What's new

Music Theory - is there ever a point where you have everything in your composition under control?

Yeah, whenever I read this it makes me cackle like a hyena;

a) because it's usually a newb (no offense to newbs) and

b) because it's an example of someone who doesn't know anything about music and has no plans to.

Tell Beethoven, John Williams, Alfred Newman, Wagner, Mozart, Haydn, Scriabin, Schoenberg, Bartok, the Bachs, Mahler, Bruckner, DeBussy....dozens more composers considered the greatest in all history that. They all knew theory inside and out. Why would anyone listen to that sentiment from you and discard the facts?

Seriously consider dropping that little axiom if you actually plan on doing something in music, my friend.

All that said, I do think being overly concerned about theory and thereby letting it get in your way is possible (to set the record completely straight).

What makes one person know more about music than another person? enlighten me, please.
 
I actually think trying to unlearn something can be harder than learning something. Knowledge can be restraining in the way that it closes your mind, where the ability to make great music lies in having an open mind.

I believe there is some truth to that. To the best of my knowledge, Paul McCartney never knew, and still doesn't know how to read or write music notation. He is a master of songwriting, and understanding how chords work, etc. Perhaps that would have been lost if he had studied formally? Stevie Nicks decided against formal training, as she figured her "bad habits" where what enabled her distinctive creativity; once there are rules, ones signature style might change.
 
What makes one person know more about music than another person? enlighten me, please.

Is that supposed to be a serious question? What does make a surgeon know more about doing surgeries than the layman? Your stance is incredibly blasé. Try arguing that you know as much as a surgeon without putting in any work. This stance is just absurd. If you don't care enough about music to try to understand even the most basic principles behind it, why exactly do you want to write music?

Craft and creativity do not work against each other. It's the opposite. They stimulate each other, and either one is worth little without the other.
 
Is that supposed to be a serious question? What does make a surgeon know more about doing surgeries than the layman? Your stance is incredibly blasé. Try arguing that you know as much as a surgeon without putting in any work. This stance is just absurd. If you don't care enough about music to try to understand even the most basic principles behind it, why exactly do you want to write music?

Craft and creativity do not work against each other. It's the opposite. They stimulate each other, and either one is worth little without the other.

Yeh it's a serious question, and music is not surgery. I wouldn't want a surgeon to be creative I would want them to perform under the rules. I'm not saying music is not a craft, I am saying I don't think there is one route to creating great songs because music is extremely personal.

BTW I'm not against music theory, I have studied classical music. I am saying you don't need it to create great music and you definitely don't need to know theory to involve yourself in music. That is why music is so accessible isn't it?

Granted if you are entering into a specific genre you must learn the rules of that genre just like you must learn English if you want to live in an English speaking country, but I see no reason why people cannot create their own language in music, in fact I think it more appropriate that people express their ideas/emotions in their own language.

My question still stands; what makes any of you think you "know" more about music than anyone else?

If you can answer me convincingly I will stand corrected, I don't know the truth but I am doubtful you do either
 
Last edited:
If I may butt in - I think a lot of people are using the word "music" to refer to music tradition as it has developed thus far, predominantly western. As someone who tries to give all "art" the benefit of the doubt (at least initially), I think that disregarding this tradition is a valid place to come from, but you have to accept that you're setting yourself up to be understood by nobody.

Personally, I think all worthwhile art has to cater to the audience to some degree. Otherwise it'll be perceived as an exercise in novelty, and you can't complain when nobody appreciates it.
 
Is that supposed to be a serious question? What does make a surgeon know more about doing surgeries than the layman? Your stance is incredibly blasé. Try arguing that you know as much as a surgeon without putting in any work. This stance is just absurd. If you don't care enough about music to try to understand even the most basic principles behind it, why exactly do you want to write music?

The thing is....music is music. I know how to write heavy metal music (which I've had commercial success with), but don't have formal classical training (yet I earn money from writing orchestral). Does that mean I can't write good "music"? Just like a surgeon, there are many types of surgeons, each one excellent at the chosen specialty; a brain surgeon can't necessarily perform heart surgery.
 
What makes one person know more about music than another person? enlighten me, please.
You are conducting a live ensemble in which all of the individuals are individually playing in tune, but the major triad still doesn’t sound right and time is money. Why not?

Rotaries VS pistons, why would you choose one over another?

How does a professional sax player play a whole-note?

Your hero calls you up for the 1st time since 2005 and wants you to play with his personal ensemble tomorrow on July 4th, because they are playing your piece or song. You have to drive 2 hours, without practicing with the ensemble, and ever hearing the actual work live, but you have to perform live on the spot, and before you do this you have to talk about your composition to a live audience. Are you prepared?
 
You are conducting a live ensemble in which all of the individuals are individually playing in tune, but the major triad still doesn’t sound right and time is money. Why not?

Rotaries VS pistons, why would you choose one over another?

How does a professional sax player play a whole-note?

Your hero calls you up for the 1st time since 2005 and wants you to play with his personal ensemble tomorrow on July 4th, because they are playing your piece or song. You have to drive 2 hours, without practicing with the ensemble, and ever hearing the actual work live, but you have to perform live on the spot, and before you do this you have to talk about your composition to a live audience. Are you prepared?

Heard of Jamie Oliver? A great chef who couldn't run a restaurant.

I bet his food was tasty though, what do you think?
 
If I may butt in - I think a lot of people are using the word "music" to refer to music tradition as it has developed thus far, predominantly western. As someone who tries to give all "art" the benefit of the doubt (at least initially), I think that disregarding this tradition is a valid place to come from, but you have to accept that you're setting yourself up to be understood by nobody.

Personally, I think all worthwhile art has to cater to the audience to some degree. Otherwise it'll be perceived as an exercise in novelty, and you can't complain when nobody appreciates it.

What you are saying is correct, but what came before traditional music? Or in other words- where did traditional music come from?

I understand your point though, it seems that you cannot divorce music from culture
 
I enjoy making a living for what I’m passionate about.

I'm sure you do, but not everyone is as smart as you.

I've heard some amazing songs, but some of the best music (in my opinion) is sitting on a hard drive on my friends 15 year old mac. He's never had a music lesson in his life, he taught himself piano/drums etc. and in some ways understands music better (or differently) than me, and I grew up with music teachers

Just because he hasn't monetized his music it doesn't mean it's any worse than yours or mine, or that we know more about music than him

You're just a Gordon Ramsey and he is a Jamie Oliver
 
I'm sure you do, but not everyone is as smart as you.

I've heard some amazing songs, but some of the best music (in my opinion) is sitting on a hard drive on my friends 15 year old mac. He's never had a music lesson in his life, he taught himself piano/drums etc. and in some ways understands music better (or differently) than me, and I grew up with music teachers

Just because he hasn't monetized his music it doesn't mean it's any worse than yours or mine, or that we know more about music than him

You're just a Gordon Ramsey and he is a Jamie Oliver
Teachers just help strengthen the mind, but great teachers also strengthen the heart bringing out your full potential. It took me 4 teachers to find that man, and many never find theirs. Your friend actually sounds like a Leonardo (a thinker,) where I am more like a Michelangelo (a doer,) but it’s better than sounding like you (a judgmental.)
 
I'm sure you do, but not everyone is as smart as you.

I've heard some amazing songs, but some of the best music (in my opinion) is sitting on a hard drive on my friends 15 year old mac. He's never had a music lesson in his life, he taught himself piano/drums etc. and in some ways understands music better (or differently) than me, and I grew up with music teachers

Just because he hasn't monetized his music it doesn't mean it's any worse than yours or mine, or that we know more about music than him

You're just a Gordon Ramsey and he is a Jamie Oliver


The argument (and the reason these threads always turn acrimonious) is because the argument is *not* about high culture vs low culture - I'm sure every one here loves at least some of both, and knows that writing a truly great pop song isn't any easier that writing a great symphony. Seriously who isn't in awe of at least something by Lemmon-McCartney? There probably more people that hate Beethoven that don't love at least something by Lennon-McCartney.


Its the "harder to unlearn argument", ie the notion that studying is harmful.


While Beethovn slept with Fux's counterpoint by his bedside, Paul obviously didn't need Fux's Counterpoint to write Yesterday. But the above arguments amount to saying that studying Fux would have harmed Paul as a songwriter, invariable annoys people because is contains the implicit suggests that those of us who do study theory are someone damaged as composers by it.

Which is silly.
 
Teachers just help strengthen the mind, but great teachers also strengthen the heart bringing out your full potential. It took me 4 teachers to find that man, and many never find theirs. Your friend actually sounds like a Leonardo (a thinker,) where I am more like a Michelangelo (a doer,) but it’s better than sounding like you (a judgmental.)

I wasn't judging anyone but now that you've compared yourself to michelangelo - ew
 
The argument (and the reason these threads always turn acrimonious) is because the argument is *not* about high culture vs low culture - I'm sure every one here loves at least some of both, and knows that writing a truly great pop song isn't any easier that writing a great symphony. Seriously who isn't in awe of at least something by Lemmon-McCartney? There probably more people that hate Beethoven that don't love at least something by Lennon-McCartney.


Its the "harder to unlearn argument", ie the notion that studying is harmful.


While Beethovn slept with Fux's counterpoint by his bedside, Paul obviously didn't need Fux's Counterpoint to write Yesterday. But the above arguments amount to saying that studying Fux would have harmed Paul as a songwriter, invariable annoys people because is contains the implicit suggests that those of us who do study theory are someone damaged as composers by it.

Which is silly.

So if I annoy people it means I am wrong? The only reason I can see why people are getting annoyed is if they doubt that what they have done has been a waste of time - which I never said

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.
 
Teachers just help strengthen the mind, but great teachers also strengthen the heart bringing out your full potential. It took me 4 teachers to find that man, and many never find theirs. Your friend actually sounds like a Leonardo (a thinker,) where I am more like a Michelangelo (a doer,) but it’s better than sounding like you (a judgmental.)

I had no idea the whole Luvvie Boffin debate when back that far.
 
Last edited:
So if I annoy people it means I am wrong? The only reason I can see why people are getting annoyed is if they doubt that what they have done has been a waste of time - which I never said

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.
-

Just commenting on why these threads always - *always* - degenerate into this kind of acrimony.


I also think that ‘unlearning’ is usually a code for something else, and might enjoy debating the pedagogical notion in another context.

But I was just trying to offer some insight into why I think it is that on *every* thread about music theory some one always makes some variant on this comments, and it then always reliably degenerates into acrimony, and then transforms into the same totally unrelated debate over high art vs low art debate, ignorance vs condescension, Luvvies vs Boffins etc.


It seems so completely unnecessary, and is entirely emblematic of how the internet manages to squanders the opportunity for a reasonable discussion.
 
Its the "harder to unlearn argument", ie the notion that studying is harmful.

Some study can be harmful if it is inappropriate to the person who is studying. Although it does not relate as much to composition/theory, there are accepted techniques for playing certain instruments that for the vast majority of musicians that lend themselves to progressing on the instrument and others that hinder progress. Trying to assist the student to undo those that hinder is a longer process than learning them in the process. I see it every day as a teacher. I went through it as a young musician trying to undo habits that were limiting my progress as a trumpet player.... bloody hell it took ages to unlearn what I had learned as I was trying to change something that was ingrained. Hell I had a (15 year old high school student come and ask me about negative harmony because he heard Jacob Collier talk about it - my response was along the lines of "It is a different approach to harmony that can be used to create source material that you may not normally go towards. In all honesty get you head head around traditional western harmony for the next few years so that you have the foundation in order to understand negative harmony and possibly use is".

There will always be people that write fantastic music without much musical knowledge, or improvisers like Chet Baker who didn't learn to read or write music (apparently). Those people are few and far between - for the rest of us appropriate study of theory can provide a great reference point at any time in the musical process.
 
-

Just commenting on why these threads always - *always* - degenerate into this kind of acrimony.


I also think that ‘unlearning’ is usually a code for something else, and might enjoy debating the pedagogical notion in another context.

But I was just trying to offer some insight into why I think it is that on *every* thread about music theory some one always makes some variant on this comments, and it then always reliably degenerates into acrimony, and then transforms into the same totally unrelated debate over high art vs low art debate, ignorance vs condescension, Luvvies vs Boffins etc.


It seems so completely unnecessary, and is entirely emblematic of how the internet manages to squanders the opportunity for a reasonable discussion.

If we cannot discuss pedagogical notion in a thread about learning music theory then where should we discuss it? I do agree with you though that this is the way these threads normally go. I didn't mean to hurt anyones feelings, although it was fun to rile up some heated opinions.
 
Top Bottom