Do I need to know any more theory or do I know enough?

[_leras]

why I made this topic? I don't know. Maybe to see how much other people know who make songs here, maybe to validate I know enough already,

You know enough already to make songs with your current skills.

You'll learn and get better at the process by doing.

There's as much to learn in synthesis and production as there is in music theory.

Some electronic music has no real music theory at all.

If you really want to learn music theory, try learning piano or guitar and it'll transfer to what you're doing.

[NKF]

***

Which, in turn, brings to mind John Williams.
I wonder what was his level of theoretical knowledge at the time he became a professional film composer - and, in context of KvR, whether jancivil would find flaws in his skills or methods, at any stage of his career

He came at the tail end of the golden era. He had what you would consider a professional level of understanding. Enough to understand , and recreate everything that came before. This was the standard for that era.

[harryupbabble]

probably no you don't need it...
if you are making punk music
or anything like that

no offense to punk music
or anything like that
big fan of the ramones here

[jancivil]

Regarding that video by Tim Shoebridge, here's what I think:

The "compositional device" type of knowledge is what (may) allow a learner to go beyond initial personal comfort zones, and work towards results which would have been inconceivable from just fumbling around.

Conversely, just fumbling around - that is, being unconsciously guided by one's tools, inspirations and expectations - can lead to discoveries which might have been inconceivable from pre-existing theoretical perspectives.

So the approaches are not exclusive; rather, they complement eachother.

You and I watched radically different videos somehow.
That's an approach?

Which, in turn, brings to mind John Williams.
I wonder what was his level of theoretical knowledge at the time he became a professional film composer - and, in context of KvR, whether jancivil would find flaws in his skills or methods, at any stage of his career

I opened this quoted post up because I hoped for better "context" for the name drop. Unfortunately albeit unsurprisingly I doubt it's more than I have found flaws in your approach. Which is to be fair, unlike Mr. Shoebridge's, an approach.

When someone says they're just fumbling around, they are doing one of two things with that.
1) is being modest or self-deprecating; at one end of a range putting others at ease to, at the other end false modesty. 2) might well be taken literally.

"discoveries which might have been inconceivable from pre-existing theoretical perspectives."
Sigh. I would recommend reading this sentence back to yourself.

[jancivil]

I hate that I'd bet that needs explaining.
Pre-existing and discovery are two things not typically in strong agreement.

I'm not your strawman or anything remotely in proximity to

[N__K]

I opened this quoted post up because I hoped for better "context" for the name drop. [...]

I admit, the context for namedropping was perhaps far-fetched.

That said - and beside this topic as it may be - it would be fun to see you criticize methods and works of someone closer to your skill level. And I mean it in a positive way, seeing that you seem to be one of the few people on KvR who can read a John Williams orchestral score and understand everything that's going on, both in terms of terminology, theory, roots/influences and probably also the practice.

"discoveries which might have been inconceivable from pre-existing theoretical perspectives."
Sigh. I would recommend reading this sentence back to yourself.

I did.

What I mean is that some discoveries are small-ish developments of something that was already well described in theories, and others are much less traceable to anything that was codified before.

As an example of the former might be the melodic trance genre. It's main themes usually follow tonal conventions, and it's one of those genres where reading a book on 300 years old theories might actually help to make a current-era hit. Heck, some trance tracks are outright replaying classical era compositions. The novel thing in those cases is mostly "done on a synth", and possibly while "slowly opening the cutoff of LP filter" - with the latter almost certainly inherited from acid house.

Speaking of which...

A famous example of discovery less traceable to anything pre-existing is usage of TB-303 in acid house (and everything inspired by that). The device was supposedly conceived as an imitation of bass guitar player, for purposes of practicing or somesuch, and was not successful in that role. Then DJs started buying it for cheap and playing repetitive patterns on its internal sequencer as main content of their tracks, while changing the filter cutoff parameter over length of several patterns. Almost certainly that was not the use case imagined at the point of device's invention, nor could guidance to that kind of usage be found anywhere in 1980s theory books.

Another example which is hard to trace to any codified music theories is those dubstep growl basses - not the ones done by the usual filter cutoff wobble, but the ones done with wavescanning of a wavetable (or via specific settings of FM synthesis). The method combined with the aesthetic context was genuinely novel, and there were no guides to that (as far as I know) before it became popular and more people figured out how it was done.


Am I making it any clearer there?

[jancivil]

you no longer have to wonder

In 1948, the Williams family moved to Los Angeles where John attended North Hollywood High School, graduating in 1950. He later attended the University of California, Los Angeles, and studied composition privately with the Italian composer Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco.[16] Williams also attended Los Angeles City College for one semester, as the school had a Studio Jazz Band.[17] In 1951, Williams joined the U.S. Air Force, where he played the piano and brass and conducted and arranged music for the U.S. Air Force Band as part of his assignments.[18][19] In a 2016 interview with the U.S. Air Force Band, he recounted having attended basic training at Lackland Air Force Base, after which he served as a pianist and brass player, with secondary duties of making arrangements for three years.[20] In March 1952, he was assigned to the Northeast Air Command 596th Air Force Band, stationed at Pepperrell Air Force Base in St. John's, Newfoundland.[21] He also attended music courses at the University of Arizona as part of his service.[22]

In 1955, following his Air Force service, Williams moved to New York City and entered the Juilliard School, where he studied piano with Rosina Lhévinne.[16] He was originally set on becoming a concert pianist, but after hearing contemporary pianists like John Browning and Van Cliburn perform he switched his focus to composition.[23] During this time Williams worked as a jazz pianist in the city's many jazz clubs.


funnily enough it was a deep and abiding interest

[jancivil]

Leaving alone this "theoretical perspectives", which is a field one ideally needs to embark on first before lecturing.

Staying with the tried and true doesn't even produce interesting academic writing on theory AFAIC.
Confer the one thread I started, regarding Brett Clements' Modal Tonicization in Rock - The Special Case of the Lydian Scale
Something novel may have been discovered, defying this 'tried and true' or certainly questioning it.

Wouldn't happy accidents be happier informed by our deeper consideration of (our entire fabric)?

You seem to want a jancivil to stand in for your idea notion of composers that do something drastically different than what I do (or anyone does). So gracias por su permiso, granting us our compositional device...

[jancivil]

What strikes me as passing strange is the abrupt modulation from myself vis a vis KVR Music Theory board to would I diss John Williams' theoretical approach or whatsit. As I honestly have no idea how anyone would proceed from hearing John Williams' music to have any particular insight , I mean past the guess, 'Oh, I'm sure he is schooled'. I can say I think the more you know of the background the more interest probably accrues.

Nobody I've criticized for - let's get real, specifically wrong things said in a fact-rich environment ie., this subforum - their particular whatsit is at all like this other thing, an insanely famous top professional composer.

I'm not so much a fan. I don't have anything to talk about. I'm not a fan of the great majority of Common Practice Period music either. Is it supposed as suiting me to disagree with composers, or what? My interest in Beethoven almost doesn't exist chronologically before Moonlight. No, it's teh Late Beethoven for me (cue yer "Elitist! J'accuse!" here). I recognize the greatness quite outside my own tastes.

I'm on about an idea of one Brett Clements of Ball State presently. I don't agree with all of his doctorate. So? It's work I respect and I'm not going to see any upside to pursue my niggles.

I never studied counterpoint formally in any way shape or form. Now, one could call that a deficiency (as Clement does with Frank Zappa and as pertains to counterpoint funnily enough) and it doesn't suit to argue that either. He'll have a point as regards me, teenage FZ writing to Varese of his interest in the "atonal counterpoint" of Ruth Crawford (Seeger) is another whole ballgame.
I actively disliked the pre-tonal contrapuntal Church Polyphony and my chops are poor here. Oh but what is one to do?
Well I don't reckon I'll plant my foot directly in my mouth.

[N__K]

[...]
You seem to want a jancivil to stand in for your idea notion of composers that do something drastically different than what I do (or anyone does). [...]

Not really, as far as I can see my intentions.

Thanks for replies in any case.

[kelvyn]

Whatever gets you where you want to go, wether it’s with a sound theoretical base or just fumbling along until you find whatever it is that makes you or your people smile is fine, they are no rules in music just guidelines. Whereas If you are an electrician - or something like that - then a sound knowledge of how AC/DC works will prevent you from electrocution. In music - especially with modern technology - two fingers and half an idea will get you over the hurdle if that’s your preferred modus operandi, no need for theory.
Case in question: I have avoided theory since I started composing and have stayed well away from it since. Been the main composer in every band I was in - made albums for major labels - and since the eighties have been a successful composer for commercials- without knowing anything about the theory of harmony etc…. Nothing! Was voted the ‘Best Advertising Composer’ in Germany in 2021 with a piece based on the style of Frank Sinatra. I just played - with two fingers - what I felt was needed for the composition, Irving Berlin did the same. If I need a player with a sound theoretical background I find someone - much like the Beatles did with George Martin - who can fill in the gaps, but that doesn’t happen very often. Ultimately it’s all in your head, follow a spark until it combusts into something tangible.
I also find that a lot of musicians become trapped by the rules they impose on themselves due to what they have learnt and breaking free into new forms becomes terribly uncomfortable for them. If theory is helpful then why not but a lack of theory doesn’t mean you can’t be a great composer, arranger, musician.
Different strokes for different folks.

[Farnaby]

I suspect you know quite a lot of theory if you have done everything you claim - you just don't realise that you do

[jackdnp121]

you can Never stop learning n improving ... music is a life time job

[bdiu]

I struggle with this subject too. Knowing “enough” music theory is entirely dependent on what you are trying to accomplish. For me, I want to make music I like and be able to play and understand music I like. Sadly, music “I like” is such a moving target and mood dependent. Sometimes I like a basic progression until I hate it 30 minutes later. Sigh…

[FranklyFlawless]

Music is more of an intellectual challenge for me at this point. I explore my understanding of music theory to further my tonal palette, then experimentally perform it for my own sake and refine it from there. I make a very clear distinction between the music I consume against the music I produce, so that my path towards musical proficiency remains unabated.