How long does it take to learn basic music theory?

[ariston]

Not using an internet forum to learn something new would kind of defeat half the purpose of this site. We would then basically be left with a bunch of VST/music news.

Generally, yes, you want to start by reading on the subject and trying out a little yourself before going with questions. But as other people said, it really helps to have someone that already knows ect. If someone can't pay for lessons, places like youtube (say someone playing and explaining something in the video) and forums really help to get feedback/advice when just reading on the topic isn't enough.

There's also the fact that not everyone knows a lot of other musicians in real life, so a site like this is a good way to talk with other people about the subject.

Wait, hold on a sec... you can actually LEARN something on KVR? I had no idea!!

Seriously, let me put it another way: learning about band pass filters, or what a saw wave does, is one thing. But you're on the wrong track if you're thinking you can make music once you finally discover what all those black keys are for. And having someone tell you this on an internet forum is never a substitute for hands-on teaching. Lord knows, we have too many Deadmice out there as it is.

Short cuts make Deadmice. Mark my words!

[aciddose]

So you're saying shortcuts in music theory make one wildly successful?

The simple explanation without producing a mile long string of text is that music theory is simply about defining rules by which you can measure existing music.

So music theory and the study of favorite tracks in your target genre is a brilliant way to go if you're attempting to work from those existing types. "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." This essentially is a statement of the fact that everything we do builds upon our experience, which is dependent (assuming one is not isolated from all else) on the work of others, ad infinitum.

(It is important to differentiate this from idolatry. "Giants" refers to the structures which have been contributed to over a long period of time by individuals just like yourself. "Dwarfs" may see further by standing on the "shoulders of giants" despite their limited stature. Think of it like a giant pile of dwarf corpses.)

As has been mentioned however music theory is not the study of a method. It is the study of a result and an attempt to form a set of rules or parameters for a model based upon that result. If one wanted to study method the best course would be to get inside the head of the author of such a result in the process of producing it.

Ultimately random chance plays the greatest part in what you accomplish. Some will require very limited study and achieve great things while some others will study their entire lives to achieve nothing.

Due to this observation there is no way to estimate how long it might take you to learn music theory or anything at all really. Every estimate will be based upon numerous assumptions with regard to your innate capabilities.

[tapper mike]

I've known quite talented musicians who have no business teaching but do anyway. They rely on ear power. If one's sole interest is to learn songs you don't need that much theory to get by (if at all) A good ear covers a lot of ground.

Regarding Jan.
I've had more "spirited encounters" with Jan on this forum then most everyone. We've traded barbs left and right. I will say of her is that her dedication is second to none. She has produced quite a bit of useful information in this forum over the years even if that is obscured by the distractions of mudslinging. Which quite frankly keeps me from posting more. (not jan in general) Whenever something comes up like... The value of practice or...Proper terminology. Everyone (not just JC or myself) get into these heated battles that we can't pull ourselves apart from. I hate posting in the music theory forum. I can believe it took a lot for Jan to pull out of this forum because.. Deep down I know she really lives for music theory and would love to share her thoughts. Nonetheless she like many have seen the disinformation on the web and generalizes that most any theory on the web is crap. I've seen a lot of bad/incorrect information as well. But I've also seen much good information on the web.

Part of the problem is we love to argue too much. Part of the problem is there are different schools to approaching theory that may be equally valid and the final part is. Someone discovering theory cannot differentiate for themselves.

[Robert Randolph]

I am talking about simple things as a complete beginner like learning major/minor scales, and also how long does it take to get familiar with the keyboard notes, and chords? Chords always seem easy in concept but the black keys are still mixing me up. Also, how does one know what key a song is in (is it based off of what the root note in a chord progession/scale is)?? Sorry if the question is a little stupid.

Thank you very very much.

I can teach you in about an hour, if you'd like. If you have skype or whatever, let me know.

Damn, that is such an amazing offer man , thank you so so much . I am currently busy however!!

No problem. Back to charging $80 an hour to the locals

[shonoob]

The concepts seem really straight forward on paper, I have 3 books that I am currently reading which are catered towards 'computer musicians.' I have been reading the past 3 days and know how to make chords, major, minor, augmented, diminished sus2/4 and scales in major, and minor harmonic/natural etc. I suppose I was just being demotivated since I had an unrealistic sense of what I can learn now. It's a whole new language to me and a lot to take in, which is where the original question in this thread stemmed from, but I have concluded that I just need to stick with it every day, and hope it becomes second nature eventually.

Thank you all so much for your help

[MOK19]

If you're reading Music Theory For Computer Musicians, a book with like a yellow-green cover, I recall that one. I read that a few years ago to get a handle on some of the basics. It wasn't great, and it wasn't bad. One of the good things about it is it's focus on intervals, and how they're explained. But I found out later on that it's approach will be a lot different to people like guitarists, so there might be some communication kinks when you're talking to a guitar guy. However I was given the impression by my music teacher(a guitarist by origin) at the time that the book's approach was 'more correct.' But who knows. And who cares - it did the job up to the point you'll need, the basics. Enough to be dangerous.

Many years down the road, having read that book, I'll tell you what it didn't teach me. The goal that went un-fulfilled: Chordal familiarity/confidence, and control. When I started learning music theory, one of my goals was to eventually never have to fish around for chords & voicing. I wanted to know that, "if I'm in X situation, I should try out chord/voicing X, Y, or Z, and if I want result X, I should try a combination of chords X and Y." I wanted to always feel confident in my navigating, and I wanted to control the feel of the chord progression I was making, to imagine a feel, and know how you might get there.

I didn't get up to that up to a point. By now, I'm still not exercising the chordal toolbox in the way I'd desired - only the 'default' chords come to mind when I'm trying to compose, and I have to actively seek and figure out other options to try out. In that circumstance, there's no controlling the feel, not the way I'd wanted. I don't know what level of knowledge is required to get there... But I know there's a level of time on the keys also required. Experience in learning those chords, and subsequently putting them to use, so that it sticks, and has a permanent spot in your compositional toolbox.

Right now, I don't know how to make that happen, for me. Would love to hear others' thoughts on that, but that's probably a derail.

But at least this illustrates where you *might* be, after learning the basics. Just figured I'd post that up in order to give you a sense of the progression through theory, what you're left with after the basics are done with. What you might expect. Hopefully it's not just indulgent rambling.

[Michael L]

I am also interested in chords>harmony>melody. A good book resource is "Compose Yourself" by Alzofon. He explains the relationships & also calls attention to feelings, eg of ascending/descending chords. An Amazon ebook is only $3.

[InLight-Tone]

Many years down the road, having read that book, I'll tell you what it didn't teach me. )

You needed to go through the next volume "Harmony for Computer Musicians"...

[MOK19]

Actually, I was just looking at that on Amazon. But by the table of contents, I can't tell how much it goes into practical use within composition, rather than simply description of the chords, etc. I know much of that level of theory, just not it's application, I suppose. Have you read it?

[ariston]

One thing I did when branching out was to play a chord with one hand and then improvise melodies and chords on top of that. I would stay within the scale at first, until I had a good feeling for what worked, and then I began to introduce flats and sharps. After I got comfortable with that, I played riffs and improvised again, making things more complex as I went along. I was trained at the keyboard, but even if you're not, you can improvise. It doesn't have to be Beethoven you're playing, the important thing is to develop a feeling for the music. Play one note every ten seconds if you lack the technical prowess, but LISTEN and FEEL.

Later on (years down the road) I dropped chords altogether (at least for a while) and just piled melodies on top of each other. This gives you a lot more freedom - especially when you're arranging, and using different timbres. It's not just the notes, anyway - something that clashes when played by two violins can work well if arranged for a tuba and a clarinet, for example.

To make a long story short, this approach worked for me. But it involved hours and days and weeks and years of experience and practice. It can only become second nature through experience, and there ain't no way around that.

What you probably need to decide for yourself is how far you want to take it. If you're happy within the confines of pop music, then just go with simple harmonies and the occasional flatted fifth. But do practice playing, because it well help you to get an inner representation and a more intuitive feel for the music.

[shonoob]

If you're reading Music Theory For Computer Musicians, a book with like a yellow-green cover, I recall that one. I read that a few years ago to get a handle on some of the basics. It wasn't great, and it wasn't bad. One of the good things about it is it's focus on intervals, and how they're explained. But I found out later on that it's approach will be a lot different to people like guitarists, so there might be some communication kinks when you're talking to a guitar guy. However I was given the impression by my music teacher(a guitarist by origin) at the time that the book's approach was 'more correct.' But who knows. And who cares - it did the job up to the point you'll need, the basics. Enough to be dangerous.

Many years down the road, having read that book, I'll tell you what it didn't teach me. The goal that went un-fulfilled: Chordal familiarity/confidence, and control. When I started learning music theory, one of my goals was to eventually never have to fish around for chords & voicing. I wanted to know that, "if I'm in X situation, I should try out chord/voicing X, Y, or Z, and if I want result X, I should try a combination of chords X and Y." I wanted to always feel confident in my navigating, and I wanted to control the feel of the chord progression I was making, to imagine a feel, and know how you might get there.

I didn't get up to that up to a point. By now, I'm still not exercising the chordal toolbox in the way I'd desired - only the 'default' chords come to mind when I'm trying to compose, and I have to actively seek and figure out other options to try out. In that circumstance, there's no controlling the feel, not the way I'd wanted. I don't know what level of knowledge is required to get there... But I know there's a level of time on the keys also required. Experience in learning those chords, and subsequently putting them to use, so that it sticks, and has a permanent spot in your compositional toolbox.

Right now, I don't know how to make that happen, for me. Would love to hear others' thoughts on that, but that's probably a derail.

But at least this illustrates where you *might* be, after learning the basics. Just figured I'd post that up in order to give you a sense of the progression through theory, what you're left with after the basics are done with. What you might expect. Hopefully it's not just indulgent rambling.

Not at all, by all means derail away I love to hear anything and everything pertaining to music theory.

[tapper mike]

If you really want a handle on music... Spend less time on theory and formula and concentrate on ....Songs. Learn to perform songs.

Learning to perform songs you'll come across some realities rather then endless theorems.
It will make you a better more confident player faster. It will show you theory in action. It also will take you down a path which theory doesn't cover well and that is... Time timing metre and rhythm. Those are above all else what makes music "real" Feel is timing first theory second. What separates surf from blues or jazz or rock or country is feel first. All contain diatonic and pentatonic scales. All contain major and minor chords.

This gets back to the point I made earlier about finding a good teacher if you can. Concentrate on being able to perform songs. Music is more reliant on muscle memory then intellectual pursuits. It's not algebra, or micro-biology or physics. Music is part craft and part art.

[aciddose]

You are operating under the assumption that this person uses a physical instrument while this may not be the case.

My opinion regarding instruments is that they have a very significant influence on what you play due to the practicality of playing them.

For example a drummer can easily tell the difference between a real performance and a sequence of samples or layered performances. Say that the toms, snare, hi-hat and crash are all played at the same time... I've seen multiple sticks in one hand and I've seen rolls off the cymbal into the toms or hi-hat to snare, but to strike them all at exactly the same time isn't practical for most drummers.

This should be taken into account. Composition for a sequencer is not the same as performance of an instrument.

[das]

Well, I would answer your question with this question; are you asking how long does it take to know what the basics of music theory are, or are you asking how long does it take to master the basics of music theory?

If I could explain it like this, I could show someone how to drive a stick. But even after you learn how to shift gears and how to properly use the clutch, it's still going to be a while before you can confidently say to anyone - "I know how to drive a stick shift car."

So yes, technically one could go through a semester of learning the basics of music theory: meter, accidentals, pitch, harmony, intervals, triads, leading tones, suspensions, resolutions, note values, notation, tempo, dynamic markings, and probably a few more things I forgot to mention.

To a beginner, all that I listed may sound exhaustive and intimidating. But it's not that hard or impossible. And for the most part, everything works congruently in the beginning. So much so that you may not even realize that you're learning all of those different things simultaneously so soon. And to be honest with you, it's really as hard as you make it. I know several times in the past I've worked on tracks on my computer with my DAW, and I've had my wife, and musicians I was collaborating with stare in amazement that I actually can understand EVERYTHING that was moving on the screen with Cubase or Pro Tools! They couldn't understand how I knew what each channel of the mixer meant, and how to get everything sounding the way I heard it in my head.

But once I started to explain things little by little, it started to make sense to them what they were looking at. It still looked a little advanced to them, but it no longer seemed impossible to learn in their mind.

So I'm just saying all of this to say to you, and anyone else; that if you can learn about LFOs, OSCs, Sample Rate, Bit-Depth, EQs, Filters, Midi CC, plug-ins, sampling, quantizing, etc, then you're MORE THAN smart enough to completely master basic music theory.

And the ironic thing with so many musicians that don't know music theory, is that YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN USING MUSIC THEORY, you just didn't know it! There's soo much I could write to help you out, and I think I may have already typed too much, but let me make this last point that hopefully will help further.

You do not have to know music theory to create music. But I can guarantee you that you will reach your creative limit way sooner than someone that fortifies themselves with the musical knowledge to expand artistically. Sure, a 5th grader can make up a very interesting story in creative writing. But after a while it really goes nowhere, or gets uninteresting and out of control. Where as someone that has studied writing has the means to create a clear and controlled path of where they want to start, how to get to the end, and what type of journey to take you on in between.

Does that replace talent? No. But talent still doesn't replace knowledge, no matter how gifted you are. And unfortunately, it's only because of technology that you have so many musicians that can get away with saying "Why do I have to know music in order to make music?" Never could've said that before powerful computers and software was available as it is now.

I would encourage you to learn music theory. Give yourself 6 months. It also depends on how fast of a learner you are, how interested you are in learning, and how much time you discipline yourself to dedicate to just theory. Very similar to learning to speak a new language. At first it seems like you're learning a bunch of rules and idioms that aren't going anywhere. But after some time, one day, you'll have that "A HA" moment! And you'll want to learn more, because you've proven to yourself that you're doing better than you thought.

[tapper mike]

You are operating under the assumption that this person uses a physical instrument while this may not be the case.

My opinion regarding instruments is that they have a very significant influence on what you play due to the practicality of playing them.

The problem with removing human involvement in the physical performance is it removes humanity from the process which reduces composition arrangement and performance to an equation. At which time you have removed yourself from actually being able to take credit for anything you are or might do. Because you've given into the belief that all music is formula. "Let the computer do the work I'll just throw out a I-VI-ii=V and all the magic will happen for me"

The concept of excising the ghost in the machine for another machine somehow liberates the ghost is hogwash. Our bodies are not inferior machines as our bodies are not machines. Our character in music has to do with our acknowledgement of our bodies specifically our EARS. And how we interpret sounds. If you really want to escape the paradigm of music creation based on physical perception then the first thing you have to do is go back to birth and go death so you aren't influenced by music you may encounter in your life. Everything you've ever heard before is stored in your collective unconscious.

Simply because you may not recall the sounds stored in your head doesn't mean they don't exist. Sometimes in the composing recording process these memories complete or incomplete seep out. One might exclaim I've just found something new. When in fact it may be a direct recreation of an existing sound pattern or a filtered interpretation. Along the journey to creation one might want to explore those groupings more fully. Unfortunately the further the course the greater opportunity in discovering that it's actually a cover of something you've heard before. Any and all music founded on the 12 tone system of which we all know and love has the potential of having been recorded / performed before. The variables are simply to finite. Now here's the tricky part of this conundrum of Ghost in the machine. If you don't have the experiences of the machine (your body and your brain is included as your brain is physical) Once you have excised all memory of song from your brain. As which a computer does quite easily as you have to "find" then you come across two troubling factors. The content has no influence from pre existing music only instruction sets Which means it can spit out cover after cover after cover or garbage after garbage after garbage (not that non covers are garbage. You will find yourself doing double time weeding out the garbage or cover trying to find something that is remotely musical. Which doesn't make you a composer. And lacking the ability / knowledge experience that can only come from developing performance skills you may not be able to salvage the material. Let's face it. Rave was never about the music. It was about the drugs. If your music requires heavy drugs. If that's the case then the music is immaterial.

So let's move on to the concept of the computer as composer. Computers were originally (and still are for the most part) designed by humans. Software we use is designed by humans and music generated from them is based on human constructs of time, sound, and human notation constructs. So long as the humans who originally conceived hold steadfast to the outlining precepts of what music is the computer music will never be free of the human influence. By not learning how to play for yourself you've given everything away to outside forces you cannot control because those controls have been established by others.

I'm not stating that you have to be a world class virtuoso in order to write effectively. And in some cases yes virtuosity can be a hinderance or it can be a means of focus.

I am a guitarist. I can play a walking bassline on a guitar. I did not need to learn double bass to play a walking bass on the guitar. I can play walking bass on an electric bass (even though it's been over 20 years since I've played an electric bass. I can play a walking bassline on a piano. I can play a credible walking bassline on every instrument I've ever played save maybe a harmonica. And probably play a walking bassline on most any acoustic or electronic or midi device capable of the range / notes. Maybe not fast maybe not instantly. But definitely recognizable.

http://gprotab.net/browse_styles.php?style_id=25
The website has a special section devoted to compositions made in Guitar Pro. Unlike traditional Daws one really needs to get down to brass tacks in order to compose. You don't "need" to play guitar to compose in the software. You don't "need" to play piano. You can simply use your musical knowledge and punch in the notes. It is the closest thing to manual notation on paper. Never has a transcription of an existing song or an original score been crafted by a "non musician" Never. You don't need to understand tablature (although you could always learn) to use the program. You do need to know basic theory. Notation, tempo beat divisions. I've come to know many of these composers (not all nor a majority, just many) through the years. Often times their actual performance is mediocre compared to their compositions. Yet of sufficient skill as to be able to pull off credible performances on their primary musical instrument. Making them... MUSICIANS. This is not just limited to guitar pro. There are other music software programs that are specifically NOT DAW's which require that you operate from your knowledge of music theory and not have the creature comforts of slicing tracks or samples or loops. Casual music enthusiasts never touch these types of programs such as Finale. Because they see it as too much work to deliberately make music from scratch without the effects processing chocolate covered shit that's used to bury poor writing/performance in daws.

Not all musicians start off great and then stay great all of their lives. They develop technique and "style" through dedication. I've known musicians who have had heart attacks and as a result lost all memory including muscle memory on how to play and instrument. And by determination and willpower and not giving up on themselves they relearned the instrument. Which leads into ...Fear

Regardless of what one may state as to why they don't want to learn an instrument. It boils down to one thing. Fear of failure. In fact many who come here seeking knowledge of theory preface it by stating/ "I want to learn theory so I can make music without making mistakes" Theory is not a substitute for technique and cannot become fully internalize with out technique. Until then it's simply a nice idea that's easily forgotten.

Those that know me know that I have a small collection of guitars which has varied through the years. In the aspect that the instrument you own / play somehow defines your character. My PRS copy didn't turn me into Carlos Santana, My Nylon string didn't turn me into Earl Klugh, My Les Paul didn't turn me into Jimmy Page, My strat didn't turn me into Jimi Hendrix. My Telecasters didn't turn me into Keith Richards. My Super400 copy didn't turn me into Kenny Burrell My L5 copy didn't turn me into Johnny Smith or Tuck Andress. And more. I've always been just me. If anything my musical "personality" has always been a reflection of myself and influences around me. I played all of the aforementioned artists songs long before I acquired the instruments associated with them.


More to come.