KVR :: Music Theory » How many of you know music theory?If not,do you feel limited [View Original Topic]
There are 109 posts in this topic. Page: 1 2

---

adammann - Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:28 pm

---

Someone started a thread asking about where to learn about music theory. This got me to thinking...How many of you can read music? And if not, how do you make music? Do you feel like you're missing out at all because you can't read it?

I had a few guitar lessons when I was 8, and then in my infinite wisdom, decided I knew enough and quit. In junior school, I could read music to a degree. Then at 16 I got a friend to show me a few guitar riffs of the metal songs I was just getting into. But at present, I can't read music. All the rest is self taught.

I am aware of the "you have to know the rules, to break them" philosophy, but I've always gone purely by feel. If it sounds right to me, that's all that matters. I know a lot of people who are masters at music theory, but fall down in the actual delivery of the art (of course, then you've got f*ckers like Joe Satriani who've absolutely mastered both theory and the delivery )

When it comes to just releasing songs, I feel I have no need at all to know any specific music theory. But I want to get into writing soundtracks (getting paid to write soundtracks - I've written them before, but for free). I'm wondering if it's possible to use programs like Sibelius to cover making the compositions a reality, and getting the Sibelius output proofread by a proper muso...

---

Xnah - Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:39 pm

---

I'm not sure if "knowing music theory" really equals "reading music"... :s...

Other than that, I know enough music theory to create harmonies and know which chords I can use in a give key... But not enough to create nice jazzy chord progressions like some of my friends here can...

Recently I starting exploring loop-based remixing, and found some contests to practice and listen... What I noticed there is that some 'producers' ignore music theory, with the result of putting loops together where the chords / keys don't match at all .

Reading music: yes, when there are not too many notes at a time, otherwise I have to count and calculate their value .

---

pHz - Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:40 pm

---

very little real theoretical knowledge

dont feel like im missing out at all TBH

depends on your genre(s) and ambitions in music i guess

slainte rob

---

.jon - Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:40 pm

---

Well I can decipher staves to an extent, but definitely feel that I don't know enough music theory or posess adequate musician's skills. I feel limited, because I would like to jam sometimes with my friends who are very capable multi-instrumentalists. Knowing theory would make composing a lot faster. Less repetitions to find where this and that note or chord should resolve, less transposing around to find the right note etc.

Good news for me is that my virtual studio is finally ready, and next year is dedicated to getting the best out of it. Letting the music flow. Learn scales and chords. Practice keyboard technique. Learn the kit inside out. I love this feeling, I have goals and means to get there.

---

JamieSkeen - Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:42 pm

---

I think every musician should be able to communicate....notes, chord types, scales ect. Sibelius should work great......even you DAW should be fine as long as you can export midi files

---

mistertoast - Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:42 pm

---

I know a fair amount of music theory, but can't read music on the fly. Reading music is something I'm going to work on.

---

joanaphone - Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:46 pm

---

I know music theory, and played as an orchestral standard flautist for a number of years.

IMO it's swings and roundabouts. It took me a number of years to throw off the 'right' way of doing things to get back to what sounds good.

On the other hand, I can easily play in things I have in my head, and can easily translate these ideas to other musicians 'in the know'. It's like knowing a magical shorthand that buy's you into certain cliques, but a huge amount of it is BS.

I have written numerous commercial club releases and my theoretical training counted for nothing there. I have also scored ads, remixed and acted in executive production roles. In landing some of these jobs, being able to chat the lingo probably helped, although in the final analysis I believe that if you create great music, people will want it, however it was arrived at.

I know one guy who wanted some orchestral stuff on some tracks and was considering buying one of those fantastically priced orchestral rompler sets. He thougth about it for a bit, and because he is a bit crazy, he spent the same money on flying out to Croatia and hiring a whole orchestra for a week! He printed out his score from logic audio, setup his guitar in the middle of the orchestra and played then through what he was trying to get at. the end results are on a (reasonably) well known commercial recording and it sounds fantastic, so don't let anythign hold you back - if you have the ideas, go for it!

---

The Chase - Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:48 pm

---

I took two years of music theory in high school. Really I just learned the names of everything I had figured out by myself plus some stuff I'll never use again. Really it just pissed me off since I had to spend an hour in a room full of psuedo-intellectual arty guitarists and super elite "proper" band twats each day. Most of them made shit music before AND after the classes. I thought it was maybe a high school thing but when I looked at the syllibus of the music throey classes at college it was the same shit. You should still look into a bit of theory though.

---

jackson - Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:50 pm

---

Got schooled as a kid to hell and back on theory. That, and having to practice my instrument for hours a day turned me off music for years.

Now, music theory has almost no application for the style of music I write with the writing style I employ. If I do bring in live musicians though, it's nice to know I can write for them and know what the f**k they're on about.

---

metamorphosis - Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:53 pm

---

Screw the box. You don't need to know whether you're playing inside or outside of one to make good music-
m@

---

zircon - Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:58 pm

---

Took limited theory as a part of 10 years of piano lessons. Since I started writing music (4 years ago), I've taken another full year of university-level theory and it's been a huge help in analyzing music and comparing it to my own to improve myself. For the record I write electronic music primarily (sometimes I dabble in other areas, including orchestral scores) and even there, it's quite helpful.

---

jackson - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:03 pm

---

Tell you one thing for sure; when I have a kid, I'm sending them to jazz school instead of classical.

---

Hink - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:05 pm

---

let's hope when that time comes you let them choose

---

keyman_sam - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:11 pm

---

I just finished practing a piece today. Practiced for 1 hour. Its called "Nocturne No.3 in Ab Major" by Franz Liszt. A few months ago, I listened to the piece on the net and fell so much in love with it that I wanted to learn it somehow. Did some googling, got the sheet music, downloaded it, printed it out, and now i'm sight reading my way through the piece. I've completed half the piece, but need to learn the other half.

Point being : I cant live without sight reading. It has so many advantages. And theory helps as well. here's a nice site if you need some theory :

http://www.musictheory.net/index.html

I need to revise my theory as well. I learnt theory a few years ago, but its nowhere close to what i'd like to learn.

---

JumpingJackFlash - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:14 pm

---

This is true. I probably know too much theory for my own good (I'm not trying to be arrogant here; I have various qualifications to prove it), but sadly, in the real world, knowledge like that rarely helps (certainly not past a certain point anyway). There are, and always have been, very famous and very rich people who make a living from the music industry, who actually don't know a great deal about the theoretical side of things. - It's the old thing: it's not what you know, it's who you know (and being in the right place at the right time).

As others have said, a basic understanding of common terminology will never go wrong, but if you really don't like the theory side of things, don't bother with it. Personally though, I quite like it (probably the same part of me that likes calculus!) so you might find that you like it too

---

ouroboros - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:15 pm

---

I would love to have a deep understanding of theory and become proficient with an instrument. I feel as though the creative spark is not what I lack, but the tools to build on it. I'd kill for enough time and money for a piano teacher and some theory classes.

---

strav100 - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:22 pm

---

The Walter Piston books give a good grounding in classical harmony/counterpoint. Schoenberg's is heavy and technical (and verbose!) but goes into harmony at an almost crazy depth.

---

jackson - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:23 pm

---

I highly doubt any kid of mine would choose classical over jazz. But sure, I'll give them the illusion of choice

---

afreshcupofjoe - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:31 pm

---

"Music theory" and "music reading" skills have very little to do with each other. I don't feel that being able to read music or not in this day and age will make much of a difference. For a professional musician who does gigs in jazz groups, orchestras, pit bands, or for weddings or events it is very important. You have to be able to learn and interpret lots of music quickly and on the spot. But for the average producer or musician making music at home, or playing in a rock band with friends it is not important. Most of the guys who got famous doing this stuff don't know how to read music either. Notation is just a way of communicating with other musicians, and since technology has created many other ways of doing that, as well making it easier for solo musicians to do most of the work themselves, notation is becoming less and less relevant.

Music theory on the other hand is a whole different story. I am of the opinion that the importance and relevance of music theory is usually very personal thing. I couldn't live without it. I'm a very technically minded person and it's just how my head works. I know a lot of people that would probably be much better musicians if they would just learn some theory. It also, like notation, helps you to be able to communicate with other musicians easily. It's nice to be able to tell your bandmates that you are playing a A7 chord with a 3-4 suspension than try to spell out all of the notes, or even worse, show them the frets or keys. Even better yet, given that chord you will already know how different combinations of notes will sound over it, and you can easily pick out the notes you will use to construct a melody that is appropriate for the genre or mood you are trying to create. Some people think that learning music theory will make them think too much inside the box, but this is complete nonsense. If you actually follow theory past the basics (which CAN seem rather limiting) it will open up many doors and make you think about and understand music in ways you never would have without it.

However, there are some great musicians who just never really get theory. It just isn't how their head works, and for them it probably will never really matter. So I guess it's a personal thing.

For most genres of music I'd say that knowing music theory is great, but it isn't entirely necessary. Film may be an exception though. Because you have to know how to write for different moods and generate certain emotional responses or suspense in certain parts of the film, it seems like it would be very important to know your theory. This is exactly what theory is good at doing: it helps you create exactly what you want when you want it.

---

Hink - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:31 pm

---

my kids seem to choose drawing over music and I can't draw a straight line ...but art is art...

---

bduffy - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:32 pm

---

That's totally how I feel. The biggest reservation, though, is finding a good teacher and not wasting my time and money.

I do feel somewhat better after reading on Thomas Dolby's blog that he cannot read music and has little-to-no training, just like me. I was floored. Listening to the complex jazz chords he favours and layered arrangements, you'd swear he knew all there is to know about theory! At the end of the day, you can't beat raw talent.

---

kaden - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:34 pm

---

Theory is pretty essential if you aspire to actually play with other musicians.

Efficient communication, doncha know.

The agony of watching the guitarist teach the bassist a song the 'first string, second fret 4 times, then second string, fourth fret twice' method is likely the reason a lot of musicians develop substance abuse issues.

---

nuffink - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:34 pm

---

Yeah you can. It's easy. Raw talent backed up by a solid knowledge of theory.

---

Hannes_F - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:36 pm

---

When I was a kid I had a big band but no sheet music for it. So I took swing jazz arrangements, put them on tape and tone per tone, notated them. It was tedious and I can not tell how often I had to rewind. It did not help that I could not really play the piano and did not even know the bass key first. Really crazy jazz chords, and nailing down that third sax was not easy at all - but I succeeded finally.

This time has served me much because later on conservatory I just had to learn the official names for what I heard and knew anyhow. So yes, I have a theoretical background but listening was first. It is still so.

Hannes

---

ouroboros - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:44 pm

---

exactly.

I hope for a little of both.

---

afreshcupofjoe - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:45 pm

---

Jesus don't remind me! I've left too many rock bands for exactly that reason. It's amazing that they can ever get anywhere. What's worse is when you're the bassist and you have to tell the freaking guitarist what to do. I'd rather shoot myself in the face than go through that again.

---

bduffy - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:53 pm

---

Well, I didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't know your theory at all! Theory totally enhances talent. I'm just saying: natural talent counts for a lot, if someone that adept at music can't read music.

EDIT: ACtually, no, ignore that. He probably knows theory up the wazoo; that's different than reading. Anyway, I shouldn't have worded that so.

---

adammann - Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:58 pm

---

Man, 24 responses in 2 hours - I'm impressed.

I guess I meant just "reading music". While I can't read music, and could not say what a particular chord is (othar then simple, obvious stuff like major, minor, minor 7th, etc), as far as theory goes I guess I have an instinctual understanding of it. A feel for it.



Oh god, I'd kill for the resources to do something like that. I can see myself spending sh!tloads on orchestral samples, but it would be so much better to just hire an awesome group of players to make what's in my head a reality.

---

Sascha Franck - Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:03 pm

---

I know a shitload about music theory. Sometimes it helps (even a lot), sometimes it seems to be getting in my way (even a lot). A tradeoff situation, really.

---

Chuck E. Jesus - Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:53 pm

---

if that were the case, kids would eat candy all day....

---

Chuck E. Jesus - Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:58 pm

---

great post...


i know a bit of theory and i can pick out notes one at a time, but i never do anyway, just by ear...i wish i learned that shit, and now i know enough to know how much i'm missing....

---

kaden - Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:17 pm

---

Roger that. And what's worse?

The same guy *proudly* proclaiming that any knowledge of theory would stifle their creativity and rob any subsequent compositions of (this is a verbatim quote) "the cutting edge shit people expect from me".

The lad in question writes I-IV-V rawk tunes about Hot Chicks in Ragtops.

I manfully resisted the urge to throttle the life out of him.

---

mono101 - Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:19 pm

---

Great reply.
Agree with that Chukee.

---

tk421 - Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:45 pm

---

That is hilarious and inspirational. I had some guitar and saxophone lessons in high school 15 years ago. More recently, I discovered I could be the whole band with my computer and not know much else other than what I think rocks. My first song I ever wrote in FL is still my favorite.

However, I have some very musically talented friends. I am very envious of their ability to pick up instruments and play.

---

Killvehicle - Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:47 pm

---

IM not reading the whole thread, but I have learned and studied theory and like any player who improvises or any musician for that matter, the entire goal of music is to play,, SO Theory can be great or can hinder, If you put in the time(years) to learn and understand theory and it becomes second-nature, and not part of your thought process then its worth it,, BUT theory DOES not make anyone a better musician or artist.. ITs entirely un-important.. I learned it, becasue I love music and I wanted to know what everyhting was,, but on a daily level I hardly ever use theory consciously,, Im sure it may hvae been said in this thread, but its best to learn and then forget, becasue if ya think while you are playing then its not helping you whatsoever.. IF you learn and it becomes a part of you and your playing, then consider it time well spent..

---

Chuck E. Jesus - Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:48 pm

---

double post...

---

Chuck E. Jesus - Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:50 pm

---

what a man...

---

tk421 - Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:51 pm

---

I don't want to change the subject, but Kaden's website is very cool.

---

Hink - Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:52 pm

---

---

ATS - Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:54 pm

---

I only know the basics. If course I wish I knew more.

---

kaden - Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:56 pm

---

In retrospect, it was a less than altruistic decision when you consider the hell he's likely putting other guys through at this very moment.

---

rp314 - Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:02 pm

---

This applies to many of us. IMO it depends somewhat on what your main instrument is. People who play instruments that require reading just a single line tend to have excellent sight-reading skills. Pianists tend to be very disciplined about this as well but I think that guitarists tend to get a bad rap about this since it can be somewhat more challenging to sight-read fully notated guitar music (assuming the score hasn't been previously studied, of course ).

There are many exaggerations about how well folks read music on the fly. Case in point: years ago William Kraft (American composer and long-time tympanist with the L.A. Philharmonic) spoke at a composition class I was taking about his playing on the recording of Pierre Boulez' "Le Marteau Sans Maitre". The cream of the crop of L.A. composers came through the recording studio to observe and listen to the recording. According to Kraft the only one who wanted to look at the score and was able to turn the pages correctly was Igor Stravinsky. The others just showed initial interest but were either lost or not into it enough to read along with the score.

Understanding what is going on in the music is to me the most important part of learning music theory for anyone interested in composing or arranging. Sight reading usually accompanies that but as with other things like perfect pitch a bit of skepticism is not out of place.

---

maxhodges1 - Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:14 pm

---

Great musicians who don't know how to read a note are the exception rather than the rule. Most musicians have to know at least the basics about how music works. These basics--notes, chords, and so on--are called music theory. Musicians apply music theory every time they sit down to play or sing--whether they know it or not.

Knowledge of how different notes work together can help you expand on a simple melody. It can help you know how to accompany a melody with chords, how to turn that simply melody into a fulll-blown arrangement for groups of voices and instruments, and how to create your own melodies and compositions. Knowing music theory can help you communication you musical ideas with others so you can collaborate to play together in a band. Or to discuss the music of others.

Here is a nice statement ab out music theory that I found on another site:




It's kind of like this: I learned about color theory for a graphic design project, but my new knowledge of color has improved my photography, my fashion, even helped me prepare dishes which look more appetizing. It's really opened my eyes to better use of color and has given me a greater appreciation of good--and bad color--choices made by others. True, some people have "an eye" for color, but for someone working with color, such as designers, decorators, landscapers, etc., color theory presents a valuable body of knowledge.

---

WoJ - Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:15 pm

---

Im 18 and doing a music tech course at uni at the moment, and im doing bass guitar performace as a minor.

I have taken grade 3 jazz piano, grade 8 popular music theory, and grade 8 bass guitar, but i never took the time to practice sight reading when i was learning the piano/guitar. I always just used to listen to the piece and learn it by ear, i could never be bothered to learn to 'read' music as i always found it far too hard, i can read rhythm notation ok, and so i can read tab+rhythm for example, and i can read chords fine, but as for traditional staff notation nope, it takes me a while to work stuff out.

I know now that if i'd learnt to sight read when i started to learn guitar/paino, that it would be soooo much easier than trying to learn it quick out of 'neccessity'. When you start learning an instrument, you need to learn hand positions and imprint them in your brain, if you learn to read music while your learning to play then you associate your sight+hand position, so both connections get forced into your brain at once. If you learn to read later then I think its harder to get your brain to connect sight with your playing. I think once you get past a certain point of 'reading' music your brain just becomes used to it and you can just read without 'thinking'. I know a few people who can read music no problem, and they dont even think about it, they just look at the music and read it like you'd read a book.

So i now need to get craking on learning to read music. Its always going to be useful, so i think everyone should be able to read music even if its only a little. If i ever have to transfer a piece of notated music into a sequencer for example, it'll take me quite a while, whereas if i'd learn to read quickly then it'd be no problem and i could get onto mixing it/editing it etc.

So i think every one should learn to read music (well, 'western classical notation') if they're working in a music-related environment, you never know when it'll come in handy.



WoJ

---

Hewitt Huntwork - Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:17 pm

---

I'm another theory-yes/reading-no guy. I'm not defensive about it, I don't wish I knew more, and I make music that makes me happy. If I wasn't happy with my abilities, I might imagine that being better educated musically would make a difference. And I might be right - but we'll never know.

---

keyman_sam - Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:18 pm

---

Good post WoJ. Music reading requires practice, and thats what i'm trying to do. Practice to get to that point where I can read any sheet music like i'm reading an english novel.

---

barbakane - Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:18 pm

---

Just about every day I wish I had taken the time to learn to read music, as well as learn theory. But my excuse for not doing it is based on an interview I read back in the 80's with none other than Jimmy Page. The question got raised about theory or whatnot, and his response was that he didn't know scales, or much theory at all. He just played what sounded right thru experimentation and an intimate knowledge of what he was trying to achieve, basically the building blocks of any good song.
Also, I once saw an interview with Vladimir Horowitz, and he said he was envious of people that didn't have classical training and theory backgrounds. When asked why, he said that he is so locked into habit, that he can't think any other way. It was impossible for him to think like a jazz or rock player.
Just my two cents worth...but I learn from listening to other songs and emulating them. By doing this, and changing a few things here and there, I learn what works and what doesn't.
There is also a couple of great books...."How to write songs on guitar", and "How to write songs on keyboards", that give examples of chord progressions, such as I-IV-V-VII, along with the names of world famous songs that follow that progression. That's a great way to learn theory. I start with three chord songs, then goes to 4,5 and six chord songs. Great places to start for the lazy people like me!

---

barbakane - Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:20 pm

---

As another addition note, just saw on CMT the show Crossroads, and Lindsey Buckingham from Fleetwood Mac was on.... He said he can't read music! Who woulda thought....

---

Hink - Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:46 pm

---

I wonder how many authors can't read a book

---

bduffy - Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:48 pm

---

Here's one:

---

androidlove - Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:06 pm

---

i play what i want to hear. what else is there?

---

Hink - Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:10 pm

---

ahhhhh I see you like "yes"

---

WoJ - Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:16 pm

---

blind people can still talk.

---

Hink - Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:18 pm

---

I see

---

androidlove - Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:19 pm

---

isn't yes prog? that's what i think of when someone asks me if i like prog. i say "no"

---

Hink - Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:21 pm

---

actually I was thinking more of a woman saying yes

---

kaden - Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:29 pm

---

Other people playing what you hear.

---

VicDiesel - Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:47 pm

---

You playing what other people heard.

My reading skills are out the wazoo, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I like opening a book of Haydn keyboard sonatas and play some. The man was a genius, and much as I like my own music, every once in a while it's good to genuflect at the altar of the absolute gods.

Btw, even though I haven't had much formal training in theory, I've absorbed plenty. And I don't think it harms my music. It means I can avoid cliches, and have a bigger repertoire of tricks that I can pull out of a high hat.

Victor.

---

rockstar_not - Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:19 pm

---

I know enough theory to realize that I don't know enough.

Yes I feel limited and would like to rewind the clock to have paid more attention, learnt the modes, learned the notes on the fretboard - all of them, not just those marked with dots, etc.

So, I scratch my head and try to teach myself some now and then - but I'd love to be able to sight read better, to know when a flat5 sharp 13 chord would be better than a good old major 7, etc.

-Scott

---

dark.nowhere - Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:43 pm

---

I have a hilarious relationship with music theory and the formalisms. Whenever I try to learn more, it doesn't click very well and I get frustrated and give up. Later I'll be doing something where it applies, but not thinking about it, and I'll remember all the unassimilated data that I read up on and it will finally click.

---

Martin E - Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:03 am

---

+1 That applies for me as well. I know quite some theory but I think there's room for more knowledge. But I can 't really be bothered since I actually like what I'm producing so far.

I think a basic knowledge of music is indispensable and won't get in the way of being creative yourself. In the end it will only help you being more creative. Furthermore it will make you understand how other musicians and composers created their music.

---

CypherOne - Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:11 am

---

nah, I've never needed more than 3 notes..

---

aallvor - Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:26 am

---

No. Sometimes.

---

cptgone - Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:34 am

---

No, and not at all - i'm a postmodern romantic, i run naked through woods chasing muses instead of taking the cerebral approach.

---

HunterKiller - Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:42 am

---

I am the post-modern aural element assembler, a self-proclaimed king of the wave file and he who puteth the notes in the proper order!

---

Dunbar - Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:54 am

---

After many years flapping around blindly i made myself sit down and read up on harmonic theory. It's the best five minutes i've ever invested in education.

---

nuffink - Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:01 am

---

There's a fair bit of truth in that. Its difficulty is massively overstated.

---

duncanparsons - Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:09 am

---

I have more than a passing aquaintance with music theory, which I'm happy with, it can help me out of a sticky situation if I want to sound really generic

I normally break rules, but some are worth at least bearing in mind, for instance, if I'm writing a 4 part brass section, paying attention to the normal rules on 4 part harmony (about parallel movt, use of moving 4ths/5th, etc) helps alot to sound better, but there are times when going against the rules gets the results; but I know how to reassemble it if I need to...

Reading? it takes me hours! But after 20+ years of it, I'm gradually getting the hang of it. I can read drum scores OK, but then I've worked as a pro drummer so it just helps...

At times I feel quite limited by knowing theory, especially when I have no inspiration - just falling back on the rules can be death to making anything good!

DSP

---

CypherOne - Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:14 am

---

my problem is that every chord progression I try just sounds gay (i.e. very predictable and cheesy). if I try and do something away from the rules, it sounds shite. That's why I make lowest common denominator dance crap (well that and I actually like it)...

---

2windy - Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:43 am

---

None really and yes, I feel limited a lot. I get by but wish I knew more.

---

darkinnerbeing - Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:01 am

---

My level of music theory is basic. I understand time signature, key signature(major and minor), reading in treble clef, reading in bass clef, chords, tempo, accent(soft & loud), etc., etc. But, my level of sightreading and ear-training has went down. Mostly, due to me barely touching an instrument. This is due to life(in general)and the little time I have I spent sequencing in Cakewalk Sonar.

Trying to schedule my time wisely now.

---

garret - Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:15 am

---

That one's easy, Scott.... Almost never!

And none of em is better than a good old sus4!

---

mayan - Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:20 am

---

I feel both limited and liberated. I would love to know and understand theory in order to better learn song structure and straight composition development. Historically, I play piano (took classical lessons until I was in 7th grade and then taught myself blues, barrel-house, very rudimentary four-chord jazz and classical ragtime). If I knew theory, I'd be better able to bump up my playing to a higher level of jazz.

At the same time, my current passion is making pieces in a realm where the old rules don't apply. I don't think that notation has any sway in this kingdom. I'd need a whole new construct (the key of Msharp, anyone?). While theory would undoubtedly help me with rudiments like harmony and or thematic development...I don't have much use for them with what I'm currently doing...maybe if I knew theory, I wouldn't have been forced into making my own musical universe but I gotta say that I'm happy as a pig in shit wallowing in what I invent to disguise my lack of knowledge.

---

Ubiety - Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:43 am

---

Rules only come about when referring to certain styles and genres of music. They are not really necessary, though, when creating for the sake of creating. However, if one wants to develop her own style, then she has to at least create a set of parameters for herself in order to define her own unique style. Lots of artists do this. Still, learning music theory won't hurt you unless you are given to following rules in the place of following your own intuitive sense about what it is that you like and don't like. One certainly can loose the special thing that they have if he is not careful of how he internalizes the newly acquired information. The point, I suppose, is that if you already have a strong musical identity then it is best that you identify what it is that you want out of learning music theory. If you are still developing an identity then you probably want to learn music theory through the types of music that influence and interest you, or through music that you are completely unfamiliar with. If you are only curious about music theory then it really doesn't matter how you approach learning music theory, anything that you learn will open up a new and fascinating world to you through which you can make more discerning choices about how you approach music, what it is that you like and don't like, and how you use the information learned.

Personally, I believe that learning music theory is a good thing. It allows you more clarity to the invisible.

---

wrench45us - Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:43 am

---

since i can't play or read very well, but for various historical reasons I'm very interested in chords and song structure, I've been studying theory just about since I got my music software together 4 years ago now.

back in the 80's when i 1st got interested in synthesizers I tried to teach myself keyboards and it was a disaster -- very slow to read music, impatient with my progress, melody lines just don't do much for me -- coming at it through chords and voicings and comping has been much more rewarding

but in my usual hit or miss approach of picking up a style/theory music book, I got very confused earlier this year about how different voicing styles related to each other. I ended up buying a lot of books from amazon -- Hal Leonard books by John Valerio and Mark Harrison and a couple of books from Alan Swain through Swain music. And I think I finally have a working bigger picture.
I'm making the transition from standard 3 voice chords to the jazz 4+ voice chords and working on the smooth inversion transitions.
started with just right hand 3 voice chords to adding a bass note in the left to two note left etc etc

I have a terrible ear for music and can't pick out a melody or identify chords reliably, so maybe that's why I actually enjoy this approach.
However when I sit down to 'compose' what I know may be a starting point, but it's still wandering fingers that find a progression that works. But if I get stuck for where to go next, I can now sit back and figure out what's going on and have a lot of choices of where to go from there.
i'm just getting started
and now divide my time betwen practice exercises and making music. i know that would be tedious for a lot of people, but I'm actually enjoying it.

---

Chuck E. Jesus - Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:44 am

---

---

JumpingJackFlash - Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:52 am

---

Basically, I think it comes down to what sort of 'musician' you wish to be. If you 'compose' Trance using existing loops and stuff, then you don't really need to know anything about theory or how to read music. The same is true if you are only concerned with writing music for yourself, or even if you are a solo performer, etc. However, if you want to write for orchestra, or in a specific style, or to communicate with other scholarly types, then knowing about music theory and notation is absolutely essential.

---

WoJ - Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:58 am

---

"or to communicate with other scholarly types"

see, thats the kind of stereotypical view a lot of people seem to take when taking about reading music/theory. There always seemed to be the view that music theory is only for "upperclass musicians/classical musician".

Western notation is used in a number of genre's, and its the standard for our culture, so i think it isnt only for 'scholars'. It can be used in a number of applications.



WoJ

---

androidlove - Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:03 am

---

an auto score program can do most of the work for you

---

JumpingJackFlash - Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:12 am

---

I agree, I just meant when communicating with other people who work with music theory. - Ie, if you're just bashing tunes in your garage with your school friends, it isn't really necessary. I never said theory was only for classical musicians!




Well, yes, you can also get auto-harmonisation programs for the chords, you can probably create melodies from some software too, - why bother doing any of it? (It's like saying why bother to learn to sing in tune when you can just use Auto-Tune later?)

---

androidlove - Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:25 am

---

scoring is just the boring work. there's no talent needed. it has nothing to do with writing the music. why would you take it to that extreme?

---

JumpingJackFlash - Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:37 am

---

[quote="androidlove"]

That's not true at all. Orchestration needs a lot of talent; there are highly experienced professionals who do just this for a living (Herbert Spencer, Nick Ingman etc.) You need to know the ranges and nuances of all the instruments, be able to transpose on the fly, know what to double and when, and a lot more. - It's no walk in the park, and to say there's no talent needed is very insulting IMO. Also, although time consuming, it can be enjoyable.

---

androidlove - Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:43 am

---

well, i can't call it a skill either. it's one of those things you can do after you read the manual or while using a manual for reference. it's akin to using a piece of software. however, there are some older ppl who think being able to use software makes you a computer genius

---

goldbaker - Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:52 am

---

No question that orchestration\arranging is a unique talent. It's different than songwriting, that's all. Any song or piece of music can be made to sound dramatically different depending on the arrangement. (I had some fun with Flight of the Bumblebee and the old Dies Irae gregorian chant, if you want to check it below.) Although I'm not personally partial to dance remixes, I certainly think it takes skill to rearrange songs even in that context.

One of the most famous examples is Ravel's orchestration of Mussorgsky's piano pieces "Pictures at an Exhibition." I've never even heard the piano version -- Ravel's orchestral version has taken over.

---

shinken - Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:55 am

---

Apart from highbrow types of music, it's necessary to know some music theory to understand jazz.

---

shinken - Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:56 am

---

I get this.

---

AgonisThorn - Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:57 am

---

That's true, and is indeed true of MOST activities, so long as you keep in mind that "can do" =/= "can do well". I am a bassist and guitarist; while I "can" play keyboards, mandolin, violin, and tinwhistle, I'd not expect anyone to pay me to do so.

I learned theory long ago and by choice. Aside from my insane thirst for knowledge on ANY subject, I feel that understanding HOW and WHY music works (which is what theory is, rather than the minutiae of drawing notes and formatting your staves) makes me a better musician. Even as a bassist in the rock trio format (where I make my music-related income at present), I use my knowledge of harmonisation to keep my bass lines fresh and to suggest new voicings and variations on themes to our guitarist.

I like knowing WHY what I'm playing works, rather than the rote memory of "okay I put my fingers HERE...".

---

androidlove - Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:02 am

---

it's not even that complicated for me i'm probably just a simple mind. you can hear my house experiment by clicking on my sig. i'll have my simple rock and roll songs up later (man, solos are a bitch)

---

james0tucson - Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:03 am

---

I know a LOT of music theory. University-grad level theory, jazz theory, composition, orchestration, arranging, you name it -- even did some research into atonal music.

I feel like it holds me back sometimes. In a couple of ways. For instance, my piano chops are what they are, and I have to be playing for a while before I get loose. For another example, when I'm writing something, the floodgates of creativity do not open unless the idea comes in a flash.

I know guys who learn maybe 5 chords and are writing songs and get more done in a day than I've done in the last 15 years.

---

androidlove - Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:07 am

---

it's polka time!



wow, that was like an 80's movie. also reminded me of the old disney electric light parade. that thing had some synth power

---

VicDiesel - Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:07 am

---

Bullshit. Clearly you've never sang in choir (preferably one of the inner voice) or played in an orchestra. It takes talent to turn the "filler" parts into real music. Sure you're not writing the melody or the harmony at that point, but you can tell the musician from the hack by how he writes those parts.

Victor.

---

androidlove - Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:14 am

---

i've been in choirs and vocal groups (even sang barber shop once)

i was in band from 5th grade till i graduated

i was the guitarist in college jazz band

i've arranged for my rock bands

---

VicDiesel - Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:23 am

---

Then you should be able recognize the difference between a hack job arrangement and one that is truly musical.

Victor.

---

The_Cresta - Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:23 am

---

OMG "no talent for scoring"

---

Ubiety - Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:25 am

---

Good orchestration is unbelievably difficult to do and great orchestration is even more difficult. Not only does one need a serious and thorough harmonic foundation but one also needs to understand sound, at least every type of traditional orchestral instrument - their strengths and weaknesses, their range and limitations. Plus one needs to be able to articulate and communicate difficult to understand passages verbally to the orchestra in addition to being able to notate it successfully in the first place. The breadth of knowledge needed to be a good orchestrator is vast, not to mention that one needs regular access to an orchestra and the musicians that make up that orchestra.

Compared to writing the piece of music itself, many composers would say that orchestration is the real work and where the strength and talent of a composer becomes known. Indeed orchestration is an integral and important part of the composition process. Film composers who use orchestrators commonly write all of the voicings to the soundtrack that needs to be orchestrated. That way no matter what the orchestrator decides to do, the composer will get full credit for composing the soundtrack. Given the tight deadlines in Hollywood the need for using an orchestrator is very real for many Hollywood composers. Anyway, scorers like John Williams who represent the lineage of the likes of Bernard Hermann are increasingly rare in Hollywood, the guys who do it all, composing and orchestrating the music that makes up the soundtrack. That John Barry sound or that Jerry Goldsmith sound is a direct result of their abilities to orchestrate as well as being able to write memorable themes.


Anyway, orchestration is not boring, that's where the fun really begins. It's what earns the composer the respect of the musicians who make up the orchestra. They are the ones who have to play it and if they are not pleased then the performance will suffer. And so another useful thing for a composer/orchestrator to know is the personalities, temperaments and abilities of the musicians that he or she will be working with. Orchestration is not a trivial matter by any means.

---

gnu23 - Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:37 am

---

I read music pretty well - bass clef throws me to this day (and I play a bass! argh) - I have to stop and resynch myself to bass clef often. I started in guitar and moved to trumpet in school, so treble clef was my home for all of my formative years. I'm a helluva good sight-reader in treble. As for theory - enough to write but I'm always up for learning more.

There are so many folks who don't read music but write beautifully and so many who know theory out the wazoo and get trapped by it. My take then is this - if you have natural musical ability and you don't know a lot about theory or reading music, take the time to learn the basics. The rest will take care of itself. There's nothing quite like stumbling across a phrase or chord out of the blue, and just going from there without thinking a lot.

---

VicDiesel - Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:55 am

---

I'm getting pretty decent at alto clef these days. Not sure if I'll ever get round to tenor clef.

I refuse to acknowledge the existence of soprano clef.

Victor.

---

No name - Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:30 pm

---

I've been into music for about a decade now (that shit makes me feel old!) I got a keyboard when I first started, and for like 9 years i've been toying with keys to the point that I can pretty much hear notes in my head and play them, SO LONG AS IT'S NOT TOO COMPLEX. If that is the case than i'd have to do what a lot of other folks have said they do, rewind and go note for note. Now as for my theory, I know a little, and like my key playing, I can read it if I tke my time and go note for note. I'm considering doing some sort of lessons or something sometime soon so that I can learn to play/read music better. I don't know how I come up with stuff sometimes. At times it almost seems like i'm pressing random keys in combinations, well not too random, and coming up with decent stuff. I'm looking to get into something with a litttttle more foundation though. Anyways, I think when it comes to the question at hand then a little story about a physicist named Richard Feynmann comes to mind..

He is a very famous physicist who is responsible for some great discoveries, but he talked about how after so long of doing physics and the math behind it he came to a point to where he was so uptight about his math, he was no longer having fun with this "art" he loved so much for so long. He realized that because of this, he kept getting stuck and he was going nowhere. Frustrated, he decided he would go back to doing his math for the fun of it. Sure enough, after he began doing this, not only did he become productive again, but he furthered physics in a big way and won the nobel prize.

Moral of the story, whether you are fluent in music theory or not, NEVER look at it too deeply while you are in the process of creating the music, just have fun with it! That's when you'll truly become inspired, and as we all know too well, inspiration means everything in music.

Long post over.

---

Jafo - Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:43 pm

---

Actually, I feel limited because of my knowledge of music theory. Or rather, that it is so much greater than my ears. I used to think that all I had to do was think about music to be a great musician.

I think maybe it's more about (training? culturing? awakening?) the whole person -- especially the ears -- more than the excess or lack of any given part.

Err, but that's just my theory...

---

Fundy - Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:45 pm

---

Anyone can compose but if they don't know music theory (or even a little bit) how can they put across what they did, to other musicians? The answer is they can't really so it helps to know a little bit.

I don't mean the nitty-gritty of foreign teriminology like Scherzo, or the numerous foreign terms. However at least the keys, modes and rhythm part of it.

---

There are 109 posts in this topic.
Page: 1 2