Theory

[Rohann]

Hi all,

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

"Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read more...

 

[Replicant]

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

I disagree. Theory is liberating.

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

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

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

 

[Rohann]

I disagree. Theory is liberating.

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

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

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

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

 

[Saxer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JJP]

Saxer's post is excellent.

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

 

[mikeh-375]

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

 

[Dave Connor]

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

 

[Nick Batzdorf]

Learning *anything* is good!

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

Confucius: "Wider perspective better than narrower perspective."

 

[Rohann]

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

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

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

 

[Phryq]

Learning *anything* is good!

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

Confucius: "Wider perspective better than narrower perspective."

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

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

A - understanding what others have done.

B - learning tools of the craft.

 

[xguitaristx]

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

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

 

[xguitaristx]

 

[mikeh-375]

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

 

[Nick Batzdorf]

Phryq,

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

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

A - understanding what others have done.

B - learning tools of the craft.

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

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

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

Pretty basic examples!

 

[Rohann]

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

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

A - understanding what others have done.

B - learning tools of the craft.

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

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

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

 

[Phryq]

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

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

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

 

[JJP]

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

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

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

 

[xguitaristx]

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

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

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

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

 

[JJP]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[xguitaristx]

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

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

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

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

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