Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Learning music theory - why it matters

I think having abstract ideas about music - rather than just a history of perceptions - is important for creating. But the sort of theory underlying work by Alvin Lucier or Aaron Cassidy is very different to that underlying Hans Zimmer or Shostakovich. I think it misleading when people assume theory is only of the Bach to Brahms sort. The sorts of theory you need to learn or at least understand and work with should be driven by your goals as a musician. The important thing is to understand the commitments various approaches bring and to try and align ones goals to those commitments
 
miket said:
I think this is how most people probably write music.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I mean ultra experimental stuff. The empty space where music theory hasn't totally filled in the dots. The mystery of micro polyphony for example, all those endless tonal clashes that can't all be marked on a page, the endless sonic possibilities of sound, etc. There isn't a theoretical explanation for everything, and I think thats where some of the coolest ideas come from.
 
Last edited:
I've been composing/recording/performing since the mid 80s and I can honestly say I have never known once—when performing, when writing, when ever—even what key I was in. And it's weird. I knew I was playing a G or an Am or what have you, but that was about it.

I figured out how to write and compose pretty quickly by studying others and maybe cribbing inspiration here and there and it worked for me. That said, I have always wanted to know theory. Or at least have enough of a grasp on it to know what I'm playing. I've tried, but I've always tanked. I had the same problem learning languages and that was equally frustrating. Maybe I'm just not very good at learning, but I've always learned my own way of doing by just doing. Fortunately I've mostly played with others in the same boat, but how I'd love to walk into a situation with a string quartet or a pianist and be able to speak their language fluently. Yet, I've written hundreds of songs, scored some films, tore up many a stage, and have produced a pretty eclectic and accomplished catalog over the decades so I can't beat myself up about what I didn't learn. It never seemed to hinder my work. But who knows how much more my work might have soared if I knew more theory? Impossible to know, but I wonder.

With this in mind I have spent the past 6-8 months gearing up to study music...again. At first, that meant theory, maybe a Berklee Online thing, I wasn't really sure. Then I got sidetracked by wanting to study recording and synthesis because honestly I always felt my mixing/recording skills have hindered my tracks more than lack of theory. So now I'm somewhere in between. I'd like to master both, really. And I hope to. First up is a recording class at Berklee Online this fall. I think when it comes to technical stuff it helps to learn from a "skilled technician", but maybe theory I could learn on my own.

With that in mind, any legit suggestions about the best method or program or course or technique to learn theory? Could be online, could be a book, could be...anything? I've struggled so often in the past with various methods that I just long for a Rosetta Stone of sorts that makes it all click. Perhaps that's asking for too much and too easily, but I just want a solid footing here.
 
For a long time I thought music theory was just that - theory. I never needed it as I knew what I liked and didn't like and wrote my music accordingly. I didn't need some old dead guy from 500 years ago to tell me how to write my music! However, I decided to take some music theory in college (because I wanted an elective more exciting than Math Appreciation 101) and it changed my perspective of theory. Here it is:

Music theory did not tell me HOW to write music, but rather it told me WHY I liked the music!

Music theory is not the rules of music, it DESCRIBES music. By taking music theory, it opened up my eyes to the LANGUAGE of music. Suddenly I could start communicating with other musicians in a much deeper way. Instead of having to hum/"buh duh dee da" something to a band member and HOPE they get where I was going, I could hum it and then actually describe in some detail what I was hearing in my head. The result was that our band became better - not because we knew more rules (though that did happen over time) - but rather we became better at communicating with each other.

So my conclusion is that music theory is not a set of rules rather a way to COMMUNICATE!

My $0.02.
 
Mackieguy said:
For a long time I thought music theory was just that - theory. I never needed it as I knew what I liked and didn't like and wrote my music accordingly. I didn't need some old dead guy from 500 years ago to tell me how to write my music! However, I decided to take some music theory in college (because I wanted an elective more exciting than Math Appreciation 101) and it changed my perspective of theory. Here it is:

Music theory did not tell me HOW to write music, but rather it told me WHY I liked the music!

Music theory is not the rules of music, it DESCRIBES music. By taking music theory, it opened up my eyes to the LANGUAGE of music. Suddenly I could start communicating with other musicians in a much deeper way. Instead of having to hum/"buh duh dee da" something to a band member and HOPE they get where I was going, I could hum it and then actually describe in some detail what I was hearing in my head. The result was that our band became better - not because we knew more rules (though that did happen over time) - but rather we became better at communicating with each other.

So my conclusion is that music theory is not a set of rules rather a way to COMMUNICATE!

My $0.02.
Click to expand...

One of the cool things about music theory is it isn’t just attached with one period. It could be some guy from 500 years ago like you mentioned, or 5 years ago. It actually follows the evolution of music, and is developed as we develop new concepts, so a hundred years from now, theory will actually be expanded upon, and that process sort of continues. It’s just a way of doccumenting everything.

Theory is what you make it. I don’t see it as rules. I personally see it as a set of recommendations that can be followed or broken. Depending on what your creativity calls for.
 
jiffybox said:
I've been composing/recording/performing since the mid 80s and I can honestly say I have never known once—when performing, when writing, when ever—even what key I was in. And it's weird. I knew I was playing a G or an Am or what have you, but that was about it.

I figured out how to write and compose pretty quickly by studying others and maybe cribbing inspiration here and there and it worked for me. That said, I have always wanted to know theory. Or at least have enough of a grasp on it to know what I'm playing. I've tried, but I've always tanked. I had the same problem learning languages and that was equally frustrating. Maybe I'm just not very good at learning, but I've always learned my own way of doing by just doing. Fortunately I've mostly played with others in the same boat, but how I'd love to walk into a situation with a string quartet or a pianist and be able to speak their language fluently. Yet, I've written hundreds of songs, scored some films, tore up many a stage, and have produced a pretty eclectic and accomplished catalog over the decades so I can't beat myself up about what I didn't learn. It never seemed to hinder my work. But who knows how much more my work might have soared if I knew more theory? Impossible to know, but I wonder.

With this in mind I have spent the past 6-8 months gearing up to study music...again. At first, that meant theory, maybe a Berklee Online thing, I wasn't really sure. Then I got sidetracked by wanting to study recording and synthesis because honestly I always felt my mixing/recording skills have hindered my tracks more than lack of theory. So now I'm somewhere in between. I'd like to master both, really. And I hope to. First up is a recording class at Berklee Online this fall. I think when it comes to technical stuff it helps to learn from a "skilled technician", but maybe theory I could learn on my own.

With that in mind, any legit suggestions about the best method or program or course or technique to learn theory? Could be online, could be a book, could be...anything? I've struggled so often in the past with various methods that I just long for a Rosetta Stone of sorts that makes it all click. Perhaps that's asking for too much and too easily, but I just want a solid footing here.
Click to expand...
I've started doing the Composer's Foundation course at Scoreclub and it is really good. You really have to work as it is full of practical exercises instead of someone just giving you information. If you do a search here it comes highly recommended.

Edit: Just reread your post and you do have to have a pretty good grasp on basic theory for Scoreclub. Musictheory.net might be a good start.
 
Last edited:
ashtongleckman said:
Many composers who heavily utilize theory use sequencers. Desplat, JNH, HGW, Newman, Marianelli, etc. There is absolutely no correlation between one's knowledge of theory and using a computer to write music.
Click to expand...

That's not what I meant by sequencing, my friend.
 
I spent years training in music theory. From the age of 8 - 18, music was pretty much my life. Music lessons, exams (written and playing), and onto university for further study.

Add to this, I have a natural aptitude for music. It's not really a brag. I can't put up a shelf, paint a picture and I'm a lousy cook. But I can do the music thing OK. I've got a good ear. I've got perfect pitch and know my way around the ivories. Whilst I often use my theory background, I'm lazy and rely more on natural instinct. I use the piano roll exclusively, not the score editor.

In my opinion you need both natural musical instinct and theory. Natural instinct alone will get you a long way, but the theory will always help you. Conversely, a composer well versed in theory but with no music instinct often sounds like someone running through a set of rules.

I'm teaching myself the art of orchestral mockups. (Who here isn't?) I can fudge my way around the arrangement, listening to scores, working out parts until they sound right. But I'm at the point where buying a couple of scores and learning the theory will pay dividends. Less trial and error. Instead of finding out for myself that certain instruments/note combos don't work, I can learn from others. That's where the theory comes in.

But I believe you can know *too* much theory. Witness the multiple page debates here on VI control whenever classical music and theory come up. They're full of point scoring and little to no help. I glaze over. It's a balancing act. There's no point in filling your head with years of theory and historical study at the expense of working out how to produce a phat bass drop, right?
 
Last edited:
Alex Fraser said:
There's no point in filling your head with years of theory and historical study at the expense of working out how to produce a phat bass drop, right?
Click to expand...

Excellent post. But haven't we had enough of that last, yet? It's become so clichéd as to sound cartoony and lame imo.

I could be wrong. I just wonder if people ever get tired of that sound. It's been three years since I first got really done with using that (and let's face it, it's an effect more than anything else).

No offense to sycophants of that sound (and even less to people whom make $ off that sound, just my peccadillo I suppose). Way overplayed...kind of like that HZ/JNH opening-to-Dark-Knight action synth sound.

Now that I think about it, how about that long, Scandinavian ice evo sound? Whenever I hear any of the above I think "already dated". Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
ashtongleckman said:
I disagree. I think you can know too much theory without knowing how to use it to it's full potential, but I don't think one can actually know "too much theory."
Click to expand...
I probably should have said "spend too much time learning theory at the expense of other skills." That's more along the lines of what I was trying to say. Blame my lack of coffee and British humour/flippancy.

I think to be a composer, you need to have some level of skill in multiple disciplines. Theory, yes, But also engineering and all the other technical bits. There's only so many hours in the day to learn all this stuff. Anyway, I think we're on the same page. ;)
 
Last edited:
fixxer49 said:
is this like some kind of badge of honor?
Click to expand...
Ah, that British slang thing getting in the way again. My apologies.
I mean to say I can work out the arrangement by experimentation and compromise until it sounds "right" by ear.
More theory knowledge would cut down on the "fudge."
 
I've always thought that learning music theory, is kind of like being able to speak a foreign language whilst on holiday in a country that speaks that language. Even a most rudimentary knowledge is extremely helpful and you'll get a lot more out of the trip.

The basics of notation can be learned in a couple of weekends - none of it is hard, there's just a fair amount of it. When you get that under your fingers, then the world is your lobster....

I don't quite understand why someone wouldn't want to learn a bit more about something they want do, but I certainly wouldn't criticise anyone for taking a different view. Vive la difference !

A knowledge of Music theory, however, won't stop you from writing crap music, but at least you will understand why it is crap. :grin:
 
Alex Fraser said:
Ah, that British slang thing getting in the way again. My apologies.
I mean to say I can work out the arrangement by experimentation and compromise until it sounds "right" by ear.
More theory knowledge would cut down on the "fudge."
Click to expand...
I hear you. I'm just not getting this mobbed-up celebration of mediocrity when it comes to theory.
For instance, would you hire an attorney who said, " I can fudge my way around a contract"?
Would you be comfortable with a doctor who said, "I can fudge my way around a proctology exam"?

I would RUN, mate. (especially from the second!)
 
fixxer49 said:
I hear you. I'm just not getting this mobbed-up celebration of mediocrity when it comes to theory.
For instance, would you hire an attorney who said, " I can fudge my way around a contract"?
Would you be comfortable with a doctor who said, "I can fudge my way around a proctology exam"?

I would RUN, mate. (especially from the second!)
Click to expand...
Genuine LOL!
I'm not trying to suggest theory is a bad thing or lack of it should be celebrated. I'm only trying to suggest that it's a single tool in a larger toolbox. And I'm saying this as someone who's had years of training in it.

Edit: And yes, I agree with you. You wouldn't hire an arranger or orchestrator who "fudges" around the notes. But for a composer, theory is something you leverage to get the end result.
 
Last edited:
Alex Fraser said:
I probably should have said "spend too much time learning theory at the expense of other skills." That's more along the lines of what I was trying to say. Blame my lack of coffee and British humour/flippancy.

I think to be a composer, you need to have some level of skill in multiple disciplines. Theory, yes, But also engineering and all the other technical bits. There's only so many hours in the day to learn all this stuff. Anyway, I think we're on the same page. ;)
Click to expand...
No problem man, I gotcha.
 
it is also true that there are many cases out there of people that learned a lot of theory and don't have the musical intuition to compose anything that anyone wants to listen to. I remember some university professors like that even. I know a lot of fabulous musicians actually, that can play their instruments like a demon, but don't ask them to write any music, because basically it stinks. Perhaps that is where some people get the ill conceived notion that music theory will ruin them. Music theory alone definitely will not make someone into even a semi decent composer.

But neither is musical intuition alone enough. The greatest composers bridged the gap between musical intuition and intellectual understanding of music theory, can be as deep as you want to go.
 
Dewdman42 said:
it is also true that there are many cases out there of people that learned a lot of theory and don't have the musical intuition to compose anything that anyone wants to listen to. I remember some university professors like that even. I know a lot of fabulous musicians actually, that can play their instruments like a demon, but don't ask them to write any music, because basically it stinks. Perhaps that is where some people get the ill conceived notion that music theory will ruin them. Music theory alone definitely will not make someone into even a semi decent composer.

But neither is musical intuition alone enough. The greatest composers bridged the gap between musical intuition and intellectual understanding of music theory, can be as deep as you want to go.
Click to expand...
+1. Thanks for articulating most elegantly what I attempted to through bad proctology jokes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom