Farkle
Senior Member
Yes.
Music Theory - is there ever a point where you have everything in your composition under control?
- Thread starter ein fisch
- Start date
Yes.
I haven't read this thread, but the answer to the first question is NO!
Well, of course going oom-pah-pah C-F-G triads on the piano is going to be under control, but everything I've ever done that's marginally interesting has an element of being out of control - to the point that I sometimes hear things later and am surprised that I came up with them.
Hans once posted a great quote (or I'm pulling a quote out of his post) to the effect that his limitation is his technique. I think that's true of everyone, certainly me.
Of course he's not saying his technique holds him back or that he doesn't know what he's doing, he's saying that's his boundary. And I think the irony is that it's easy to focus on what you don't know - your limitations - rather than to explore how much you can do with what you *do* know.
Look at Joni Mitchell, for example. She has no idea what she's doing, yet she comes up with things no other human being would think of in a million years.
Well, of course going oom-pah-pah C-F-G triads on the piano is going to be under control, but everything I've ever done that's marginally interesting has an element of being out of control - to the point that I sometimes hear things later and am surprised that I came up with them.
Hans once posted a great quote (or I'm pulling a quote out of his post) to the effect that his limitation is his technique. I think that's true of everyone, certainly me.
Of course he's not saying his technique holds him back or that he doesn't know what he's doing, he's saying that's his boundary. And I think the irony is that it's easy to focus on what you don't know - your limitations - rather than to explore how much you can do with what you *do* know.
Look at Joni Mitchell, for example. She has no idea what she's doing, yet she comes up with things no other human being would think of in a million years.
Or Ringo Starr drum parts, for that matter.
The better your ears, the better the musician you are!
Parsifal666
I don't even own a DAW, I'm just a troll.
Fang, you look worse and worse. Your question has already been answered more than once.
Just drop it and move onto another topic. Or start another account here.
You're embarrassing yourself, my friend.
Just drop it and move onto another topic. Or start another account here.
You're embarrassing yourself, my friend.
mikeh-375
old school
[QUOTE="Fang, post: 4408044, member: 21247"
I stick by my words, unlearning can be just as hard if not harder than learning. If people receive that as me calling them damaged then that's on them. We're all a bit damaged aren't we, I don't even see that as a problem.[/QUOTE]
As one who underwent theory (that is- technique) either via self-imposed discipline, or from my Alma Mater, I can vouch for the fact that although in a way, one should un-learn after learning (and yes, it can take a while), the actual learning if applied properly, develops your voice in the most personal of ways. It's not for everyone, but it's a damn fine thing to do if you want to develop your own way in orchestral/concert music and maximise your personal aesthetic creativity.
In that sense, knowing one's own depths in music can imply a better music than one might create without technique, simply because in the learning you find yourself.
I stick by my words, unlearning can be just as hard if not harder than learning. If people receive that as me calling them damaged then that's on them. We're all a bit damaged aren't we, I don't even see that as a problem.[/QUOTE]
As one who underwent theory (that is- technique) either via self-imposed discipline, or from my Alma Mater, I can vouch for the fact that although in a way, one should un-learn after learning (and yes, it can take a while), the actual learning if applied properly, develops your voice in the most personal of ways. It's not for everyone, but it's a damn fine thing to do if you want to develop your own way in orchestral/concert music and maximise your personal aesthetic creativity.
In that sense, knowing one's own depths in music can imply a better music than one might create without technique, simply because in the learning you find yourself.
Jimmy Hellfire
Senior Member
On of the best analogies about making music I ever heard.
mikeh-375
old school
What you call a note is not what the note is, naming notes is a poor example. If I know what an apple is called by looking at it I know much less than the person who has tasted it and doesnt know its name.
I'm not worried about being embarrassed on here. Why dont you stick on topic, I dont know you and you dont know me so theres no point getting personal.
Tacet
Member
Oh my, these theory threads are sooo tedious 
.
Some people don't want to learn the tools of the trade? Fine.
They think understanding music theory will stifle their innate, god-given creativity? Ditto.
What's the point in arguing?
One in a trillion might one day become the next McCartney.
The others are just shooting themselves in the foot. Let them.
.Some people don't want to learn the tools of the trade? Fine.
They think understanding music theory will stifle their innate, god-given creativity? Ditto.
What's the point in arguing?
One in a trillion might one day become the next McCartney.
The others are just shooting themselves in the foot. Let them.
So you think the earth is round?
We can have meaningful dialogue, we're both people at the end of the day - calm down
That's perfect, thank you
I don't know if you read my inital point, but you're arguing my case for me
This whole thread is about music theory, we're not talking about musically inclined synaesthetic children
Jeremy Spencer
Senior Member
The kid can name the notes/chords by hearing them, so that makes him more knowledgable about music? Theory, perhaps.
Jeremy Spencer
Senior Member
I don't think anyone said that (including myself). I said that by having rules, it might affect how you had written music previously. Some incredibly talented musicians are masters of their instruments, or even orchestration/arranging, but totally bomb at trying to write anything. Does that make them less knowledgeable about music? Of course not, nor does it make the untrained composer (who writes wonderful pieces) less knowledgable. It's all relative.
Oh my, these theory threads are sooo tedious
Some people don't want to learn the tools of the trade? Fine.
They think understanding music theory will stifle their innate, god-given creativity? Ditto.
What's the point in arguing?
One in a trillion might one day become the next McCartney.
The others are just shooting themselves in the foot. Let them.
First of all, there isn't even 1 trillion people on earth so your math is flawed. Secondly, to certain people, those odds sound more appealing than a 100% rate of being mediocre
Nothing wrong with being mediocre by the way
The truth is to be different, you have to take a chance. All the people getting angry about music theory here are risk averse, so naturally they will think that their way is the only way and all other ways are wrong. I get it, because to say that there could be another route would mean that what they have been doing has been a waste of time (which it doesn't really mean) and it brings all their dormant insecurities to the surface. It's great.
Last edited:
Tacet
Member
Irony is lost on you, clearly.
Sure, and knowing music theory will actually help you in that endeavor.
Ever heard of Debussy, Stravinski, Schoenberg, Penderecki?
VinRice
... i am a robot ... viruses have no effect ...
The idea that ignorance is preferable to enlightenment is such an irrational and preposterous concept that there are clearly reasons for its popularity lying below below the surface. It’s not a new idea but seems to be going through its own ‘renaissance’, hence the dire political situation we presently find ourselves in across the world. Visit any decent bookshop for extensive writings on that particular phenomena.
With music, there appear to be a number of misconceptions, conflations and simple poor thinking that lead down this path:
Many people have a poor experience of school and tend to conflate the absolutism of time and resource-pressured teaching with the value of the knowledge. The knowledge itself become the tyranny rather than the teaching methods. The best teaching provides the tools and motivation for a life of self-exploration but unfortunately this is not the norm.
Music theory as a monolithic set of rules. It’s absolutely not. It’s a collection of examples of what works. It’s a journey through a codified history of the development of western music, starting with natural physical phenomena of the overtone series and its pleasing effect on the human ear. Each era adds its own sophistications as the receiving culture develops - and each era builds on the knowledge of the previous.
Knowledge kills creativity. Absolutely not. This is a misconception of how creativity works. Creativity is not ‘free thinking’. Creativity is synthesis. The melding of two (or more) different ideas, styles, objects, whatever, to create a unique other. There are literally hundreds of philosophy, psychology, and creative design books on this subject.
I understand what people mean when they say they need to ‘unlearn’ stuff to become more creative but that’s not actually what happens. The knowledge simply becomes a subconscious part of your personal tool set that informs everything that you do, but gives you the freedom to ‘flow’. This is truly the pay-off of the years of learning. When that knowledge has become innate and you don’t need to think about the guidelines you are free to create, because you just ‘know’ what your options are and how they can be subverted to synthesise something new. This flow state is what all creatives strive for and it comes through knowledge, not ignorance.
“I make great music now and I don’t have any theory” Wrong. You absolutely know some theory, it’s just innate rather than explicit. You have learned over the years by experimentation and listening what works and what doesn’t. It’s just taken a long time, is very limited, you don’t understand why what you are doing works and you can’t codify it so that somebody else could understand it. How is that an optimal situation?
Been there, done that. Plinked on my parents piano for years (my sister got the piano lessons), played guitar in bands for twenty years and was good at it. 30 years to work out from first principles stuff I could have learned in a year of formal training. After six years of intense self-development am I a better musician and composer? Good God to even pose the question is absurd.
“Musician X or Y don’t know any theory and they make good music/ are rich and successful”
This is the most pernicious fallacy of all.
Assuming the premise is true, outliers of a vast statistical distribution are not sensible role models. The inflation of the significance of such outliers by the media etc. is simply a reflection of our own desperate need to believe that such elevation is possible without putting in the work. We would all like to win the lottery or indeed start the next Amazon or become the President, but for 99.999999% of the population it’s never going to happen. The exceptions prove the rule.
In any case the premise is not true. Popular music is the product of an extensive team of people and you can be damn sure that somebody in that team knows their classical and jazz theory (usually the producer and the keyboard player).
I’m done. I’m off to deny my kids the vaccines they need to stay alive because duh!
With music, there appear to be a number of misconceptions, conflations and simple poor thinking that lead down this path:
Many people have a poor experience of school and tend to conflate the absolutism of time and resource-pressured teaching with the value of the knowledge. The knowledge itself become the tyranny rather than the teaching methods. The best teaching provides the tools and motivation for a life of self-exploration but unfortunately this is not the norm.
Music theory as a monolithic set of rules. It’s absolutely not. It’s a collection of examples of what works. It’s a journey through a codified history of the development of western music, starting with natural physical phenomena of the overtone series and its pleasing effect on the human ear. Each era adds its own sophistications as the receiving culture develops - and each era builds on the knowledge of the previous.
Knowledge kills creativity. Absolutely not. This is a misconception of how creativity works. Creativity is not ‘free thinking’. Creativity is synthesis. The melding of two (or more) different ideas, styles, objects, whatever, to create a unique other. There are literally hundreds of philosophy, psychology, and creative design books on this subject.
I understand what people mean when they say they need to ‘unlearn’ stuff to become more creative but that’s not actually what happens. The knowledge simply becomes a subconscious part of your personal tool set that informs everything that you do, but gives you the freedom to ‘flow’. This is truly the pay-off of the years of learning. When that knowledge has become innate and you don’t need to think about the guidelines you are free to create, because you just ‘know’ what your options are and how they can be subverted to synthesise something new. This flow state is what all creatives strive for and it comes through knowledge, not ignorance.
“I make great music now and I don’t have any theory” Wrong. You absolutely know some theory, it’s just innate rather than explicit. You have learned over the years by experimentation and listening what works and what doesn’t. It’s just taken a long time, is very limited, you don’t understand why what you are doing works and you can’t codify it so that somebody else could understand it. How is that an optimal situation?
Been there, done that. Plinked on my parents piano for years (my sister got the piano lessons), played guitar in bands for twenty years and was good at it. 30 years to work out from first principles stuff I could have learned in a year of formal training. After six years of intense self-development am I a better musician and composer? Good God to even pose the question is absurd.
“Musician X or Y don’t know any theory and they make good music/ are rich and successful”
This is the most pernicious fallacy of all.
Assuming the premise is true, outliers of a vast statistical distribution are not sensible role models. The inflation of the significance of such outliers by the media etc. is simply a reflection of our own desperate need to believe that such elevation is possible without putting in the work. We would all like to win the lottery or indeed start the next Amazon or become the President, but for 99.999999% of the population it’s never going to happen. The exceptions prove the rule.
In any case the premise is not true. Popular music is the product of an extensive team of people and you can be damn sure that somebody in that team knows their classical and jazz theory (usually the producer and the keyboard player).
I’m done. I’m off to deny my kids the vaccines they need to stay alive because duh!
Tacet
Member
Nope, learning music theory simply gives you more options: follow the established conventions if and when you so desire.So you're saying you should learn music theory to know what not to do?
Or completely ignore them, deliberately trash them, whatever sounds good to you.
Additional knowledge will only help you pursue your musical goals, however innovative, individual and original they may be.
@VinRice: post of the day. This thread is done as far as I'm concerned.
Peace to all.
Last edited:
JJP
Did you know Mike Greene owns a llama? 🦙
I don't chime in on these "should I learn music theory?" debates often, but I have a little time and may be able to shine a little bit of light from my experience here. I'm sometimes one of the people who has a music theory background working with those who do not. In my experience with larger projects, there are generally two types of people who don't have a good grasp of music theory:
The people in category #1 usually have enough experience to be cognizant of these challenges and do their best to minimize the negative outcomes. Usually they find good, skilled people to work with them, give them clearly defined roles, and then try to stay out of the way of those roles and trust in the professionalism of those on their team. They usually understand that they are often the source of backups or other issues, accept that fact, and structure their schedules and resources to account for that.
The people in category #2 are often a nightmare and skilled, experienced people sometimes will avoid working with them. I've dealt with people in category #2 in a number of situations over the last 20 years: films, stage musicals, album recordings, TV shows, the big award shows, and live concerts. These are the people who because of their lack of knowledge often talk on and on about being innovative while doing things that have been done dozens of times before in exactly the same way or perhaps even more elegantly. They often want to rewrite all the "rules" without understanding what the "rules" are or which rules can't be rewritten. (Music is sound which is governed by the laws of physics.)
Category #2 also contains the people who will hire very skilled professionals, sometimes the best in the business, and then second-guess every musical decision those people make in trying to efficiently realize their musical goal. They will demand costly, time-consuming changes that have little to no impact on the final music. They are unable to see when they are doing things that will have musical outcomes different from what they desire. Most devastatingly they will dismiss the advice or decisions of their own experts who are there to help them because they lack the knowledge to understand the advice they are being given.
Category #2 are the first people to see advice, even when it helps them reach the exact musical goal they desire, as compromising their creativity or forcing them to accept certain "rules". These are the people who cause others working with them to stay up late and burn themselves out doing things that ultimately will have to be changed later or just won't work at all. That can be soul-crushing and cause even the very best among us to either walk away from a project or simply turn into robots who blindly follow every instruction even if they know their work is harming the composer's vision for end product. No one will listen to them anyway because their knowledge and experience is worthless when ignored.
Music is like language. It exists to be heard and understood in some way by a listener. You can communicate effectively with others without a good understanding the grammar of your language, but as you try to communicate with wider numbers of people or convey more intricate and intimate ideas, the lack of language resources will limit your capacity.
Having a good musical foundation in theory, harmony, ear-training, etc, benefits you more the further you progress in your musical journey. As you progress you will most likely have to deal with other musicians. This is where the gaps in someone's musical knowledge start to become a problem. They limit your ability to communicate your ideas or make effective musical decisions.
Those are my observations from a rather varied career so far that stretches from little student projects to major record label productions, to blockbuster films, to the Oscars, Grammys, and Emmys. In that time, I have never seen having more musical knowledge be anything but an asset. More musical knowledge puts more tools in your bag that you can pull out when needed. Usually having too little knowledge is the biggest problem. As some of my colleagues like to joke, far too often people "know just enough to be dangerous to everyone around them."
- those who lack knowledge but understand and accept their limitations and attempt to put in place procedures to allow others to assist them in the most efficient way possible.
- those who lack knowledge but either try to hide that fact or continually insist that it is not necessary.
The people in category #1 usually have enough experience to be cognizant of these challenges and do their best to minimize the negative outcomes. Usually they find good, skilled people to work with them, give them clearly defined roles, and then try to stay out of the way of those roles and trust in the professionalism of those on their team. They usually understand that they are often the source of backups or other issues, accept that fact, and structure their schedules and resources to account for that.
The people in category #2 are often a nightmare and skilled, experienced people sometimes will avoid working with them. I've dealt with people in category #2 in a number of situations over the last 20 years: films, stage musicals, album recordings, TV shows, the big award shows, and live concerts. These are the people who because of their lack of knowledge often talk on and on about being innovative while doing things that have been done dozens of times before in exactly the same way or perhaps even more elegantly. They often want to rewrite all the "rules" without understanding what the "rules" are or which rules can't be rewritten. (Music is sound which is governed by the laws of physics.)
Category #2 also contains the people who will hire very skilled professionals, sometimes the best in the business, and then second-guess every musical decision those people make in trying to efficiently realize their musical goal. They will demand costly, time-consuming changes that have little to no impact on the final music. They are unable to see when they are doing things that will have musical outcomes different from what they desire. Most devastatingly they will dismiss the advice or decisions of their own experts who are there to help them because they lack the knowledge to understand the advice they are being given.
Category #2 are the first people to see advice, even when it helps them reach the exact musical goal they desire, as compromising their creativity or forcing them to accept certain "rules". These are the people who cause others working with them to stay up late and burn themselves out doing things that ultimately will have to be changed later or just won't work at all. That can be soul-crushing and cause even the very best among us to either walk away from a project or simply turn into robots who blindly follow every instruction even if they know their work is harming the composer's vision for end product. No one will listen to them anyway because their knowledge and experience is worthless when ignored.
Music is like language. It exists to be heard and understood in some way by a listener. You can communicate effectively with others without a good understanding the grammar of your language, but as you try to communicate with wider numbers of people or convey more intricate and intimate ideas, the lack of language resources will limit your capacity.
Having a good musical foundation in theory, harmony, ear-training, etc, benefits you more the further you progress in your musical journey. As you progress you will most likely have to deal with other musicians. This is where the gaps in someone's musical knowledge start to become a problem. They limit your ability to communicate your ideas or make effective musical decisions.
Those are my observations from a rather varied career so far that stretches from little student projects to major record label productions, to blockbuster films, to the Oscars, Grammys, and Emmys. In that time, I have never seen having more musical knowledge be anything but an asset. More musical knowledge puts more tools in your bag that you can pull out when needed. Usually having too little knowledge is the biggest problem. As some of my colleagues like to joke, far too often people "know just enough to be dangerous to everyone around them."
