I think the issue here is what the limitations are from not knowing music theory. I don't have an answer myself, but it would seem almost a requirement to have at least some grounding in the basic premises of music in order to achieve more complex work efficiently. I suppose it's like a room full of monkeys with keyboards trying to write. Given enough time, something of value might result, but the process is chaotic, slow and unlikely to succeed. Perhaps it would be the same for anyone without a working knowledge of music theory to create work that goes beyond inherent limitations without such knowledge. Unless one is innately gifted, in which case music theory wouldn't matter.

My take on it is this: No one should be forced to learn music theory. - If you really don't want to know it, don't bother studying it. - If you're naturally aware of these things without needing to be consciously told their names and stuff, then fine. You don't need to know theory to be a great musician.

However, I think that knowledge is never a bad thing, and knowing more (about anything) can only be good for you. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much you know, it's how you use what you know that matters. (But knowing more will give you more options to use)

well, i think some people take it too far, like anything, they use it as a language no one else understands to sound superior -- but knowing theory myself, i think it is definetly useful, but emotion and soul need to always come first (cue the umpteenth wanking guitarist that knows everything)

I'd say you don't need to know that you know theory to be a great musician. But whether you studied or not I doubt there is anyone who makes great tracks just slamming their head against their keyboard and hoping for the best. Whenever you make a musical decision, whenever you feel out a chord or audiate a melody or tap out a rhythm you're employing theory, you just don't know it.

Well, judging by some of the 'music' in the charts these days it seems that there is
Last edited by JumpingJackFlash on Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:32 am; edited 1 time in total

I'd be more interested to hear what the monkeys came up with every day.

btw - check out this interesting app. I bought it. Yet to get alot into it yet, but it's based on theory. Very cool application - http://www.palette-mct.com/examples.html

No, I meant, born with an inner sense of theory and not what you said, born with theory. A major difference, me thinks. The reason I'm saying this is that I've seen people play (without any formal training) naturally following the rules of (in this example) western theory/music rules. For example, one friend of mine, untrained, can naturally select a music scale and stick to it during his improvised playing, and it's not just C Major he can 'tune' into either.

Just play the white keys.

Indeed. But people DO have a natural sense of all theory... that's where it came from. We didn't throw some chemicals in a pot or get it from Mt. Sinai, I mean this is stuff that we documented as we came to understand it. Theory is what it is BECAUSE we understand it; the lessons are just there to articulate the musical ideas we all struggle with.

We all know what chords sound good, intuitively. Theory just helps us find them amongst the limitless chords to choose from. I highly doubt anyone has ever had their own musical ideas second-guessed by theory... and if they did, their own ideas later became key elements of theory in their own right.

Well said!


One thing worth remembering about music theory is it's based on 12-tone, Western music. That encompasses a hell of a lot of territory, but it's not hard to go off the map into a place where the theory doesn't apply.

Gamelan music for instance, or any number of alternate tunings (including works where the tuning changes in midstream). Or atonalism, noise-based music (using Luigi Russolo's definition of "noises"), monotone music, and so on.

Also in minimalist works like a lot of drone music or pieces like Terry Riley's "In C," where the work is limited to a very small set of discrete notes, where the entire piece is basically one master chord with elements coming in and out over time. In pieces like this theory might give you a map of what chords sound good, but that's easily determined by ear anyway...

But Gamelan and Tibetan percussive pieces, minimalism, serialism, drone, microtonality, alternate tunings, purely percussive aharmonic music, atonal music, etc. are all ENCOMPASSED within theory.

There's (much) more to music theory than the classical aspect. You can never go where theory doesn't apply, just where the theory YOU KNOW doesn't apply.

Hmm, I'm sure there are theories of these other kinds of music -- some of which is mathematical, some psychoacoustic, some traditional -- but is it really considered a part of "music theory" per se? Maybe I'm making a circular argument here in thinking that "music theory" is just kind of a Western guide to melody, harmony and chord progressions.

But put yourself in the place of someone just starting off... can you tell me one book / website / other source where all of these are treated together?

Most books and papers don't tend to take this holistic view, so you go to a book wanting to learn about music and you get just a view of 18th century classical, without any acknowledgment that there was ever life outside that sphere.

I can't be bothered. the black keys are closer, so I just use those.

oh how I love these music theory threads

the agreeing...the disagreeing

those akward moments in-between that remind one that one does still have a pulse