language. Can you get by in a country with limited vocabulary? Sure. Can you have superficial encounters with limited vocabulary? Indeed! But having a much richer vocabulary, along with a deeper understanding of grammar and syntax, will allow you to be able to speak to people as in your native tongue. I doubt you'd every argue that your communication would suffer from having a deeper understanding of language, so why would it be any different for music?

Theory is about adding tools and learning how and when to use them. Can you make a chair with a hammer and one chisel? Of course. But it likely won't be as ornate as someone who has a box full of chisels and who knows why, how and when to use each one. And if that seems too prescriptive and perhaps emotionless, don't worry...Eventually, you'll soon be able to access this skill-set without thinking.

Lastly, I think it's important to make the distinction between your experience of the music-making process and that of the audience listening to your music. You may very well enjoy the romantic notion of stumbling upon something that seemed to appear from some divine cloud, but if you're intending to elicit emotion from your audience then it doesn't necessarily follow that your own inspirational journey will result in a similarly experience for them. On the other hand, knowing how to steer the audience's emotional journey is something that will be helped massively by having the musical vocabulary and techniques that have been developed, honed and handed-down over many centuries. 

Learn the language, so that you may speak


----------



## Bman70 (Sep 18, 2021)

Well to my ear the pieces struggle with a certain kind of limitation, even as perhaps types of music theory may contain certain limitations. You don't automatically get away from limitation by avoiding theory; you just avoid learning _why _limitations happen and ways one might transcend them. 

One question might be, why are you so ready to accept limitation just because it's the default variety? While being skeptical of potential limitations of education? It's called "zero risk bias" I think – where we assume the place we're at is automatically free of the risks we analyze in potential change scenarios. 

I do like the sense of just exploring and picking sounds on their own merits, that you seem to be doing. I'd argue that there's some predictability, though, the way there might be in conventions of theory, just different.

Rhythmically, things seem to stay very much in extremely binary basic patterns like series of 8th and 16th and whole notes, which tends to sound limited and simplistic. Some richer syncopations and sophistication in rhythm I think can be even better than learning melodic theory, at first.


----------



## chillbot (Sep 18, 2021)

Bman70 said:


> why


The "why" not learn theory is often just laziness.

Many times when people post tracks along with the question "why should I learn theory I'm just doing my own thing" there's the outward or subconscious hope that people will respond with "yup, you're doin' just fine, just keep doin' what you're doin'." Well anyway in this case I think, no, you would benefit much from theory. And also it's fun and not all that difficult.


----------



## Double Helix (Sep 18, 2021)

Re: the thread title -- to "disregard" something, you have to _know_ it. Therefore, learn all you can about music theory; then, you will be able to pick and choose what you need (a la @el-bo's tools analogy).

Knowing theory won't (or shouldn't) lead to, "Oooh, look at me: Now I am playing a sub-dominant sus 13th with dotted 32nd note triplets using a melodic minor scale--what mode should I use next?"
But the more experience you have with the nomenclature, the more it will become innate, and it'll simply become second nature to you; you will acquire more of el-bo's chisels (but he will probably want them back at some point)


----------



## el-bo (Sep 18, 2021)

Double Helix said:


> you will acquire more of el-bo's chisels (but he will probably want them back at some point)


Well, my Grandfather - a carpenter - used to live by the philosophy, "Give a man a chisel, and he'll make you a chair. Teach him how to make chisels and he'll be able to 'craft' a good living selling chisels".

Suffice to say...I have no shortage of chisels** 























_**Some (Perhaps all, even) of the details in the above story might be untrue..._


-----
-----


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

Wonderful responses thus far, great community! Thank you all for the thoroughness and taking the time to use analogies to remove the stigmas and enhancing your points. I look forward to more as this stuff has been truly a rabbit hole so far.


----------



## Double Helix (Sep 18, 2021)

el-bo said:


> _**Some (Perhaps all, even) of the details in the above story might be untrue..._


Even if apocryphal, it makes a good story--you know, "apocryphal of wry"


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Sep 18, 2021)

You can always hear it when someone writes music by approaching it through theory. And you can always hear it when somebody has no clue about it. Ideally you don't wanna be either of those.


----------



## NekujaK (Sep 18, 2021)

Music theory is a language used to quantify and communicate musical concepts. It is definitely not necessary for creating new music, however, there are situations where knowledge of music theory, even just a little bit, can be helpful when making new music:

Stylistic Writing: If you're trying to write music in a particular style or idiom, music theory can help you break down and understand the characteristic building blocks that form the style. A couple of years ago, a director wanted tango music for a dance cue. I knew nothing about tango music, but some quick listens to representative pieces along with a structural breakdown (music theory) of the style enabled me to write an original and convincing piece.

Improvisation: You can of course freely improvise without a stitch of music theory, most definitely. However, taking the highly improvisational world of jazz as an example, you will find that nearly all the great players are heavily steeped in music theory. It's what enables them to explore and experiment on the fly and understand what their fellow musicians are playing. That said, I learned a very important nugget of wisdom from my jazz guitar teacher. During one lesson where I was struggling to improvise while juggling all the theoretical concepts in my brain, in frustration I asked my teacher, "So what exactly are you thinking about when you improvise?" He paused, thought for a second, and said, "Hopefully nothing." The key is not to get hung up on the theory and instead get to a point where it's internalized and becomes second nature.

Shortcuts: Since the primary purpose of music theory is to breakdown and understand the structure of music, it naturally identifies and quantifies patterns that are repeated frequently in musical compositions. Having these patterns, or ideas, at your disposal can help accelerate the compositional process, and can actually make you a more versatile composer.

At the end of the day, music theory is not necessary to be a good musician or composer, especially if you have a great ear. Paul McCartney, just to name one example, had almost no theoretical knowledge in his Beatle days, but that didn't stop him from writing great music. What music theory can do for you as a composer is expand your understanding of how music is constructed, which can come in handy.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 18, 2021)

This is the 10,000th rendition of this same thread.

*Whaddaya Mean?*

What are you thinking of discarding under the category, "theory?" Are you including chord progressions you shared with band-mates of a pop song you played at a dance? Two-part Bach inventions? Time signatures or what a triplet is?

*Yes, They Did Know It*

I have read so much nonsense about theory and how "this famous guy didn't know it." Rubbish. Everyone knows stuff that falls under the title, _theory_, even those who are not classically trained. And what does 'classically trained' even mean? Wagner? Progressive jazz? Beyoncé's song structures?

You don't have to learn all of it but if you want to write for movies or TV or games it is indispensable to meeting deadlines. You don't have time to grope around after the first 8 bars to stumble across what comes next.

Just learn a little here, a little there. Figure out (or look up) the chord progressions of your favourite songs; study the climax of your favourite symphony / soundtrack / beats.

I'm sure we all agree there are pedantic goofballs out there who try to bully others with their book-learnin' -- so reject that posturing but don't throw out helpful knowledge just 'because.'


----------



## Quasar (Sep 18, 2021)

I learned basic, intro level theory when I was a cocky punk teenager (scales, keys, intervals, staffs - the standard high school level stuff) but never went on to learn it on a deep level because I w̶a̶s̶ ̶n̶a̶t̶u̶r̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶p̶i̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶c̶r̶e̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶u̶n̶i̶q̶u̶e̶ ̶s̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶m̶u̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶g̶i̶f̶t̶s̶ was lazy.


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

Quasar said:


> I learned basic, intro level theory when I was a cocky punk teenager (scales, keys, intervals, staffs - the standard high school level stuff) but never went on to learn it on a deep level because I w̶a̶s̶ ̶n̶a̶t̶u̶r̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶p̶i̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶c̶r̶e̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶u̶n̶i̶q̶u̶e̶ ̶s̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶m̶u̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶g̶i̶f̶t̶s̶ was lazy.


A bit confused on your response. Are you paraphrasing my opening statement or is this your personal experience? If paraphrasing, I was never interested in making music until I got into my 40's and just started roughly 12 months or so ago and still learn daily. I put myself out there to learn more and ask others such as this wonderful forum. I have also never known a cocky band teen, now jocks on the other hand....


----------



## Karl Feuerstake (Sep 18, 2021)

I use theoretical language to help myself understand other music when I want to study it, and help myself create music to some degree if I'm writing something and don't know what I'm doing, and desire to assess it for whatever reason.

It's an important aid and language, but it's not the first thing I consider when dealing with writing. I never adhere to anything strict like 'species counter-point' or anything like that.


----------



## Bman70 (Sep 18, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Just learn a little here, a little there. Figure out (or look up) the chord progressions of your favourite songs; study the climax of your favourite symphony / soundtrack / beats.


But he finds those formulaic, limiting and predictable. 

One issue I found with OP's post is that he, too, like the famous musicians you mentioned, is using theory even if he doesn't know it... bits and pieces he picked up in band practice, etc. The tracks shared fall into certain musical tropes, and some elementary musical ruts, just without the benefit of understanding where they are or what options exist. 

Paul McCartney though, yeah I think he knew quite a bit of basic musical theory or he couldn't have written "Let It Be."


----------



## chillbot (Sep 18, 2021)

JohnG said:


> This is the 10,000th rendition of this same thread.


I think it's time I finally publish my handy guide:






Chillbot's guide to all n00b questions.


CHILLBOT'S LIST OF SELF-SCREWERY 1. Do I have to move to LA (or London, NY, etc)? No, but you're screwing yourself. 2. Do I have to learn music theory? No, but you're screwing yourself. 3. Do I have to learn to play piano? No, but you're screwing yourself. 4a. Do I have to buy Omnisphere...




vi-control.net


----------



## NekujaK (Sep 18, 2021)

Bman70 said:


> Paul McCartney though, yeah I think he knew quite a bit of basic musical theory or he couldn't have written "Let It Be."


Paul had a great ear for music, but not a lot of theoretical knowledge. In the second episode of the recent Hulu docu-series with Rick Ruben, "McCartney 3,2,1", Paul sits at a piano and explains his very rudimentary understanding of how chords and progressions are put together. Yes, it's theory of sorts, but it's all based on relative physical relationships on a piano keyboard. It's not schooled music theory.

And for melodic construction, a particular strength of Paul's, it all just flows out of his head, as he also demonstrates in the documentary.


----------



## Quasar (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> A bit confused on your response. Are you paraphrasing my opening statement or is this your personal experience? If paraphrasing, I was never interested in making music until I got into my 40's and just started roughly 12 months or so ago and still learn daily. I put myself out there to learn more and ask others such as this wonderful forum. I have also never known a cocky band teen, now jocks on the other hand....


Just my personal experience. 

I would never assert that there is a universal right or wrong way to approach playing music or studying music theory. But if you're worried about being "clouded by the music theory world" I can only echo what others have said and suggest that you're worrying about nothing. If you don't want to learn theory, cool. But the idea that not learning theory somehow protects you from a corrupting influence is absurd.


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

NekujaK said:


> Paul had a great ear for music, but not a lot of theoretical knowledge. In the second episode of the recent Hulu docu-series with Rick Ruben, Paul sits at a piano and explains his very rudimentary understanding of how chords and progressions are put together. Yes, it's theory of sorts, but it's all based on relative physical relationships on a keyboard. It's not schooled music theory.


Interesting, in my situation I am creating based on what I like to hear and by my ear. I don't expect anyone to like what I make as well so long as I like what I make. I do feel I am hitting a point where I need to do something to continue elevating. The input from everyone here is assisting in the thought processes that I am going through.


----------



## LatinXCombo (Sep 18, 2021)

Strictly necessary to play music? No, not at all.

Music theory is a lot like language theory - it's a bit 'made up'. In academia, there are no universal truths to be found in either, just a lot of self-referential stuff from a self-important academic community impressed with its own flatulence. Not too far removed from people who study the Klingon language. 

But...

Since all of the language in the community is expressed a certain way, terms are used in certain ways, and certain chords are expected to flow in certain ways, well, having a grounding in the 'mathematics' of music can only help you grow. Certainly if you ever need to communicate with other musicians (pursuing a career?) speaking the language is necessary.

As a general rule, try to master someone else's approach before you build your own. Even if you're rebelling against the system, at least you'd know what you were rebelling against.....


----------



## Kent (Sep 18, 2021)

Will having a working understanding of the finer underpinnings of language obstruct my ability to extemporaneously and effectively communicate nuanced meanings to my audience? 

Of course not! 

Music, and the theories which describe it, are not too dissimilar.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 18, 2021)

Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend studied music theory and his testicles swelled up.


----------



## SupremeFist (Sep 18, 2021)

I picked up my theory in two main blobs. First blob was doing the necessary theory to advance to ABRSM Grade VIII in my classical instruments as a child. In between I played a lot of rock and jazz. Second blob was as an adult in my 30s at Morley College in London (Holst was once its musical director!), doing weekly classes for 2 years to get to BMus level. For maybe six months after the second blob I wrote only in a strictly "correct" style. But after that I found my new knowledge very liberating. I could understand technically exactly what I had been doing by ear in my late teens/20s, and figure out where/how I could progress from that. 

These days I find that theory can help me when I'm stuck, by suggesting possible paths, or I can ignore it and do what I think sounds good. It's a tool. A really good one. I feel sad for people who reject it on some kind of fuck-the-man principle.


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

Bman70 said:


> But he finds those formulaic, limiting and predictable.
> 
> One issue I found with OP's post is that he, too, like the famous musicians you mentioned, is using theory even if he doesn't know it... bits and pieces he picked up in band practice, etc. The tracks shared fall into certain musical tropes, and some elementary musical ruts, just without the benefit of understanding where they are or what options exist.
> 
> Paul McCartney though, yeah I think he knew quite a bit of basic musical theory or he couldn't have written "Let It Be."


Perhaps this is one of those situations where theory could had aided in my post. I am unable to further elaborate leaving it up to others to attempt interpretation due to my lack of defining "formulaic".

What I mean by formulaic, is that it seems that some of pop culture music these days seem to either be a copy, cover, or reproducing the same formula with just a twist. It is frustrating that I can't share the thought in the language or terminology most likely learned through music theory.


----------



## SupremeFist (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> What I mean by formulaic, is that it seems that some of pop culture music these days seem to either be a copy, cover, or reproducing the same formula with just a twist. It is frustrating that I can't share the though in the language or terminology most likely learned through music theory.


This is definitely absolutely true but I don't think it's because the songwriters know too much theory!


----------



## dhmusic (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> I do feel I am hitting a point where I need to do something to continue elevating


Why do you feel this way?

What are you hoping to elevate to?


----------



## Double Helix (Sep 18, 2021)

Veering off topic (for the very first time in my VI-C residency), it is well established that Mozart's teacher was his father, but I have always wondered how much "theory" Leopold instilled in his son (or was it generally technique); for that matter, how much "theory" did Papa Hayden "teach" Beethoven during their instructor/student period in Vienna (or was it mostly counterpoint)?

This is not a rhetorical question, but the thread has led to something I have always been curious about. DM me, please, if you have any insight.


----------



## NekujaK (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> What I mean by formulaic, is that it seems that some of pop culture music these days seem to either be a copy, cover, or reproducing the same formula with just a twist. It is frustrating that I can't share the though in the language or terminology most likely learned through music theory.


Anyone can write formulaic music with or without music theory. Theory is not the cause or reason. Popular music is formulaic by intent because writers are trying to cater to the perceived demands of the public.

Theory is simply knowledge. What you do with that knowledge is completely up to you.


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> Why do you feel this way?
> 
> What are you hoping to elevate to?


To me, its one of those you don't know what you don't know. Asking myself, am I limiting the potential of composing higher quality tracks and or ideas that could had forked the track to something entirely new?


----------



## SupremeFist (Sep 18, 2021)

Double Helix said:


> Veering off topic (for the very first time in my VI-C residency), it is well established that Mozart's teacher was his father, but I have always wondered how much "theory" Leopold instilled in his son (or was it generally technique); for that matter, how much "theory" did Papa Hayden "teach" Beethoven during their instructor/student period in Vienna (or was it mostly counterpoint)?
> 
> This is not a rhetorical question, but the thread has led to something I have always been curious about. DM me, please, if you have any insight.


is counterpoint not theory??


----------



## SupremeFist (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> To me, its one of those you don't know what you don't know. Asking myself, am I limiting the potential of composing higher quality tracks and or ideas that could had forked the track to something entirely new?


Yep, if you don't know at least a baseline amount of theory then you simply don't know what theory *is*, so you are not in a position to make an informed decision about whether it might be useful to you.


----------



## Double Helix (Sep 18, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> is counterpoint not theory??


Certainly, you are undoubtedly correct. My post was too specific. Perhaps I should have put my question something like "other than the counterpoint that is generally acknowledged."
Thanks


----------



## thesteelydane (Sep 18, 2021)

The idea that to come up with something new, you're better off stumbling along in the dark without understanding theory is just wrong. Look at classical composers like Stravinsky, Pärt, Gorecki, and more recently Thomas Ades, composers who all did something new and never done before, with a style all their own, true trailblazers. And what do they all have in common? They're all extremely well versed in music theory. Pärt even went through a period of experimenting with 12 tone music before he invented the Tintinabulla system that he is known and loved for now.


----------



## dhmusic (Sep 18, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> Yep, if you don't know at least a baseline amount of theory then you simply don't know what theory *is*, so you are not in a position to make an informed decision about whether it might be useful to you.


I think that's why the OP posted the question


----------



## Dewdman42 (Sep 18, 2021)

I don't really understand the point of this thread. This topic has been discussed ad nauseam. There are those that embrace theory and those that don't. The ones that don't will always be more limited in what they can do, unless they are a savant genius perhaps. This is one of those "you don't know what you don't know" things..

Meanwhile there are many branches of Music theory and it is not necessary to learn it all. If its a new thing for you, then start simple and you have years of life ahead to gradually absorb more and more of it.

if you are perfectly content throwing together your simplistic emotional meanderings, then by all means keep at it. I personally got bored with that kind of stuff about 40 years ago.


----------



## Vlzmusic (Sep 18, 2021)

Just like in court - not knowing the law does not release you from it. The sounds are organized by nature, whether you like it, or not. And no matter what type of inspiration you use at that piano, everything you write can be analyzed by the theory. And guess what? You will still try to organize sounds into pretty structures - just to get positive feedback from people. It doesn't matter you don't know the rules - you want people to listen, you structure it more or less according to your definition of "pretty". Now, if by not knowing the rules, you think it will make you go further, and work better - try building a plane that way.


----------



## SupremeFist (Sep 18, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> I think that's why the OP posted the question


Yes but in that case no answer can possibly help!


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

Vlzmusic said:


> Just like in court - not knowing the law does not release you from it. The sounds are organized by nature, whether you like it, or not. And no matter what type of inspiration you use at that piano, everything you write can be analyzed by the theory. And guess what? You will still try to organize sounds into pretty structures - just to get positive feedback from people. It doesn't matter you don't know the rules - you want people to listen, you structure it more or less according to your definition of "pretty". Now, if by not knowing the rules, you think it will make you go further, and work better - try building a plane that way.


That’s not what I implied, but thanks for the input. Yes, I understand the theory aspect as everything, not just music, can always be studied and theories created. But theories are just that a theory which should always be expanded and not set in stone, it should be questioned. 

I am not knocking the music theory world, but looking to understand the concept and it’s applicability. I am not doing this stuff as a profession, this is a hobby but I want to do the best that I can with it. The plane analogy is a bit of a stretch lol.


----------



## SupremeFist (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> this is a hobby but I want to do the best that I can with it.


Ok so look at it this way. Theory can't take away from you anything that you can currently do. But (since it is merely a summation of the best that has been done before) it could very well add to it?


----------



## Babaghanoush (Sep 18, 2021)

Duncan Krummel said:


> It’s descriptive, not prescriptive.


This is so well said! It reinforces how I feel about music theory and it's _place_ in my creative process. I often ask myself, "Which came first, the theory or the music?

For me, music theory is a valuable skill and an indispensable vocabulary when collaborating but if relied upon too much, the product can become less creative and more of an intellectual exercise. As is often said "If it sounds good, it is good." There's really no rules on how you get there.


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> I don't really understand the point of this thread. This topic has been discussed ad nauseam. There are those that embrace theory and those that don't. The ones that don't will always be more limited in what they can do, unless they are a savant genius perhaps. This is one of those "you don't know what you don't know" things..
> 
> Meanwhile there are many branches of Music theory and it is not necessary to learn it all. If its a new thing for you, then start simple and you have years of life ahead to gradually absorb more and more of it.
> 
> if you are perfectly content throwing together your simplistic emotional meanderings, then by all means keep at it. I personally got bored with that kind of stuff about 40





Dewdman42 said:


> I don't really understand the point of this thread. This topic has been discussed ad nauseam. There are those that embrace theory and those that don't. The ones that don't will always be more limited in what they can do, unless they are a savant genius perhaps. This is one of those "you don't know what you don't know" things..
> 
> Meanwhile there are many branches of Music theory and it is not necessary to learn it all. If its a new thing for you, then start simple and you have years of life ahead to gradually absorb more and more of it.
> 
> if you are perfectly content throwing together your simplistic emotional meanderings, then by all means keep at it. I personally got bored with that kind of stuff about 40 years ago.


“if you are perfectly content throwing together your simplistic emotional meanderings”

This is the off putting comment that isn’t necessary. Just because you feel music theory knowledge is required to be something other than meandering nonsense, that’s a personal biased view. If you don’t understand the purpose of the thread confused and or find it annoying, by all means move on past it.

Thankfully the ratio of those who responded did well towards my conflicted plight and not here to just to roll eyes and disrespect.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> But theories are just that a theory which should always be expanded and not set in stone, it should be questioned.





Cybercub said:


> I am not knocking the music theory world, but looking to understand the concept and it’s applicability. I am not doing this stuff as a profession, this is a hobby but I want to do the best that I can with it. The plane analogy is a bit of a stretch lol.


The first mistake you are making here is to assume that music theory is a set of constricting rules. That is not what it is, fundamentally. That is how it is often studied while learning it...but that is not how it is intended to be used...generally.

The plane analogy is not a stretch at all, but you are still just missing the point...

Music theory brings a sense of order to things, a sense of understanding. Having this sense will provide you a way to compose more complicated ideas without sounding kaoatic. Without that understanding and organizational understanding of how to organize sounds in pitch and time...you will either end up sounding extremely simplistic, or you will fall into chaos. Most people don't want to listen to chaos.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Sep 18, 2021)

I don't really care if you think it is off putting. I speak the truth.


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> Ok so look at it this way. Theory can't take away from you anything that you can currently do. But (since it is merely a summation of the best that has been done before) it could very well add to it?


Makes sense, thank you.


----------



## dhmusic (Sep 18, 2021)

Vlzmusic said:


> Just like in court - not knowing the law does not release you from it. The sounds are organized by nature, whether you like it, or not. And no matter what type of inspiration you use at that piano, everything you write can be analyzed by the theory. And guess what? You will still try to organize sounds into pretty structures - just to get positive feedback from people. It doesn't matter you don't know the rules - you want people to listen, you structure it more or less according to your definition of "pretty". Now, if by not knowing the rules, you think it will make you go further, and work better - try building a plane that way.


And on the first day god said "let there be rules" - and nature itself took the form of those rules. 

And it was complicated.



SupremeFist said:


> Yes but in that case no answer can possibly help!


hmm idk. I think the topic is taking a mildly self indulgent turn, which is fine as long as OP can filter the helpful info from the bias of a niche forum. The subtext of the question seems to be more about the path/process of developing musical fluency. It's gotten kinda lost.

So far what I think I've distilled is "I know there's stuff I don't know and I think I could grow from learning. But I don't like taxonomy or gatekeeping. Any advice?"

"Sure. First of all, dumb. Also you're wrong, and dumb too. So read the bible or you'll never get into music heaven"


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> The first mistake you are making here is to assume that music theory is a set of constricting rules. That is not what it is, fundamentally. That is how it is often studied while learning it...but that is not how it is intended to be used...generally.
> 
> The plane analogy is not a stretch at all, but you are still just missing the point...
> 
> Music theory brings a sense of order to things, a sense of understanding. Having this sense will provide you a way to compose more complicated ideas without sounding kaoatic. Without that understanding and organizational understanding of how to organize sounds in pitch and time...you will either end up sounding extremely simplistic, or you will fall into chaos.


Here is my conflict.. who decided what is chaos and good? It is the the artist/composer who is satisfied with what they make. Some will like, others will not. Should they follow the constructs of theory to please all though? A piece that comes across as “simplicity” is in the eye of the beholder and not everything has to be convoluted or over thought.

This is the back and forth thinking I am going through. The input of all here is very helpful.


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> I don't really care if you think it is off putting. I speak the truth.


Seems to come across as personal feelings as truth, but sure ok and noted.


----------



## SupremeFist (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> Here is my conflict.. who decided what is chaos and good? It is the the artist/composer who is satisfied with what they make. .


But it's also the judgments of countless listeners through history, which means that people still want to listen to JS Bach,. Mozart, Beethoven, Rachmaninov, Shostakovich, etc etc. And one piece of the puzzle (by no means all!) of why people still want to listen to that stuff is what has been codified as "theory".


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

It is not, just pointed out the one personal view of “simplistic meandering” that’s your take on it but I noted other valid comes from you accordingly and thank you for the input of those.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> Here is my conflict.. who decided what is chaos and good? It is the the artist/composer who is satisfied with what they make. Some will like, others will not.



I already said, if you are happy with what you are already doing, then by all means keep doing it. Why did you enter this forum asking for help or advice? You don't like my advice it seems..but my advice is still the same.



Cybercub said:


> Should they follow the constructs of theory to please all though?



Again you are missing the point. There is no one size fits all music theory. I promise you, if you make music that other people like listening to, then you are using some aspect of music theory even if you don't realize it.




Cybercub said:


> A piece that comes across as “simplicity” is in the eye of the beholder and not everything has to be convoluted or over thought.



Sounds like you don't need to change anything then, so I ask again, what is the point of your original post?


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> But it's also the judgments of countless listeners through history, which means that people still want to listen to JS Bach,. Mozart, Beethoven, Rachmaninov, Shostakovich, etc etc. And one piece of the puzzle (by no means all!) of why people still want to listen to that stuff is what has been codified as "theory".


Maybe because it’s always played and used? If those pieces were not used in movies, tv or other medium that the masses consume would they still be most commonly talked about or listened to? How much of that is pretentiousness to fit in a mold? What other pieces would benefit had they been used all the same in place of those? It is thought provoking and your comment makes sense to me.


----------



## dhmusic (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> Maybe because it’s always played and used? If those pieces were not used in movies, tv or other medium that the masses consume would they still be most commonly talked about or listened to? How much of that is pretentiousness to fit in a mold? What other pieces would benefit had they been used all the same in place of those? It is thought provoking and your comment makes sense to me.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Sep 18, 2021)

Here is an interesting book...its not long. This may enlighten you as to WHY certain music theories have proven over time to be present in most all music that people tend to enjoy listening to the most:









Voice Leading


An accessible scientific explanation for the traditional rules of voice leading, including an account of why listeners find some musical textures more pleasi...




mitpress.mit.edu


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> I already said, if you are happy with what you are already doing, then by all means keep doing it. Why did you enter this forum asking for help or advice? You don't like my advice it seems..but my advice is still the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First, to see if I am the only one with the conflict of:
- is it necessary to know music theory.
- is it ok to make music the way you feel you want it to be without it.

I am learning that it has helped some and it provides a them clarity to pieces. It’s those comments that removes the stigma. But, I also know that it is by no means a holy bible required to make music at all.

Not everyone knows what music theory is, I watched some videos but video removes community discussions as to why it is necessary. This is a platform for that discussion and to get first hand insight of others who may have had the same exact journey.


----------



## SupremeFist (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> - is it necessary to know music theory.


No! 



> - is it ok to make music the way you feel you want it to be without it.


Yes! 

But (and this may sound paradoxical) knowing some theory can actually help you make music more exactly the way you feel you want it to be...


----------



## Dewdman42 (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> First, to see if I am the only one with the conflict of:
> - is it necessary to know music theory.



No its not necessary. You can make some kind of music without it. But you will be limiting yourself.



Cybercub said:


> - is it ok to make music the way you feel you want it to be without it.



of course its ok. Maybe some people will like listening to it, maybe not. Maybe you will be missing out opportunities to create even more interesting music. Maybe you don't care. There is no law forcing you to expand your mind.




Cybercub said:


> I am learning that it has helped some and it provides a them clarity to pieces. It’s those comments that removes the stigma. But, I also know that it is by no means a holy bible required to make music at all.



Nobody has called it a "holy bible". Again you are missing the point of music theory as if to think that is some kind of strict dogma or rules to follow. There are even many different music theories that somewhat conflict with each other. Music theory is just an "understanding" about the order and structure of music...and the reason for it is because music that is interesting for most listeners has been analyzed...thus creating an understanding of what people like listening to.

There is no rule whatsoever, other then do what makes you feel good, unless you care about listener acceptance, in which case some music theory will help you get there faster.


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

dhmusic said:


>



Interesting, though could had been created without the political views of “white” against all and it didn’t even provide any contrast view points to those political standpoints. You didn’t make it, but there were parts of this that made sense. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## SupremeFist (Sep 18, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> There are even many different music theories that somewhat conflict with each other.


Man, every time I hear some Berklee type describing a chord with the name of a mode I want to throw up.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Sep 18, 2021)

Hey,.... I also like the modal interchange Berklee approach in some ways... hehe.. but yea...I get your point...


----------



## Kevin Fortin (Sep 18, 2021)

Learning the ethnic occidentalisms of western music theory will only lead you to have an unbalanced temperament and a twelve-step mind.


----------



## sundrowned (Sep 18, 2021)

It doesn't really take that long to learn the basics. 
Recommend this book. It's refreshingly concise. 









Music Theory Essentials: A Streamlined Approach to Fundamentals, Tonal Harmony, and Post-Tonal Materials


Music Theory Essentials offers an antidote to music theory textbooks that are overly long and dense. Focusing on the essentials, this text provides a clear-cut guide to the key concepts of music theory. Beginning with no assumptions about music theory knowledge, the book covers the core elements...




www.routledge.com


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

sundrowned said:


> It doesn't really take that long to learn the basics.
> Recommend this book. It's refreshingly concise.
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you!


----------



## Consona (Sep 18, 2021)

If you want to make music, you should study it. You don't have to adhere to what you discover, but all the new stuff will give you ideas of what could be done you've most probably never thought of.

And when I say study music, I mean study scores of great composers, it's so eye opening.


----------



## Vlzmusic (Sep 18, 2021)

You keep repeating that theory is something that instructs you to do A, while you want to do B. The whole premise is wrong - it's not about instructing you, it's about you knowing the structures, relations, technical tools to achieve some things etc. or doing it by trial and error. Theory is not about your taste in music, you can do with your knowledge anything your heart desires, so its just that simple - knowledge of the structure or trial and error.


----------



## dhmusic (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> Interesting, though could had been created without the political views of “white” against all and it didn’t even provide any contrast view points to those political standpoints. You didn’t make it, but there were parts of this that made sense. Thanks for sharing.


Ironically, "Who decides what is chaos and what is good?" is a fundamentally political question

Just an observation. Glad you got something out of the video.


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> Ironically, "Who decides what is chaos and what is good?" is a fundamentally political question
> 
> Just an observation. Glad you got something out of the video.


“Ironically, "Who decides what is chaos and what is good?" is a fundamentally political question.”

Touché!


----------



## Bman70 (Sep 18, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> (Music Theory and White Supremacy)



That really doesn't belong in a serious discussion, since complex music theory has emerged in all cultures regardless of race or perceived color.


----------



## Kevin Fortin (Sep 18, 2021)

@Cybercub: I'm completely in favor of your idiolectic approach.

And even if I wanted to change your mind, where would I find it?


----------



## Dewdman42 (Sep 18, 2021)

its not a political question at all. There is no politics in music. That video is making a very big red herring argument trying to infer some politics where non exists. I personally don't know any musicians that are limited only to the musical theory of white people from the classical period.

Who decides if music is too chaotic or good or not? the listeners! if you don't care about how many people want to listen to it, then do whatever you want. If you care about having listeners that appreciate your work... Then their attention will tell you how you did.


----------



## dhmusic (Sep 18, 2021)

Bman70 said:


> That really doesn't belong in a serious discussion, since complex music theory has emerged in all cultures regardless of race or perceived color.


Oh snap forgot something *closes can of worms*


----------



## Bman70 (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> Maybe because it’s always played and used? If those pieces were not used in movies, tv or other medium that the masses consume would they still be most commonly talked about or listened to? How much of that is pretentiousness to fit in a mold? What other pieces would benefit had they been used all the same in place of those? It is thought provoking and your comment makes sense to me.



It could also be suggested that it's pretentious to question mankind's historical collective study of certain scientific and artistic phenomena, as if all discoveries therein were just personal opinions without any worthwhile principles uncovered. 

It's also interesting that many people imagining themselves bold iconoclasts will question collective musical knowledge, but not culinary knowledge... they'll gush about how delicious a Thai curry is, without protesting "Those are just pretentious rules."  No, they're principles uncovered through centuries of experimentation and exploration.


----------



## Colin66 (Sep 18, 2021)

If you want to read something that explains music theory in a refreshing way have a read of this:





How Music Really Works - Wayne Chase


How Music REALLY Works! The Essential Handbook for Songwriters, Performers, and Music Students, by Wayne Chase



howmusicreallyworks.com





The first 6 chapters are free so if you don't want to pay to read the rest you don't have to. If you do want to, it's $16 for a near 900 page PDF. It's worth a read, it's much more interesting than an academic type of theory book!


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

Kevin Fortin said:


> @Cybercub: I'm completely in favor of your idiolectic approach.
> 
> And even if I wanted to change your mind, where would I find it?


Through your words of course .


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

Colin66 said:


> If you want to read something that explains music theory in a refreshing way have a read of this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for sharing, will look at it.


----------



## Kevin Fortin (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> I want my own style, sound, technique, and signature and I never want to be clouded by the music theory world.


That's completely understandable. Later on in life you might think more along the lines of what candles you can light in other people's lives -- or maybe that's already part of your thinking?


----------



## mikrokosmiko (Sep 18, 2021)

I sincerely don’t understand why so many people are against studying the thing they love to do

disclaimer: this is not an attack, only a thought about the “why theory” issue


----------



## Kevin Fortin (Sep 18, 2021)

mikrokosmiko said:


> I sincerely don’t understand why so many people are against studying the thing they love to do
> 
> disclaimer: this is not an attack, only a thought about the “why theory” issue


Thank you for letting us know. I hope you are not yet another Eurocentric white-guy Western-music-theory cultural hegemonist.


----------



## mikrokosmiko (Sep 18, 2021)

How dare you! 🤣


----------



## el-bo (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> Here is my conflict.. who decided what is chaos and good? It is the the artist/composer who is satisfied with what they make. Some will like, others will not. Should they follow the constructs of theory to please all though? A piece that comes across as “simplicity” is in the eye of the beholder and not everything has to be convoluted or over thought. This is the back and forth thinking I am going through. The input of all here is very helpful


This is a strange reply, given your judgments on the over-simplistic nature of much of what you hear, and your desire/intention to make a clear delineation between that and the music you want to make.

If it really is all on the eye of the beholder then why pass judgment at all?


----------



## sinkd (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I am by no means a pro as I have just started making my own tracks a little over a year ago. I got tired of hearing the same methods, beats, and the formulaic sounds of music today. From Pop, R&B, Rap, and Hip-hop, hell even some orchestral, they almost all sound the same to me now and are predictable which is sad. That is why I finally broke down to make my own tracks.
> 
> ...


Look. 🧐
There is A MUSIC THEORY you have already established in your own work that helps you to be stylistically and internally consistent with the music you can already write. Thing is, if you are ever asked to write music that is OUTSIDE of what you can already do intuitively, then you will need to know some other THEORY in order to execute on that request, or you will have to turn down the gig, or fail utterly in the attempt.

Music theory is not monolithic, or all encompassing. We learn what we need to know in order to do what we need and/or want to do with each project we tackle.


----------



## Kevin Fortin (Sep 18, 2021)

the sparrows fall where oranges never roll
the lichen along the canal has no concerns


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

Lol, I use to have a cat too but she died of cancer. That dog is my oldest one, Megan, and we love her as we got her for my sons therapy when he was about 6 years old, now my son is going on 22 and she is still kicking it with us. Using her picture is just a way to memorialize her.


----------



## Kevin Fortin (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> Lol, I use to have a cat too but she died of cancer. That dog is my oldest one, Megan, and we love her as we got her for my sons therapy when he was about 6 years old, now my son is going on 22 and she is still kicking it with us. Using her picture is just a way to memorialize her.


Thank you for your kind reply. I deleted the post you refer to because I thought it might have gone too far.


----------



## CT (Sep 18, 2021)

Duncan Krummel said:


> I’m one person, but I think many people have a misunderstanding about what theory is. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive.


That's _exactly_ it. All that needs to be said on the subject really. Why would you not want to better understand how others have done this?


----------



## Bman70 (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> Here is my conflict.. who decided what is chaos and good? It is the the artist/composer who is satisfied with what they make. Some will like, others will not. Should they follow the constructs of theory to please all though? A piece that comes across as “simplicity” is in the eye of the beholder and not everything has to be convoluted or over thought.


Maybe there's a bit over overthinking in that question too. Art doesn't become refined and good just because the maker is pleased with it. And I wouldn't say you've achieved "simplicity," either, since there's a refinement about simplicity that's actually very skilled to maintain. It's more like "unlearned" than simple (not always the same thing). This makes sense given you've described it as amateur at best. 

In recreation, being satisfied is a good measuring stick for sure. And being learned is no prerequisite. So you're engaging in music recreationally. But it seems you're wondering if that's equal to an artist (or yourself) having spent years studying their art. It's not equal, but it might be even more enjoyable on a personal level. 

I know a few people who are music teachers, and they've said "Having to do this for a living is making me not enjoy it anymore recreationally." I don't know where that's coming from, myself. But it does suggest that if you really enjoy doing it recreationally, there's no urgent reason to "upgrade."


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

I believe I have enough input and comments to make an informed decision. Thanks to those that provided book recommendations as I will give those a read for the basic concepts. I will not be looking to go in the depths of music theory or go to school but just knowing the basics seems smart and I will seek to learn those.

I am actively learning mastering as well. I appreciate all of you taking the time engaging on this topic. Well done all and looking forward to growing with this community.


----------



## Saxer (Sep 18, 2021)

Learning music theory isn't creative. 

Using it is.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Sep 18, 2021)

Just drop the word "theory".

Study music.


----------



## BlackDorito (Sep 18, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> I believe I have enough input and comments to make an informed decision. Thanks to those that provided book recommendations as I will give those a read for the basic concepts. I will not be looking to go in the depths of music theory or go to school but just knowing the basics seems smart and I will seek to learn those.
> 
> I am actively learning mastering as well. I appreciate all of you taking the time engaging on this topic. Well done all and looking forward to growing with this community.


Cybercub, at the level you seem interested in, I would recommend the wonderful book "_Why You Like It - The Science and Culture of Musical Taste_" (Nolan Gasser). Also, I think we would all do well with our music to keep in mind what Kevin Fortin has said above: light a few candles in other peoples' lives.


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 18, 2021)

BlackDorito said:


> Cybercub, at the level you seem interested in, I would recommend the wonderful book "_Why You Like It - The Science and Culture of Musical Taste_" (Nolan Gasser). Also, I think we would all do well with our music to keep in mind what Kevin Fortin has said above: light a few candles in other peoples' lives.


Thank you so much, appreciate the input and will check it out.


----------



## LatinXCombo (Sep 18, 2021)

Kevin Fortin said:


> Learning the ethnic occidentalisms of western music theory will only lead you to have an unbalanced temperament and a twelve-step mind.


Probably true, though same also true for any other music theory. It's all an attempt to impose order on something that can't fully be ordered, bringing with it the prejudices and ignorance of the people who created it - whether it's Europe, China, Africa, or India.

Sometimes mastering someone else's theory gives you the chops to take it apart and create something better. 

Doesn't necessarily make you a better musician...but might make you a better composer.


----------



## Eckoes (Sep 18, 2021)

I have found music theory to be incredibly helpful.

Someone said earlier that it is descriptive rather than prescriptive and I agree for the most part.

But one thing that learning theory did for me was to open my eyes to things I may not have thought of on my own for a very long time.

Did those new things sound good to me right away, and was I able to use them with any level of skill? No, not really.

But I kept at it until my ear “got it”. There was never the feeling of being trapped or restricted, I just felt free to explore and eventually my ear started to understand the sound and I was then, *and only then*, free to be creative with this particular device.

I am speaking more from a guitarists perspective than a composers perspective, since I learned the bulk of my theory before I got into composing and virtual instruments etc. But it all still applies.

For instance, **without the theory of what others had done before me**, I never would have thought to play a Melodic Minor scale a half step up from the root of a Dominant 7th chord. Why on earth would I do that? And what’s a Melodic Minor scale anyway?!

But once I heard about that I tried it out. And it sounded awful! But I kept going until it “clicked” and now it’s one of my favorite sounds and I’ve learned to use it pretty well.

Is it possible to get good at playing and composing without theory? Yes of course. But why not use it as a source of ideas you’ve never thought of before?

Don‘t look at it as a bunch of rules you must follow, look at it as a treasure trove of knowledge and new sounds that are just waiting for you to explore and become familiar with.

My quick and sloppily expressed $.02


----------



## muziksculp (Sep 18, 2021)

I think it is always helpful to study music theory, and understand how things work, and relate to each other, but the important part is how one digests the theoretical aspect of music, then translates it in a more practical manner, to produce interesting, and ear catching musical ideas that communicate with others, projecting emotions, various energies, thoughts, landscapes, feelings, memories, basically a sonic world that widens our imagination, and inspires us as humans.


----------



## rgames (Sep 18, 2021)

The disdain for music theory is confusing to me. Learning what others did is never a bad thing in any endeavor. Did Einstein eschew everything that Newton did? Of course not. He built upon it.

It is a tremedous arrogance to think you can be completely original. I've never heard, seen, read, etc. anyone do it. Humanity progresses by building upon itself.

The sooner you understand those who came before you the sooner you will progress past them. That "before you" part is music theory.

rgames


----------



## dhmusic (Sep 18, 2021)

*Dog Owner*: "Hey... so like what's the deal with walks? I mean they seem alright I guess..."

* Dog*: *Bark Bark* ("I approve. walks are vital to being a dog and they have helped me be dog-like")

*Dog owner*: "...Cuz, ha. Like 2b totes honest I really think I'm fine without them. Cuz like, look at it this way, if we just drove places instead we could prob-"

*Dog*: "-tha FUCK"


----------



## SteveC (Sep 18, 2021)

If you want to build a car that should look like this:







you probably don't need a lot of theory. But if you want to keep up with the big car companies, a little theory won't hurt.


----------



## PeterN (Sep 19, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I am by no means a pro as I have just started making my own tracks a little over a year ago. I got tired of hearing the same methods, beats, and the formulaic sounds of music today. From Pop, R&B, Rap, and Hip-hop, hell even some orchestral, they almost all sound the same to me now and are predictable which is sad. That is why I finally broke down to make my own tracks.
> 
> ...


Burmese music has no theory, the orchestra is randomly playing instruments. Not so pleasant for the average westerner, but could be interesting to look into it. I havent gone into details personally, but been in occasions where its used to make mediums go in trance state. Theres a chaos, so to say, and someone with time in their hands, could maybe try to westernise it.


----------



## dhmusic (Sep 19, 2021)

PeterN said:


> Burmese music has no theory, the orchestra is randomly playing instruments. Not so pleasant for the average westerner, but could be interesting to look into it. I havent gone into details personally, but been in occasions where its used to make mediums go in trance state. Theres a chaos, so to say, and someone with time in their hands, could maybe try to westernise it.


omg I can't... this is too funny. I don't know if this is performance art or something. But like the picture and the paragraph and the eagle and the flag...

*Muah* chef's kiss


----------



## NoamL (Sep 19, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> I am creating *based on what I like to hear and by my ear.*


Well you nailed it. That is what EVERY composer does.

Every composer I've met writes by 'trial and error' and then listens to their own music to see if it's good. Whether you use a DAW, a piano, or 'write music in your head' there is always an audition & reflection step.

The mystery is how this process works and what does this have to do with "music theory"?

Does a ballet dancer move their body by using "ballet theory," a list of ballet moves in their brain?

The answer is clearly "yes," but just as clearly the answer is "no."

I can learn what a Jeté is from a book, but that doesn't make me a dancer. What do I lack?

The dancer's knowledge of ballet moves is their *"music theory."*

Their elevated sense of balance and proprioception (knowing where every part of their body is at all times) is like our *"musical ear" *(critical listening, interval recognition, and relative pitch).

And their trained muscles & rehearsed repetitions of moves are like our *"piano skills."*

All three work together.

Simple example. Say you are writing a melody and you get to the note G and you 'hear' in your head the harmony that would accompany it. But you can't figure it out in your DAW. Now you're stuck, you can't make your "imagined music" into "real music". Frustrating! This is the "trial and error" part right? But here's what happens next: The "brain part" of music theory tells me that there are 6 chords - the "usual suspects" - that I should try right away. The "hands part" instantly knows how to play those 6 on the piano and tries them out quickly. The "ear part" auditions and decides.

This all happens in one flowing moment without real effort.

That doesn't mean "music theory says there are only 6 chords you can use here." If none of the 6 do it for my ears, then my brain pulls up a list of less likely suspects, oddball ideas, things I encountered elsewhere once upon a time, or just lets my hands experiment. Eventually something clicks.

If you do this process with your own music you will advance. Slowly.

If you want to advance faster here is the big secret: other people's music is your gym. You can train by creating copies of music you love. First you must begin listening as a composer not a music fan - critical listening - to figure out the shape & rhythm of the melody. Then you'll have to listen even more critically to hear the other parts, how they're moving around and what harmonies they create. You mentioned that orchestral music sounds samey to you. Cool, can you instantly hear the difference between an oboe and an English horn? Can you follow a viola line in the middle of a complicated orchestral cue? 

When you train with other people's music, your hands-ears-brain flow will gain skill and confidence. When you hear a melody in your head and you're struggling to figure out what the notes are, it'll become enormously less of a struggle, your "hands" will just "know". When you get stuck for a harmony idea, the brain will remember all the coolest tricks you've studied other composers doing.

You'll simultaneously get better & faster at deconstructing other people's music - which means other people's music can teach you more, faster. This is where academic theory knowledge helps. In fact I think the ONLY value of academic theory knowledge is organizing what you absorb from other people. Transcribing someone else's music is like emptying an entire can of alphabet soup. Academic theory is what shows you that there's 700 noodles but only 26 letters. You take away 26 patterns or techniques that you can singly adopt and develop in your own music soup. 

Eventually you start to recognize these patterns BY EAR when listening even CASUALLY to someone else's music - your ear is a real muscle now! You start to hear music in your head and know how it would work on the piano. You gain the ability to become "composer surprised." Meaning you listen to someone's music and you hear them doing something you KNOW isn't familiar and known to you. You put that on your list of pieces to transcribe...

That is why when a mature composer writes music, they aren't _*REALLY*_ doing 'trial and error' anymore. They are not Lewis-and-Clarking their way through unknown territory. It's more like hitting the gym.


----------



## thesteelydane (Sep 19, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> But theories are just that a theory which should always be expanded and not set in stone, it should be questioned.


The entire history of music is nothing but composers questioning and challenging theory. That’s literally the reason music has kept changing through the ages. 400 years of development in classical music can be summed up as composers trying to escape, or at least push at the boundaries of tonality.

One of the most fundamental and exciting things about tonality - as you will discover if you begin studying theory - is that it is to a large degree determined by nature and governed by the rules of physics. That is why it’s so hard to escape, but the act of composers trying to do just that has created some of the most unique and beautiful music ever written.

If you want to be original and push at the boundaries, it helps a whole f****** lot to understand what you’re pushing against. Otherwise you are doomed to fail.


----------



## GNP (Sep 19, 2021)

You must learn it and disregard it at the same time.


----------



## Living Fossil (Sep 19, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> Are there those like me who love to make music without worrying about the music theory


The biggest mistake is to think there is _one_ music theory.
There are many theories that are relevant for different styles of music.

The sad thing is that usually one of the most important part of theory which helps to understand the semantics of European music is completely left out: the so called "Affektenlehre".
This was a comprehensive collection of mostly psychoacoustic observations about the logic of emotions and it was essential for composers between the early baroque until around WW2.

Besides, i think it's a question of which kind of music you plan to make if an occupation with theoretical stuff makes sense.
Theoretical knowledge is a great thing if it's digested and often a rather boring/bothering thing if not.
By "digested" i mean:
Theories give you approaches how you can solve a certain "problem". Now, when people start learning a theory they often think that it's necessary to follow the given "rules" in each and every situation.
At the point where theory is digested, you will not only know what it offers but also, in which situation you should not apply a certain rule.
(btw. the "Affektenlehre" is full of hints when to dismiss certain theoretical "rules" if the emotional context needs a specific requirement.)

So, in my opinion it's really up to you if an occupation with theory makes sense for you.
Personally, i read every available book about musical theories starting in my teens...but that was me.

There are stiles where undigested theory can be problematic.
(i will never forget one conversation i had 30 years ago with the guitarist of a rock band who asked me _if it's possible to play an E major chord after a C major chord in a song, because the keyboarder of the band had told him that "theory would not allow that progression"._)
Specially if you're aiming at rock, pop, etc. i think a developed inner hearing and a developed taste is more important. In this case, your brain will digest the music you're listening to and come to its own conclusions - i.e. it will build its "own" theory.
If you want to bring your skills to a higher level, theories will help. But keep in mind, theories are never absolute.


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 19, 2021)

Living Fossil said:


> The biggest mistake is to think there is _one_ music theory.
> There are many theories that are relevant for different styles of music.
> 
> The sad thing is that usually one of the most important part of theory which helps to understand the semantics of European music is completely left out: the so called "Affektenlehre".
> ...


Thank you, I like a wide range of musical genres. For example: heavy metal, orchestral, pop, edm, and rock, not to mention the several sub-genres under each. I especially love original movie scores as well. I prefer to make instrumental vs having lyrical vocals in my music. Each has its place depending on mood and he’ll I sometimes would mesh together going from one type and transition to another.

When I make a track, I do it as if I am visualizing a scene in my imagination that sparked me to make it. Almost like a score.


----------



## dcoscina (Sep 19, 2021)

clarkcontrol said:


> Learning theory will not make you less creative or less original.
> 
> It WILL make you faster and more capable of getting the sounds you want. Just like studying production, you would be able to identify elements in the music that you wish to include, refine or change in order to take your tunes to the next level.
> 
> ...


Yes this ☝️. Being able to understand and employ different techniques allow for greater expression and development of music thoughts. It’s like having a better vocabulary to be able to fully convey one’s thoughts.


----------



## Kent (Sep 19, 2021)

NoamL said:


> Transcribing someone else's music is like emptying an entire can of alphabet soup. Academic theory is what shows you that there's 700 noodles but only 26 letters.


Love this, @NoamL


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Sep 19, 2021)

Didn't read the whole thread but just adding to what's already been said about theory being important which imo it is if not to an extent necessary to know.
The most successful musicians/ composers I know of are those who have no conflict any more between there conscious/intellectual mind and there subconscious/creative mind. It flows naturally and each one contributes it's thing to the whole process.
During the studying process especially in the beginning there is always some kind of conflict between the two. I remember that I also had the feeling of loosing spontaneity when I started to get seriously into music studying. But this is just a more or less short and probably necessary level during the process. And imo if you don't go the path of serious learning patiently you won't get very far. 
This could be a topic for a whole book.


----------



## jbuhler (Sep 19, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> its not a political question at all. There is no politics in music.


There’s a long line of esteemed philosophical argumentation dating back to at least Plato that music is inherently political. Given that music presents an imagined social order (we imagine music in sound, create music by drawing imaginary distinctions with and in sound) and always requires a fundamental compromise in tuning (see: syntonic comma) music’s inherent political investments are hardly surprising.


----------



## Wedge (Sep 19, 2021)

I felt the same way you do for a long time and found out that my composition not only improved a lot faster once I started learning theory but that things became more interesting because it gave me options I wouldn't have come up with wihtout it. It's like getting a second toolbox to crack open and grab the tools you want, you're not forced to ever open the box. But it's great to have a bigger toolset. 

As far as recycled melodies go, it happens especially in pop music. Write a melody going in and out of Hungarian Minor if you're worried of recycling something, you might anyway. But you'd need to know some theory to play around with something like that. Someimes it's just fun to play around with stuff like that. You're basically selling yourself short without it. It's like painting and your palet only has blue, red, and black. It's nice to have the option to use yellow and white. I'm a fan of green.


----------



## Soundbed (Sep 19, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I am by no means a pro as I have just started making my own tracks a little over a year ago. I got tired of hearing the same methods, beats, and the formulaic sounds of music today. From Pop, R&B, Rap, and Hip-hop, hell even some orchestral, they almost all sound the same to me now and are predictable which is sad. That is why I finally broke down to make my own tracks.
> 
> ...


There are some composition and physics concepts that come in handy that aren’t strictly “music theory” but might help you develop your writing style and arrangements snd production approach. 

I listened to a few of your tracks and some of the things you might want to look into / keep in mind are: 

*call and response, 
*how the harmonic series influences common / popular melodies,
*the power of contrast (including silence or musical rests, also rhythmic contrasts for different sections), 
* countermelody


----------



## Bman70 (Sep 19, 2021)

NoamL said:


> Transcribing someone else's music is like emptying an entire can of alphabet soup. Academic theory is what shows you that there's 700 noodles but only 26 letters.








But more seriously, what were you referring to with having 6 chords you can theoretically go to from the current one? Is that the circle of 5ths? I'm not disregarding theory, I just don't know all the terms by name.


----------



## ed buller (Sep 19, 2021)

I don't mean to sound glib, but if you're looking for a reason to study music theory, it really shouldn't be cos people in a forum told you do to it. There is a lot to learn and some of it is kinda infuriating, lotsa "don't do this !"...then you find out Debussy did it and it was great. I'd keep doing your thing until you hear some music and want to write something that has that quality or feel or sound....and can't ! ...
then you'll have a good reason to put up with the nonsense . 

I am of the belief that a lot of music just can't be done by ear alone...you need systems and techniques. And it's odd that one can point to 200 years or more of composers who all studied these same techniques yet all wrote ( well some ) unique music !

Above all else it teaches you craft. How to make something from almost nothing. Whether it's Sonata Form or Counterpoint, these things can generate music !.....from a simple idea 







to a 4 movement symphony. BUT...it takes a lot of hard work and some ( lot's ) can be tedious and uninspiring !....so you need a fucking good reason to do it !

If I were you...I'd wait until YOU know what that reason is !

best


ed


----------



## NoamL (Sep 19, 2021)

Bman70 said:


> But more seriously, what were you referring to with having 6 chords you can theoretically go to from the current one? Is that the circle of 5ths? I'm not disregarding theory, I just don't know all the terms by name.


No problem, I probably wrote it poorly.

If I have a note G and I want to decide what harmonies go with it, the first ones to try are these six: G maj, G min, Eb maj, E min, D maj, D min C maj, C min. Those are the six chords that already have the note G in them! Then if none of those match what I'm hearing in my head, I'll consider other harmonies that are further afield.

Anyway, I bet you already have this knowledge. But when composing it's less like "knowledge" and more like "muscle memory."

Piano skills vastly helped me as a composer. Even though I only took 2 years of lessons, and have lots of bad habits. I think learning piano may even be more important than learning to read sheet music.


----------



## Double Helix (Sep 19, 2021)

NoamL said:


> No problem, I probably wrote it poorly.
> 
> If I have a note G and I want to decide what harmonies go with it, the first ones to try are these six: G maj, G min, Eb maj, E min, D maj, D min. Those are the six chords that already have the note G in bad habits. I think learning piano may even be more important than learning to read sheet music.


I'll bet that a C maj and a C min would yield nice results with your G, too


----------



## Bman70 (Sep 19, 2021)

NoamL said:


> No problem, I probably wrote it poorly.
> 
> If I have a note G and I want to decide what harmonies go with it, the first ones to try are these six: G maj, G min, Eb maj, E min, D maj, D min. Those are the six chords that already have the note G in them! Then if none of those match what I'm hearing in my head, I'll consider other harmonies that are further afield.
> 
> ...


Thanks! No I hadn't yet internalized that particular method of analyzing a progression, that's why I thought it might be circle of 5ths. Most of my theory is the osmosis variety, simply having learned hundreds of songs since childhood. But I try to remember every trick I learn. I always love when Guy Michelmore gives little tricks like that, like his chromatic mediants or secondary dominants videos.


----------



## dhmusic (Sep 19, 2021)

rgames said:


> It is a tremedous arrogance to think you can be completely original. I've never heard, seen, read, etc. anyone do it.


"Now you listen here mister..." - All of the moms


----------



## NoamL (Sep 19, 2021)

Ugh, that's what I get for typing it out so fast! C maj C min, of course 

I honestly prefer thinking about it on the piano because then it just becomes "hand shapes".


----------



## Bman70 (Sep 19, 2021)

NoamL said:


> Ugh, that's what I get for typing it out so fast! C maj C min, of course
> 
> I honestly prefer thinking about it on the piano because then it just becomes "hand shapes".


You mean Cmaj / min instead of D? Or in addition to? Because that would make it more than 6 right


----------



## NoamL (Sep 19, 2021)

yes, instead

to expand the idea you basically go down the "list of suspects"

1. Triads that G can be a part of [the 6 "usual suspects"]
2. What if G is the 7th? or 9th or 11th?
3. What if G is a 4-3 suspension? Or a 2-1 suspension maybe?
4. If I'm 'hearing' something more dissonant, what if G is part of some diminished or octatonic structure?

and so on

It's like a sorting algorithm. I try the things that are most likely to work, and also most musically conservative, first. Unless I know the idea in my head is a bit weird and adventurous and then I might have a suspicion of where to jump down the list.

Any sorting algorithm, though, will beat a random search. Which is what you have if you don't have music theory: you know the melody is G, you know you have some harmony in your head, but you don't know how to get there so you try random things on the piano hoping to stumble on the idea in your head... which can quickly get "wiped out" of your memory by what you hear on the piano...


----------



## SupremeFist (Sep 19, 2021)

NoamL said:


> yes, instead
> 
> to expand the idea you basically go down the "list of suspects"
> 
> ...


To me this is a really good description of the thought process. I remember when I first studied suspensions properly I wrote tons of suspensions for a while, and especially overused the trick of resolving a suspension to another suspension. But then it all settles down and just becomes another option you know you have. (Btw that G will often be a flat 9.)


----------



## José Herring (Sep 19, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> Are there those like me who love to make music without worrying about the music theory, key signatures, chords, etc..? I want to hear from you on what has help you complete your track and I also want to hear from those who believe music theory has assisted you without limiting your imagination due to technical no no of music.


These things you mentioned aren't music theory per se but the fundamental building blocks of music itself. All music all around the world no matter what style is recognized by scales, chords and rhythm patterns. For different styles of music from different cultures these basic elements are organized in various ways dependent on the aesthetics and the morals of the culture making the music. 

So don't make the mistake of thinking that "music theory" is what you think it is. The theory of music for the western world has been around since the times of Egypt then made into western culture by guys like Pythagoras in Greece stealing Egyptian scales and applying Greek Aesthetics which was later on picked up by composers around the time of the enlightenment expanded upon and cemented into what we call western music. Thus the scales and chords of the well tempered keyboard.

That music all sounds the same today is an entirely different problem. Commercialism has gotten into the field of the arts and created certain things that are "sellable" to the masses. It's the lowest common denominator and is actually coming from people that aren't versed enough in the basics of music to do anything else but copy the ones who are deemed the most commercially successful. But even then some poke out and make success doing something unique.

I did listen to your music and @chillbot is correct. At least get versed in the fundamentals of music. It's a language. If you speak English you wouldn't think about never studying the language and try and speak it.

And yes I know there are some people that boast about how musically untrained they are and yet are very successful, blah, blah,what they don't say is that they spend hours and hours a day reading books, banging out ideas on the piano, listening to music and imitating it, ect... That's self education and is the best kind of education one could have.

So if you want to make a go at it and actually write music that people can listen to, get self educated in the basics of music.


----------



## SupremeFist (Sep 19, 2021)

José Herring said:


> These things you mentioned aren't music theory per se but the fundamental building blocks of music itself. All music all around the world no matter what style is recognized by scales, chords and rhythm patterns. For different styles of music from different cultures these basic elements are organized in various ways dependent on the aesthetics and the morals of the culture making the music.
> 
> So don't make the mistake of thinking that "music theory" is what you think it is. The theory of music for the western world has been around since the times of Egypt then made into western culture by guys like Pythagoras in Greece stealing Egyptian scales and applying Greek Aesthetics which was later on picked up by composers around the time of the enlightenment expanded upon and cemented into what we call western music. Thus the scales and chords of the well tempered keyboard.
> 
> ...


Or, to put it yet another way, many many thousands of people before us have been bashing away semi-randomly trying to find something that sounds nice and/or interesting. The absolute best things they discovered are the ones that stood the test of audience appreciation over time and so became "theory". So, it's an awesome shortcut!


----------



## Living Fossil (Sep 19, 2021)

NoamL said:


> No problem, I probably wrote it poorly.
> 
> If I have a note G and I want to decide what harmonies go with it, the first ones to try are these six: G maj, G min, Eb maj, E min, D maj, D min C maj, C min. Those are the six chords that already have the note G in them! Then if none of those match what I'm hearing in my head, I'll consider other harmonies that are further afield.


Honestly, i wouldn't recommend this method.

What i'd suggest instead is: when you have your melodic note in question, don't play anything.
Instead, try listening to the chord that you may hear in your head. Try to feel it.
If you think to "hear" it internally, sing your melodic note and from there try to sing the chord notes in a succession.
Then, try to play the notes you've sung.

The big plus of this described method is that you don't affect your inner imagination by playing chords that aren't the real one. Hearing other chords may overrule the imagination, and usually this isn't a good thing. BTW that's the same reason why i think that automatons that suggest chords based on context can be damaging after a while.

(of course, after a while of ear training this won't be necessary since you know exactly which chord you are hearing without any need of singing/playing). 

Finally: A great source to learn about relations between melodies and their accomponying chords are Beatles songs. Lots of interesting details, like an (unresolved) 11 over a minor 7 chord (would be a over Emin7) etc.. Lots of stuff that would rather not exist with a "theoretical search approach".


----------



## dhmusic (Sep 19, 2021)

NoamL said:


> 1. Triads that G can be a part of [the 6 "usual suspects"]
> 2. What if G is the 7th? or 9th or 11th?
> 3. What if G is a 4-3 suspension? Or a 2-1 suspension maybe?
> 4. If I'm 'hearing' something more dissonant, what if G is part of some diminished or octatonic structure?


(This is totally not a knock against something that works for you, just a general reaction. carry on as you are lol)

Personally - my eyes completely glazed over seeing this. I understand it, but cataloging the whole thing just made me want to stop thinking. Pretty sure this is what OP was trying to express. For some people, the process of decoding in a certain way will always feel unnatural.

Maybe it's a language acquisition thing? Like the parts that feel like natural fluency are really frustrating to intellectualize or label. Like being suddenly hyper-aware of your own breathing or automatic bodily functions. It might trigger a visceral sense of disgust that would understandably drive one away from the whole thing.

So it's an uphill battle trying to convince someone of the benefits of something that feels primally repulsive. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think that kind of reaction might outweigh the benefits of study negatively in the longrun. Beyond general discomfort, or "laziness", it's more of a socially anxious reaction to culture shock involving a lot of pressure to assimilate to the unfamiliar based on what probably feels like bs annecdotes

It's like being expected to trust a bunch of aliens who make you feel rather alienated, yourself


----------



## SupremeFist (Sep 19, 2021)

Living Fossil said:


> like an (unresolved) 11 over a minor 7 chord (would be a over Emin7) etc.. Lots of stuff that would rather not exist with a "theoretical search approach".


That would certainly fall within my search (it's an obvious suspension) if I were doing it that way. I don't always or even mostly do it that way, partly because I don't really think of melody and harmony as separate. (Whole other big subject.) But this is the point, that theory gives you the option of doing that systematic search if you can't find it organjcally yourself!


----------



## Living Fossil (Sep 19, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> That would certainly fall within my search (it's an obvious suspension) if I were doing it that way.


The reason why it's not an obivious suspension is that it's unresolved. So basically it is rather an _add_11 than a suspension.
And if you go systematically through all possibilities up to the 11 in a chord, it will take you a while.
Of course, if you've developed an instinct for such things (that are more common in music that's created by guitar player/sings) you will check it out.

But as mentioned in a former post (in this thread): the essential thing with learning theory is that it has to be an _appropriate_ theory and it has to be_ digested_.


----------



## NoamL (Sep 19, 2021)

Living Fossil said:


> Honestly, i wouldn't recommend this method.
> 
> What i'd suggest instead is: when you have your melodic note in question, don't play anything.
> Instead, try listening to the chord that you may hear in your head. Try to feel it.
> ...


Strangely perhaps, I agree with you @Living Fossil

If a beginning composer can approach it with their inner ear first, or if you are a good singer, or if you have a great musical memory that preserves your imagined music, then use that. Between inner ear, brain knowledge, and hands-on piano, whichever one is most developed first, will be the best thing for a person to lean on as they develop the other areas. There's no right "first thing" to develop before anything else.

I also get what you're getting at with describing the "theoretical search" process as comparable to a "musical automaton." With a reductive, simplified explanation (like when I called it an "algorithm") then they look much alike. But in reality the musical process is a flowing combination of knowledge, inspiration, experimentation, improvisation. There are times when I turn my brain off and don't even look at the piano and just go "hands first" into trying to come up with a musical idea.

I think the #1 point I've been trying to communicate is that a composer's hands, ear, brain will only get stronger when they *really come into contact* with music - their own & others' - handle it, turn it around, see how it works from the music creator's perspective. When someone (who isn't a strong composer) listens to music casually I don't believe that counts as anything. That's almost like just "tasting" music! Unlike what you call "digesting" the theory.

All of this could be boiled down to what @Jdiggity1 posted just a couple pages ago: "Just drop the word "theory". Study music."


----------



## NoamL (Sep 19, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> Like the parts that feel like natural fluency are really frustrating to intellectualize or label.


That's exactly it. Like explaining how to chew and swallow. "First you move your jaw up and down...."


----------



## SupremeFist (Sep 19, 2021)

Living Fossil said:


> The reason why it's not an obivious suspension is that it's unresolved. So basically it is rather an _add_11 than a suspension.


Suspensions don't have to resolve! (But basically we agree, as the rest of my post suggested.)


----------



## Living Fossil (Sep 19, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> Suspensions don't have to resolve! (But basically we agree, as the rest of my post suggested.)


In Jazz, Rock & Pop theory not; in traditional theory it has. 
(that's why i mentioned in my first post that there _musical theories_ and not _one_ theory.)


----------



## Daniel James (Sep 19, 2021)

Everything you find out for yourself, wether it be novel or already known....would be considered music theory. If you do a music technique to achieve a certain sound in your head...that IS music theory. 

The classical or academic version of 'music theory' is simply a collection of techniques that overtime we have discovered to be effective at achieving certain sounds or portraying certain emotions.

All of those things you have discovered for yourself are your own version of music theory. Now the main issue is, many of the techniques you have discovered for yourself are most likely already taught in conventional music theory classes. So while you figured it out on your own, you could have just read how to do it in a book and save time. Not only that but the academic version has been so refined over time, not only will you learn the technique you discovered yourself in a music theory class, you will be able to learn all the auxillary and related techniques which may stem or work well with the new thing you found.

So all in all, you don't need it, there are some things you can pick up just by listening to other people write music. But what you are describing is trying to find a location without a map. You will probably find waypoints and landmarks along the way to get you where you want to go.....but it would be so much more straightforward to just use the fucking map 😂

Also you get to pick and choose which bits you like and dislike, there is no threat to your creativity unless you are one of those people who believe you HAVE to do things by the book. 

Either way man, just have fun with it. If your end result is awesome, literally no one will give a fuck how smart or dumb you are.

-DJ


----------



## lokotus (Sep 19, 2021)

music theory is just a tool to achieve something. The better you know it, the better you can use it for your craft. There are other tools too to achieve a "musical" goal. Id say don't worry about music theory if you sit down for one day trying to learn this tool and realise this is not something for you.
But worry about it if you sit down one day and realise how interesting music is judged by the tool.

In fact, these tools are changing constantly, Bach, Schoenberg, Stockhausen etc. all invented their own set of tools to achieve their goal. You can invent your own tool today (playing by ear, emotion etc,) without having to worry about the former ones, but it inspires you more when you know what others invented before you.

I never understood why music theory should worry you or limit your creativity. Its like asking a physician these days if he feels mentally restricted by knowing too many formulas invented in the past...

And keep in mind, everybody has to deal with music theory whether you want it or not. As soon as you start to think about why there are black and white keys, what frequencies they have, what it has to do with Phythagoras, overtones and circle of fifths you are right that path of math and music theory. You can choose to deal with it and learn something about this or keep dealing with it without understanding it. I wouldn't want to choose the latter, since it doesn't only help you in composing, but for arranging, orchestrating colours, mixing, recording etc too ...


----------



## Jackdnp121 (Sep 19, 2021)

I initially started getting into music theory because I wanted to know what bill evans is doing with his harmony … I believe music theory is a great tool to free yourself when you are blocked by your creativity …and I find it making more sense to a theory/creative balance approach … to me it is definitely beneficial to know it …. peace out 🤟


----------



## Jackdnp121 (Sep 19, 2021)

lokotus said:


> music theory is just a tool to achieve something. The better you know it, the better you can use it for your craft. There are other tools too to achieve a "musical" goal. Id say don't worry about music theory if you sit down for one day trying to learn this tool and realise this is not something for you.
> But worry about it if you sit down one day and realise how interesting music is judged by the tool.
> 
> In fact, these tools are changing constantly, Bach, Schoenberg, Stockhausen etc. all invented their own set of tools to achieve their goal. You can invent your own tool today (playing by ear, emotion etc,) without having to worry about the former ones, but it inspires you more who you know what others invented before you.
> ...


😂 totally agree with your last sentence


----------



## ism (Sep 19, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> if you are perfectly content throwing together your simplistic emotional meanderings, then by all means keep at it. I personally got bored with that kind of stuff about 40 years ago.


I'm very pro-theory. But just to add that if I could, absent a whiff of theory, just throw together simplistic emotional meanderings as good as, say, Paul McCartney, that I'd just do that and screw theory.


----------



## Bman70 (Sep 19, 2021)

Living Fossil said:


> ...What i'd suggest instead is: when you have your melodic note in question, don't play anything.
> Instead, try listening to the chord that you may hear in your head. Try to feel it.
> If you think to "hear" it internally, sing your melodic note and from there try to sing the chord notes in a succession.
> Then, try to play the notes you've sung.
> ...


I like the trick NoamL mentioned, and it's similar to the process I sometimes go through when thinking of possible chord progressions for a song. If you have a strong enough "vision," you're not going to just settle for any chord that isn't the "real one." They're just suggestions. 

If the chord suggested works best with the vision in my head, and opens up where it can go further, I'll probably use it. But the rummaging process isn't limiting, I think. It might be that way if you're just starting out and think you HAVE to pick from a wheel of acceptable chords. But often I throw out suggested chords simply because I want something stranger, and keep looking. 

Listening to the music in your head, and rummaging around for things to support it in the toolbox, don't conflict in my experience.. but yes it could be something to stay mindful of in case it got limiting.


----------



## Kent (Sep 19, 2021)

NoamL said:


> yes, instead
> 
> to expand the idea you basically go down the "list of suspects"
> 
> ...


I feel like this whooooshed over some people's heads...

Maybe I'm speaking for @NoamL here a bit too much (and please correct me if I'm wrong!), but in general if you think he's overthinking things here, I would posit that _you_ are overthinking things here. Noam's just outlining a basic heuristic that, in practice, is probably _never_ followed exactly like this. 

(I'd go so far as to say that if it _does_ proceed exactly step-by-step in this manner, the composer is doing things wrong)


----------



## ism (Sep 19, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> Here is an interesting book...its not long. This may enlighten you as to WHY certain music theories have proven over time to be present in most all music that people tend to enjoy listening to the most:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


+1 for Huron on Voice Leading. Superb book. And a very convincing use of modern understanding of human perceptual science to show, essentially, that Bach Was Right About Everything All Along.

I mean, my undergrad voice leading text basically just cheerful assumed the same thing, with only passingly speculating that there might be a scientific basic for this assumption. Huron develops the argument very plausibly using modern neuroscience.


----------



## ryans (Sep 19, 2021)

NoamL said:


> yes, instead
> 
> to expand the idea you basically go down the "list of suspects"
> 
> ...


Interesting. My approach is almost completely opposite of this. Everything I write comes from improvising at the piano, and when I improvise I cannot 'think' of anything really as it destroys the improvisation.

I can analyze the theory afterwords if I need to communicate certain aspects with a fellow musician or performer.


----------



## Akarin (Sep 19, 2021)

I'll be blunt, don't mind me as I have nothing against you, but this discussion, I had over and over again. It also comes on VI Control quite often.

What you are saying, in essence is "I want to write books but I don't want to be hindered by learning grammar and spelling. I want to assemble the letters the way I feel like." Now, I listened to some of your tracks and they feel like books written by someone who can't spell.


----------



## BlackDorito (Sep 19, 2021)

NoamL said:


> No problem, I probably wrote it poorly.
> 
> If I have a note G and I want to decide what harmonies go with it, the first ones to try are these six: G maj, G min, Eb maj, E min, D maj, D min C maj, C min. Those are the six chords that already have the note G in them! Then if none of those match what I'm hearing in my head, I'll consider other harmonies that are further afield.
> 
> ...


I could see using this approach when looking for an interesting alternative to well-known chord progressions. Generally though, if I'm in the middle of a melody and I arrive at a G, there are typically notes before the G and thus there is a harmonic tendency or context, or maybe a well-known chord progression already in play. If you take an unexpected harmonic excursion to one of "the six" (or many others) once or twice within the phrase, it can be interesting. If you do it on every melody note, it could be chaos.


----------



## Macrawn (Sep 19, 2021)

There are plenty of people who have written books without creative writing degrees.

I liked the music, I think mixing is where you want to look next for improvement. You use a lot of rock structure in your songs and that does not require theory. I guess rock is like theory picked up in practice and through listening and it has a simpler transferable process like oral story telling. Nothing wrong with that approach and with some of the amazing kinds of vst instruments out there it's very possible.


----------



## Arbee (Sep 19, 2021)

I skipped several pages of responses in this thread, so apologies if I'm repeating something.

Speaking from experience, my biggest fear for you is that you come to music theory later in life (as a tool kit not a religion), slap your forehead and think "if only I'd know this years ago my music would have been so much better and I wouldn't have wasted so much time trying to reinvent the wheel". That doesn't mean you can't be innovative, quite the opposite. Armed with the knowledge that other folk have, you can take it to another level without being indoctrinated or constrained.

I quite often read Hans quoted as evidence that you don't need music theory to succeed and innovate, but listen hard through the apparent simplicity of his music and it's easy to tell, IMHO, that he's put in some serious hard work over the years to absorb that body of knowledge one way or another.

Edit: and can I add the same applies to recording, mixing, mastering, production, marketing etc. These days, knowing just how to write the stuff doesn't cut it unless you're JW and co. So much to learn, so little time! Certainly not enough time to learn it all in a bubble from the ground up.


----------



## Noeticus (Sep 19, 2021)

I thought it was all about pattern recognition, as in, can you see what is happening when the gas envelope that surrounds you is modulated in various ways... or is that waves.


----------



## dhmusic (Sep 19, 2021)

Akarin said:


> I'll be blunt, don't mind me as I have nothing against you, but this discussion, I had over and over again. It also comes on VI Control quite often.
> 
> What you are saying, in essence is "I want to write books but I don't want to be hindered by learning grammar and spelling. I want to assemble the letters the way I feel like." Now, I listened to some of your tracks and they feel like books written by someone who can't spell.


That sounds like a really weird but interesting read though. No love for outsider art? It can be pretty incredible. Stuff like that is like cultural mutation. When it works it can be groundbreaking


----------



## Macrawn (Sep 19, 2021)

Asking if you should learn theory here, is like going into a Catholic church and asking if you should follow Jesus. Just keep that in mind. You won't find many atheists there.


----------



## Kent (Sep 19, 2021)

Macrawn said:


> Asking if you should learn theory here, is like going into a Catholic church and asking if you should follow Jesus. Just keep that in mind. You won't find many atheists there.


I think it’s more like going to a car enthusiast show and asking if you need a license and insurance to drive a car. No, technically not, but when you get into a sticky situation you’ll be very glad that you do!


----------



## Kent (Sep 19, 2021)

And I want to add, OP…

There is absolutely no shame in coming to something and admitting you don’t know enough about it. Learning is something we all do, and we all have our own paths we take to get there.

Saith the ever-relevant XKCD:









Ten Thousand







xkcd.com


----------



## NoamL (Sep 19, 2021)

Heh I threw in enough 2-cents, but I'll just say in parting -

that if you think that chordal approach is too conservative, go ahead and study the orchestral film music of current and past A-listers. For the most part, melody notes on strong beats are harmonized as chord members. For the most part, harmonies are found in root position. For the most part, rare or odd harmonies are found in moments of high drama and avoided elsewhere. The exceptions to these rules are found more often in the works of the composers who're literate in music history (you know who).

You can always flip everything around and think about it from "transcription" instead of "composing" perspective. Let's say I'm in the middle of transcribing a piece, and for a particular musical moment I know the melody note. OK, the next step should be, can I hear and figure out what the bass note is? If those are two different notes I'm already halfway to knowing the harmony. I can try playing different triads with the melody flipping back and forth between my transcription and the real recording. Does it sound right? If not then continue the process, trying different things until I get a match. Then, to what you said @BlackDorito , as the transcription evolves then I'll start to notice hey we're in a key, which means I'll expect certain chords to the exclusion of certain other chords, and try the likeliest things first. Or I'll notice that the composer uses a pattern of chords a major 3rd part, and so when I hear something similar later in the piece, I'll try to apply that same pattern first. Or I'll notice that the overall melody & harmony in a part of the piece is octatonic, so when I hear a woodwind run that I can't quite dissect, I'll try the relevant octatonic scale. And those turn out to be the "right answers" for the transcription.

Transcriptions have "right answers," composing doesn't have answers of course, but it has "useful techniques," that's the flipside.

Above, I'm describing *the process for someone who is a beginning composer / beginning transcriber. *That's why it sounds and feels painstaking and inch-by-inch. When you don't know shit you don't really have an option but just to crawl forward 1 inch at a time brute forcing the process. The more you learn the more it gets abstracted which refines both your composing approach and your ability to just hear something and knock it out on the piano immediately until eventually you get to Jazz Pianist levels.  

OK one last PS - this is also not just about harmony and voicing it's about everything. EVERY thing! Orchestration, development, structure & form, contrast, scoring to picture.... whatever your music is limited by. Bach literally stole Vivaldi manuscripts (from his older brother IIRC?) to study them late at night. Bach does not sound like Vivaldi but Bach would not be Bach without Vivaldi...


----------



## dhmusic (Sep 19, 2021)

kmaster said:


> And I want to add, OP…
> 
> There is absolutely no shame in coming to something and admitting you don’t know enough about it. Learning is something we all do, and we all have our own paths we take to get there.
> 
> ...


What if he just thinks it's really dumb, after all the effort put into the thread. Would that not be a perfectly fine outcome as well?


----------



## Cybercub (Sep 19, 2021)

dhmusic said:


> What if he just thinks it's really dumb, after all the effort put into the thread. Would that not be a perfectly fine outcome as well?


Nah, I did post I will read up on the basics. I will certainly provide my experience after having read the material and look forward to updating those who did put forth the effort in this thread. I really do appreciate everyone.


----------



## robgb (Sep 19, 2021)

My musical education has come completely from listening and doing. I'm sure by listening I've picked up a large amount of musical theory, but I couldn't for the life of me tell you what it is. Like anything else in the creative arena, every composer has a different approach. And all that matters is the results. And it doesn't even really matter if other people don't like your results. As long as you like them. Be proud of whatever you do, and don't worry about the naysayers who will tell you you can't do it that way, or those well intentioned people who will tell you the better way is their way. They could all be right, but they could also be wrong. So just make music and enjoy yourself and don't sweat the small stuff.


----------



## dhmusic (Sep 19, 2021)

Cybercub said:


> Nah, I did post I will read up on the basics. I will certainly provide my experience after having read the material and look forward to updating those who did put forth the effort in this thread. I really do appreciate everyone.


Yeah totally. What I'm trying to say is it shouldn't be a big deal if you did in fact feel that way. It shouldn't upset anyone. We should be content that a person was able to come to their own conclusion and let them carry on.


----------



## robgb (Sep 19, 2021)

Macrawn said:


> There are plenty of people who have written books without creative writing degrees.


I've written multiple novels under my name and others, have had a couple of bestsellers, and never took a writing class or studied writing in any way except by reading other authors. It's my day job and how I pay my mortgage.


----------



## rgames (Sep 19, 2021)

robgb said:


> I'm sure by listening I've picked up a large amount of musical theory


Yes, in fact that's the most important way to learn music theory. You don't have to be able to explicitly explain it to know it. Just like you don't have to know aerodynamics to fly an airplane.

I've come across a lot of musicians who disparage music theory but if you listen to the I-V-vi-IV (and similar) music they write, you realize they are, in fact, following a pretty typical formula with strong roots in old-school music theory. They might not know what I-V-vi-IV means but they understand what it sounds like (and use it constantly).

In fact, the division of the octave into 12 notes is based on (Western) music theory. So unless you're going microtonal, you're already subscribing to music theory that dates back hundreds of years.

You might not know it, but you are. So if you really want to be a rebel and go 100% original then you probably should understand that fact so that you can figure out where to direct your rebellion.

Or... ignorance is bliss.

rgames


----------



## mandan (Sep 19, 2021)

I started harmony exercises years ago from the hungarian book Lőrinc Kesztler.








Kesztler Lőrinc • Összhangzattan ( 1928 • 1952) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


Music theory



archive.org





I heard that there are another books as well.





Harmonielehre (Schoenberg, Arnold) - IMSLP: Free Sheet Music PDF Download







imslp.org









A Concentrated Course in Traditional Harmony (Hindemith, Paul) - IMSLP: Free Sheet Music PDF Download







imslp.org









Harmonielehre (Schenker, Heinrich) - IMSLP: Free Sheet Music PDF Download







imslp.org









Category:Riemann, Hugo - IMSLP: Free Sheet Music PDF Download







imslp.org









Der Harmonieschüler (Rischbieter, Wilhelm) - IMSLP: Free Sheet Music PDF Download







imslp.org





Now I am at the inversion of dom sept chords, I should harmonise the sopran voice, without knowing which chord it is. My piano teacher asked me to make some pieces from harmonic progressions, like improvisation, but it is very hard for me. To make harmony exercises and to compose is two another things. I should take some ideas from Beethoven, what we play now. My composer friend adviced me to learn contrapunct as well, because if you have harmony it is the best if the voice are not at the same place, and if you make contrapunct in palestrina style it is the best if the chords have all the voices without doubling at the end.


----------



## Zedcars (Sep 19, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> Second blob was as an adult in my 30s at Morley College in London (Holst was once its musical director!), doing weekly classes for 2 years to get to BMus level.


I went there too in 2011-2013 to study orchestration under Paul Sarcich and 20th Century Music Composition Techniques under Patricia Shaw. It’s a great place full of history and has so many great courses. I’d love to go back and do some more courses at some point.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Sep 20, 2021)

It's not often mentioned but I found that there was another benefit to learning well the craft I'd chosen. Whilst studying, learning and practising, I realised that I was also probing and beginning to understand my own aesthetic and musical preferences. Exposing myself to techniques gave me options that I could keep a hold of or discard as being not for me. Decisions like that where instinctive but also very telling and none of it was a waste.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Sep 20, 2021)

Zedcars said:


> I went there too in 2011-2013 to study orchestration under Paul Sarcich and 20th Century Music Composition Techniques under Patricia Shaw. It’s a great place full of history and has so many great courses. I’d love to go back and do some more courses at some point.


did you guys (@SupremeFist and @Zedcars ) take lessons in the room where Holst composed 'The Planets' ?


----------



## Zedcars (Sep 20, 2021)

mikeh-375 said:


> did you guys (@SupremeFist and @Zedcars ) take lessons in the room where Holst composed 'The Planets' ?


Yeah, I had to keep asking him to keep the noise down as he kept jamming Mars over and over. So inconsiderate! 

As far as I know, he composed The Planets at St Paul’s Girls School.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Sep 20, 2021)

Zedcars said:


> Yeah, I had to keep asking him to keep the noise down as he kept jamming Mars over and over. Such a noisy guy!
> 
> As far as I know, he composed The Planets at St Paul’s Girls School.


gaaahh yes..oops. I saw a documentary on St Pauls and Holst where two tutors played 'Jupiter' for piano duet in the room where it was composed and got em mixed up. Still Morley...cool.


----------



## thesteelydane (Sep 20, 2021)

ryans said:


> Interesting. My approach is almost completely opposite of this. Everything I write comes from improvising at the piano, and when I improvise I cannot 'think' of anything really as it destroys the improvisation.
> 
> I can analyze the theory afterwords if I need to communicate certain aspects with a fellow musician or performer.


But your improvisation is still guided by theory and a number of learned shapes and mnemonics (for lack of a better word), unless of course you’re writing completely atonal music. Which is what truly free improvisation would result in...


----------



## JoeWatkin (Sep 20, 2021)

I've never felt tied to learning theory, but something about delving into it now and again seems to give me inspiration to write, so for me it's good for that!


----------



## youngpokie (Sep 20, 2021)

thesteelydane said:


> But your improvisation is still guided by theory and a number of learned shapes


This is the crucial point that's already been made a couple of times but keeps getting lost...

Nobody needs any theory to make music or to write novels or paint. We learn to make music by repeated listening to and imitating what we like. The result is that we pick up the most obvious conventions of that genre and follow them faithfully but unconsciously for the rest of our lives. When people say "if it sounds good to you" what they really mean is that it fits the norms and conventions of the style you've been exposed to and learned by imitating.

Some people (The Beatles) have so much talent they can create enduring music just with this kind of background, boundless curiosity and a few years of relentless practice.

For the rest of us, remaining on this level means being stuck in this loop forever. For some, this is totally fine. For others, it eventually starts to sound like a cliché and we try to go beyond it. So, we attempt a new approach: "throwing spaghetti at the wall" - completely random things, at best guessing and at worst wasting time and getting frustrated.

Music theory is simply an explanation of why and - most critically,_ how_ - the melodic/harmonic conventions of any genre work. As we learn music theory, it will gradually reveal the elements that we simply didn't notice before, one after another, like peeling an onion. It's very similar to the example of subtle use of EQ - "you feel it more than you consciously hear it", but these small things add up and have a big impact on the outcome. In this sense, music theory is no different to mixing, to cooking, to painting, to writing, to building.

Having said all that, the question is really to the OP - are you sure music theory is the solution for your issue? The genres you said you appreciate (heavy metal, edm, pop, movies) are not based on sophisticated harmonies, but more on production, sound design and instrumentation formulas.


----------



## Tim_Wells (Sep 20, 2021)

I'd say "The Long and Winding Road", "Michelle", "Here, There, and Everywhere" and probably others are better examples of McCartney's intuitive grasp of music theory than "Let It Be". Let It Be has a pretty basic chord structure.


----------



## Ben E (Sep 20, 2021)

I’m self-taught and I can’t read music. I’ve been writing songs since I was a child. By the time I was in my 20s I’d taught myself difficult-to-play jazz chord progressions on guitar — chords to which I knew none of the names. Never learned anything “about” music. But I knew how to write songs, start a band and get a major label deal. In other words, by any normal standard I was "fairly good at doing music" without any lessons or knowledge of music theory.

Of course I couldn't _converse_ at any real depth about music with those who _had_ learned something "about" music. And my ignorance has hobbled communication in other ways -- like the time I was handed a "chart" in an improv session. I just handed it back. Hieroglyphics.

But just recently, about 6 years ago, I discovered midi and started to use a keyboard to make music. Never really had to use a keyboard before. With the keyboard it was really hard to “find” the chords I could hear in my head. Easy on guitar, not so much on a keyboard. A (real) composer buddy who heard me complaining gave me these books written by Dick Grove. The first couple chapters explained the spatial relations (on a keyboard or on staff paper) between the notes of chords. This is when I learned what a “diminished” chord was and what an “augmented” chord was — although I’d been using these chords for decades I only knew them as “those weird sounding chords that are kind of jazzy — Beatles-like chords. Good in-between chords. Like this, listen...” But learning how chords physically interlocked and overlapped with each other — like an Escher mosaic — completely blew my mind and a whole bunch of stuff that had been floating around in my head for thirty years came together and locked in place.

For you guys who've always known this stuff you might get a kick out of how blown away I was to discover that if you play a major triad (first position) the 2nd and 3rd notes of that triad are the first two notes of a minor triad!! Oh my god! So THAT’S why it sounds good to go to that minor chord…Wait! This means I could do this ON PURPOSE! Wait! Are there OTHER cool this-is-why-it-works things about chords that I don’t know? Oh my god, there are!

I never pursued “theory” beyond the first two chapters of this Dick Grove guy. And I’m guessing that Dick Grove is sooo 1950 (or whatever) if you’re a theory guy. But it definitely put to rest the suspicion that a little theory was going to turn me into a clone — the way GIT does to guitar players (more or less.) To be honest, when it comes to composing I probably already AM a clone of something or other. My compositions are mashups of previous stuff and zeitgeist and kitsch or whatever. Knowing a little theory is hardly going to make it any worse.


----------



## BlackDorito (Sep 20, 2021)

Ben E said:


> came together and locked in place.


I think you're the guy who did that Hepburn piece awhile back. If so .. yeah, things seem to have come together for you :_) Very interesting background, and if that particular piece, including the lush jazzy chords, was done primarily by accumulating skills by ear, that's quite something.


----------



## Casiquire (Sep 20, 2021)

Music theory largely just boils down to A, learning the names for things, and B, learning solutions to common problems. Neither of those things is bad for creativity. Can you take a good photo without knowing the word "exposure"? Sure. Would you be a better photographer with a good understanding of what it means and how it can help you get the brightness or detail you want? Yes.

Music knowledge only works in one direction, too. You *cannot* write convincing music in the style of Bach for example without knowing why he does things the way he does them. You *can* disregard all your theory and knowledge and write the same way you write today even after learning all the theory. It's an expansion of your abilities


----------



## Kyle Preston (Sep 20, 2021)

_“There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.”

— Daniel Dennett_

This topic always generates contention on VI Control. It turns into us-vs-them, *‘The Thinking Brains’* vs *‘The Feeling Brains’*, the holy battleground _shall be protected_, hold my beer!

Truth is, we all (ALL) have blind spots. Desperate for originality? I get it, pursue what you love. Just don’t fall victim to your unseeing emotions. There’s a million examples of artists aiming for uniqueness. They feel they’ve achieved it and release the work. We listen, and it’s 4/4, Verse-Chorus form, guitar, bass, drums (but there’s a cowbell). And now, we the audience, are to believe in the singular uniqueness of this work? No. Nothing wrong with any of these attributes, they’re popular for a reason but they’re not original. So if you’re unaware of the music theory (the baggage) attached to your work, then the one restricted by this is _you._

So yea, basically what @Jdiggity1 said:



Jdiggity1 said:


> Just drop the word "theory".
> 
> Study music.


----------



## davidnaroth (Sep 20, 2021)

I know a bit of music theory, but in no way do I consider myself an expert or near expert on it. When I write most of the time I just do it by ear and what sounds good, I dont really think much on what exactly Im doing and what the theory behind it is. I think the only thing I consciously do is voicings, but all my musical ideas are on the spot, or result from experimenting until I like what I hear, or sometimes I setup point A and point B, and then have fun figuring out how to arrive where I need to while complimenting and reinforcing the picture or the idea.

I do always try to learn more music theory as I do think it is super beneficial to have on hand.


----------



## davidnaroth (Sep 20, 2021)

Casiquire said:


> Music theory largely just boils down to A, learning the names for things, and B, learning solutions to common problems. Neither of those things is bad for creativity. Can you take a good photo without knowing the word "exposure"? Sure. Would you be a better photographer with a good understanding of what it means and how it can help you get the brightness or detail you want? Yes.
> 
> Music knowledge only works in one direction, too. You *cannot* write convincing music in the style of Bach for example without knowing why he does things the way he does them. You *can* disregard all your theory and knowledge and write the same way you write today even after learning all the theory. It's an expansion of your abilities


this is nicely put.


----------



## averystemmler (Sep 20, 2021)

There are a lot of brilliant (and a few hilarious) analogies in this thread.

I like the language ones, and I think grammar is a decent analog to music theory. Think of how abstract the idea of a "noun" is, for instance. It's a "part of speech" (another whole set of abstractions) that refers to a certain class of words that refer to a "person, place, or thing," which can be anything concrete, abstract, a person with a name, a person without a name, a place with or without a name, an object, an idea, and so on. You can make nouns into verbs and verbs into nouns, qualify them with adjectives and turn adjectives into nouns by putting "ness" or "idity" at the end of them, make them objects of verbs and the adverbs that qualify them, and thousand other complexities.

Yet, you can probably read any post on this forum and pick out every single noun without issue, because you've learned grammar. If you find something to be unclear, you can identify (consciously or otherwise) that it might be because someone wrote a pronoun with an indefinite antecedent. If it's your own writing, you can address this and move on. If you decide to learn another language with a different syntax, you have a foundation. A noun is a noun in every language, so you just need to know how a language organizes them.

Theory, in any application of the word I can think of, is just a system for bundling abstract concepts into meaningful, recallable chunks. You can tie your own experiences to them, relate and receive these to/from others, and bring them into other complex thoughts without having to reconstruct them every time.

You can, of course, create your own form of music theory through experience. You can experimentally work out the entirety of chemistry yourself too, if you're so inclined, and rename everything to your liking. It's just far easier to take advantage of the lunatics who've made that their life's work, and use their findings to further your own.


----------



## el-bo (Sep 20, 2021)

Kyle Preston said:


> This topic always generates contention on VI Control. It turns into us-vs-them, *‘The Thinking Brains’* vs *‘The Feeling Brains’*, the holy battleground _shall be protected_, hold my beer!


Perhaps it used to be contentious (and I s'pose it still might be). But so far this thread seems generally pleasant and very informative


----------



## SupremeFist (Sep 20, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> The genres you said you appreciate (heavy metal, edm, pop, movies) are not based on sophisticated harmonies, but more on production, sound design and instrumentation formulas.


I feel like part of the reason why some people are reluctant to study theory is because other people sometimes say stuff like this, which sounds really snobbish, and is also simply untrue for an awful lot of music in the genres mentioned?


----------



## youngpokie (Sep 20, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> I feel like part of the reason why some people are reluctant to study theory is because other people sometimes say stuff like this, which sounds really snobbish, and is also simply untrue for an awful lot of music in the genres mentioned?


I'm sorry you feel that way. My point is that perhaps the "formula" the OP mentions can be broken up more effectively with sound design or different instrument combination that's highly accessible and "in your face". For example braaam. It also produces the result a lot faster than studying harmony, which not the tool for every single problem.


----------



## ryans (Sep 20, 2021)

thesteelydane said:


> But your improvisation is still guided by theory and a number of learned shapes and mnemonics (for lack of a better word), unless of course you’re writing completely atonal music. Which is what truly free improvisation would result in...


This may be getting into semantics but I ..think.. I disagree with "guided by theory" at least in my case. Improvisation for me is mostly just muscle memory(based on my own internal musical vocabulary) with zero conscious thought. I don't think about music at all. I just hear it my head and let it flow out.

I see musical improvisation EXACTLY like speech. I don't think about each word, or sentence structure, or which verbs to use I just talk and then react to what the other person says and improvise a response. A solo in a jazz setting works exactly the same way, at least in my brain.


----------



## Bman70 (Sep 20, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> I feel like part of the reason why some people are reluctant to study theory is because other people sometimes say stuff like this, which sounds really snobbish, and is also simply untrue for an awful lot of music in the genres mentioned?


At the same time, other people being snobbish doesn't _make _the theory-reluctant ignorant of what theory is. And, if they knew more about theory, they'd be able to objectively see the inaccuracy of the snobbish comment, by identifying an add-9 chord in that song at the rave last night. Being uneducated about at least basic theory is what makes all the superstitions and suspicions about it possible.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Sep 20, 2021)

I think all musical styles can benefit from some music theory even if it’s very simple songwriting theory, song structure, some common chord progressions, chord extensions, etc. There are many layers to this onion.

Speaking of the Beatles I was once in this Beatles cover band and I was working out all the vocal harmony parts for everyone, which I printed out in the most simple of simple music notation just to communicate and keep track of all the parts. When I brought them to band practice you would have thought I had kidnapped their mother the way they reacted. It’s a strange aversion to music theory out there…


----------



## thesteelydane (Sep 20, 2021)

ryans said:


> This may be getting into semantics but I ..think.. I disagree with "guided by theory" at least in my case. Improvisation for me is mostly just muscle memory(based on my own internal musical vocabulary) with zero conscious thought. I don't think about music at all. I just hear it my head and let it flow out.
> 
> I see musical improvisation EXACTLY like speech. I don't think about each word, or sentence structure, or which verbs to use I just talk and then react to what the other person says and improvise a response. A solo in a jazz setting works exactly the same way, at least in my brain.


Well, that's sort of what I mean, just not very good at expressing it. My point is that unless you're playing completely atonal Avantgarde music, truly random stuff, you have still trained your inner ear and muscle memory to follow the theory of music, you have just internalised it the same way we all internalise our native language.

We don't think about whether the sentence we just spontaneously blurted out has the correct syntax, but if we recorded it, we can pick it apart, analyse it, mark all the verbs and nouns and whatnot and see that they are indeed there, put together in a specific order that follows the rules of that language. We have internalised the theory of the language, so that other people can understand us.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Sep 20, 2021)

Just for the record, completely atonal music is not random, it is using music theory too!! It’s just that many people don’t understand that particular theory and it sounds random only because you’re accustomed to different things


----------



## SupremeFist (Sep 20, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> It also produces the result a lot faster than studying harmony, which not the tool for every single problem.


Oh of course it isnt! Just saying there's a lot more quite sophisticated harmony in popular music than you seemed to be crediting. And also "theory" isn't just harmony: as I'm sure you'd agree, to understand how to build an idiomatic three-chord trance track is also to understand some "theory" (beyond just production).


----------



## Martin S (Sep 20, 2021)

ryans said:


> This may be getting into semantics but I ..think.. I disagree with "guided by theory" at least in my case. Improvisation for me is mostly just muscle memory(based on my own internal musical vocabulary) with zero conscious thought. I don't think about music at all. I just hear it my head and let it flow out.
> 
> I see musical improvisation EXACTLY like speech. I don't think about each word, or sentence structure, or which verbs to use I just talk and then react to what the other person says and improvise a response. A solo in a jazz setting works exactly the same way, at least in my brain.


I understand exactly what you mean, but your intuitive improvisation is still based on music theory, whether or not you’re aware of it/deliberately utilizing it/consciously thinking about it.


----------



## Bman70 (Sep 20, 2021)

ryans said:


> This may be getting into semantics but I ..think.. I disagree with "guided by theory" at least in my case. Improvisation for me is mostly just muscle memory(based on my own internal musical vocabulary) with zero conscious thought. I don't think about music at all. I just hear it my head and let it flow out.
> 
> I see musical improvisation EXACTLY like speech. I don't think about each word, or sentence structure, or which verbs to use I just talk and then react to what the other person says and improvise a response. A solo in a jazz setting works exactly the same way, at least in my brain.


Just because you become fluent in grammar / sentence structure, either by extensive reading or study, doesn't mean you're no longer guided by it when you write a novel. You are, you've just reached that ideal goal where it's become second nature, no longer requiring intellect but operating subconsciously. 

People in the jam session wouldn't let you play a solo if you didn't play within the right key / meter etc.  

When "jamming" in the sort of jam-band genre, I'm not thinking about music either, but I'm aware what key we're in... If it's in G and Em primarily, I pretty much play anything but I won't hold a prolonged G# note.


----------



## Ben E (Sep 20, 2021)

I strongly suspect that the theory/no-theory divide gets the attention it does because it’s easy to sort the participants into the two groups: simply ask, “Do you know theory?” and you sort the sheep from the goats. But something that may be even more correlative to compositional style than theory/no-theory is _how one_ _listens_ to music. Right? I mean, if being a good music writer is one’s wish, then there are “good” ways to listen and there are “not so helpful” ways to listen. And it’s not easy to sort people by listening styles (or, more frankly, listening _skills_.)

Of course everybody loves music and so everybody thinks they’re listening just fine. And they probably are for whatever purpose music serves them. But I’ve had occasions to talk about a particular piece of music — while it was playing — with a Normal Music-Listener. I was astonished that they had never thought to separate the instruments. The piano and the tambourine, say, were a glob of sound, and it was only after I had them conceptually separate them were they able to hear each one alone. A little time at a mixing console could do wonders for developing this ability.

For me it happened in 4th grade when the teacher played Handel’s Water Music during rest time. The harmonizing horns presented themselves to me as two distinct things working in tandem — like two giant brass birds swooping and climbing in unison. The relations between the two birds seemed almost visual. And this required attention to the whole sonic palette. I’d always “heard” harmony — just like anyone with ears, but this was the first time I really got a good picture of what was going on. I can easily imagine the Normal Music-Listener scrunching their nose at this way-of-listening. To them it might seem like I’m “preoccupied” with relations and tonality and that I’m missing the whole picture. Poppycock.

I sometimes wish I had a Food Mixing Console built in to me. I could take a bite of your tiramisu and then “mute” the sugar — you know, in order to see what work it’s “doing.” Or I could dial up/down the coffee. By this means I could learn so much about composing flavors. However, as it is, I taste food like the Normal Food-Taster. I taste your tiramisu as one big, delicious glob of yummy goodness. I’m also pretty much a Normal Movie-Viewer and a Normal Fiction-Reader. I’m the Normal variety in most things. But I think I have some pretty good listening skills with certain kinds of music. I think most of us on this forum do.


----------



## thesteelydane (Sep 20, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> Just for the record, completely atonal music is not random, it is using music theory too!! It’s just that many people don’t understand that particular theory and it sounds random only because you’re accustomed to different things


Of course, especially if it’s serial. I’m talking about cat walking on a keyboard kind of random here...


----------



## youngpokie (Sep 20, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> Oh of course it isnt! Just saying there's a lot more quite sophisticated harmony in popular music than you seemed to be crediting.


Can't we just say this depends on the benchmark? I listen to several hours of classical music every day and I'm sorry but it's not easy for me to agree that harmony in pop music is sophisticated. It's not.

To come back to the larger point - the study of music theory is liberating. It's not a series of prohibitions as the OP sees it - rather it's a series of discoveries, some quite subtle, and a stream of new techniques.

But let's also get real - to study it systematically, comprehensively, as an adult, without some basic preparation - _and on your own_ - is very very hard. It's a real commitment. And this is not even touching the subject of which "school" of theory to choose to study, since there's books available for each one. And what about a complete beginner going straight for the conservatory-level book like Korsakov, which I've seen some people try here?

And then again, I'm not so sure it's the theory that's the lowest hanging fruit right now for the OP, based on the SoundCloud.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Sep 20, 2021)

I think the entire premise of music sounding sage and predictable being at the feet of music theory is completely false. 

What you're hearing is people simply producing what is safe and pays bills. 

You wouldn't disregard architect schooling because modern houses look the same. Most get paid to make generic stuff, one way or another - and that's due to consumers, not the technique used to make it.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Sep 20, 2021)

understanding predictability, and why something is predictable; and "surprise" is part of music theory too!


----------



## ryans (Sep 20, 2021)

Martin S said:


> I understand exactly what you mean, but your intuitive improvisation is still based on music theory, whether or not you’re aware of it/deliberately utilizing it/consciously thinking about it.


I should clarify I'm not taking an 'anti-theory' stance here. I can't possibly understand why a person would be opposed to studying the architecture of music, if they love music. I love studying theory and have been doing it for many years.

At the risk of being combative  I have to maintain that I don't use theory when I solo. Not because I don't want to, but because I can't. I can't think that fast. I can't think of which scale to play over E flat minor 7 when the chord changes every beat and the tempo is 330 bpm.


----------



## Martin S (Sep 21, 2021)

ryans said:


> I should clarify I'm not taking an 'anti-theory' stance here. I can't possibly understand why a person would be opposed to studying the architecture of music, if they love music. I love studying theory and have been doing it for many years.
> 
> At the risk of being combative  I have to maintain that I don't use theory when I solo. Not because I don't want to, but because I can't. I can't think that fast. I can't think of which scale to play over E flat minor 7 when the chord changes every beat and the tempo is 330 bpm.


Neither do I, my mind is completely blank when I solo. I can’t think that fast either  Just playing a walking bass line at those breakneck speeds makes my brain explode, so I also - like you - resort to muscle memory obtained via practicing for decades. But the things I play and hear in my head is nonetheless based on (jazz) music theory.

Just because I/you don’t consciously think about theory when soloing (or comping) doesn’t mean that what we actually play isn’t based on music theory


----------

