Rant on music theory ignorance.

[the_nihilist]

Alright, I feel the need to start a topic on this, because I keep running into beginners making electronic music online that all have the same opinion -- that music theory is bollocks.

Of course, I reply politely to these people that this is simply not the case, that music theory is not bollocks, that it serves a purpose, can expand your sound, and lets you really understand music. Upon this, a small flamewar usually ensues, and some heated words are exchanged from both sides.

Among the primary arguments of the people who militantly refuse to learn music theory, the most prominent one is that if they learn theory, they're going to "sound like everyone else" (you won't). A few other ones are "I can learn it better if I just teach myself." and "my shit is so experimental [read: awful] that it doesn't need music theory!" (haha). Now, I would go alot easier on these people if their music was actually worth listening to. By and large though, its absolutely terrible stuff, and its clearly evident that they had no clue what they were doing. I know this is pretty subjective territory, but still, it was plainly evident.

Anyways, it just annoys me when people are so steadfastly ignorant when it comes to trying to learn about music. Oh, and the best quote from talking to one of these people:

"Music theory is for talentless musicians!"

[Kim Lajoie]

The Composition Thread.

-Kim.

[No name]

I feel like an old man in these parts sometimes. I realized the importance of music theory, though at this point in time I cannot get into more stuff because I have quite a lot of refreshing to do for college for the end of the year. Why I say I feel like an old timer is that you hear old people saying "well, we walked through 2 feet of snow for four miles to school every morning!" Then the younger people disregard it. Same goes for music theory, I taught myself for nearly 7 years as of february everything I know, I never got into music theory because everything just came to me when I got to put my hands on it and mess with stuff. I took a tough road. Now though, I got a book on chords and harmony and it just taught me so much, opened so many paths to me. Everything I learned was off a computer, hardware! We had it tough with hardware! See I sounded like an old man. Anybody who says theory doesn't help though obviously hasn't been creating music for very long. A phrase I read out of my chords and harony book goes something like....
When you know all the rules, it is then that you know when and where to break them! It is quite a true remark, especially with music and music theory.


You durn whippersnappers!!!

[androidlove]

my theory is - play what sounds good. music means too much to me to take it seriously

[Katanaman]

I wouldn't refuse to learn music theory. It IS always helpful. But I don't think it helps you REALLY understand music. Music is a very abstract art. Theory only helps you see the technical side of things, not understand them. I don't feel the need to learn music theory for the same reason as androidlove. I just play whatever sounds good. Music isn't a science. It would certainly be helpful, but I don't think it would be as helpful as you claim it to be.

[deastman]

I have some knowledge of music theory (its hard to get through ten years of piano lessons without picking up a little bit), but just the basics. I've tried to work my way through theory books in the 20 years since ending my lessons. When I sit down at the piano to improvise, however, it all goes out the window and I just let my hands wander... probably because it just requires less effort!

A friend of mine is an amazing guitarist, and he is constantly aware of the theory behind every note he improvises. He says that he often likes to play outside of the key that the rest of the band is playing Pretty impressive from my limited perspective.

I can't understand how knowledge of music theory, or anything else for that matter, could limit you. Knowledge is a good thing!

[lawapa]

Education will not make a stupid person smart or a smart person stupid.

<"my shit is so experimental [read: awful] that it doesn't need music theory!" (haha).>

These compositions do fall outside conventional lines. So he might be right. But that limits him to that area and if he decides to grow he will find the need to learn more. This is good. Because what we want is learned, as we can better understand the concepts behind the theory. Teaching someone who can't see why is pointless. When the time is right if your hungry you will see the need and act.

[dystonia_ek]

Theoretically (ahem) music theory is one of many means to an end, and of course it can be helpful. Too bad that end is usually that horrible, lifeless, TV-sports-theme music or fake funk that seems to be the enduring legacy of most overtrained session players who try to go solo, and not, say, Penderecki's 'St Luke Passion'...

[rpc9943]

i personally can't understand music theory. I've tried. I hate it. I dont care what it means. To me, it's almost like ... I don't know, learning a foreign language. You can learn all this stuff, but if you go and live amongst the people and learn the language yourself... I dont know. I work from the dirt up, everything by ear. I'm weird.

RonC

[FaX]

Alright, I feel the need to start a topic on this, because I keep running into beginners making electronic music online that all have the same opinion -- that music theory is bollocks.

Of course, I reply politely to these people that this is simply not the case, that music theory is not bollocks, that it serves a purpose, can expand your sound, and lets you really understand music. Upon this, a small flamewar usually ensues, and some heated words are exchanged from both sides.

Among the primary arguments of the people who militantly refuse to learn music theory, the most prominent one is that if they learn theory, they're going to "sound like everyone else" (you won't). A few other ones are "I can learn it better if I just teach myself." and "my shit is so experimental [read: awful] that it doesn't need music theory!" (haha). Now, I would go alot easier on these people if their music was actually worth listening to. By and large though, its absolutely terrible stuff, and its clearly evident that they had no clue what they were doing. I know this is pretty subjective territory, but still, it was plainly evident.

Anyways, it just annoys me when people are so steadfastly ignorant when it comes to trying to learn about music. Oh, and the best quote from talking to one of these people:

"Music theory is for talentless musicians!"

Hmmm I'm sitting on the fence on this one for one very simple reason .
I know several people who shall "remain nameless" who have extremely pro-end setups and hardware rig's in the 20-$30,000 ballpark.
This is not including the TDM rigs and computer control surfaces / dsp cards to match.
Now these people have gear most of us would give their left nutt for and are incapable of composing anything that does NOT sound like it came from a PSR/Bontempi or High end Casio auto-arranging keyboard.
My point being the compositional arguement is totally as problematic at either end of the spectrum.
Their will be people with theory who are great players who will always be shit programmers and composers.
Just as many as their would be "self taught" musicians of different music levels who are in all reality utter shite also.
Actual talent and theoretical knowledge have never been musically inclusive.
So I do agree with aspects of your post on a certain level.
A basic yet rounded knowledge minimum of notation and how and why it works.
Rythmic structure and composition including polyrythmic and polymeteric composition (especially for those of you who like to experiment).
Basic key scales.
A knowledge of how chords are structured harmonically and how fundamental rules can help you work out notes and chords in any key from say a thorough knowledge of all aspects of C major.
Major vs Minor keys , 7ths / 5ths / inversions , extensions etc.
Primary rules of tension and release in composition.
Meter , tempo and an understanding of simple things like legato , pizziacato etc etc in compositional terms.
All these are basic but I would feel relaitvely important to have at least a rudimentary understanding of.
I would never dismiss the point that an aquisition of knowledge is bad for your music.
However you appear to argue that all theoretically taught musicians are better musicians.
Which starts your whole arguement off on a premise of a lie.

[sontrinh80]

Since when did learning something become a bad thing? And really.. learning music theory will make you sound like everyone else? Does learning the English language make you sound like everyone else? And everyone says I play what sounds good.. thats great and all but anyone can just sound good. to put it in perspective, try to get someone who doesn't know music theory to write music on the level of Beethoven, Mozart, etc. I specify classical music because they don't use today's technology to sound good. And hell, lots of people are using music theory even if they don't know it. Rhythm, an integral part of dance music, is part of music theory and guitarists who only know chords... thats basic harmony. come on people.. even dr. dre knows music theory. any producer worth his salt knows music theory. yes, even pvd, oakenfold ,tiesto, and all them big dance djs know a lil bit of theory. how do i know? cause all their songs are on key!

if you love writing music, wouldn't you try anything that could possibly HELP you write better music?

and dont think modern day music ABAB is the full extent of music theory. youve got twelve tone, eastern scales, and so much more. it just so happens that most pop songs use simple theory cause that's what makes the most money.. simplicity

[Hink]

Alright, I feel the need to start a topic on this, because I keep running into beginners making electronic music online that all have the same opinion -- that music theory is bollocks.

Of course, I reply politely to these people that this is simply not the case, that music theory is not bollocks, that it serves a purpose, can expand your sound, and lets you really understand music. Upon this, a small flamewar usually ensues, and some heated words are exchanged from both sides.

Among the primary arguments of the people who militantly refuse to learn music theory, the most prominent one is that if they learn theory, they're going to "sound like everyone else" (you won't). A few other ones are "I can learn it better if I just teach myself." and "my shit is so experimental [read: awful] that it doesn't need music theory!" (haha). Now, I would go alot easier on these people if their music was actually worth listening to. By and large though, its absolutely terrible stuff, and its clearly evident that they had no clue what they were doing. I know this is pretty subjective territory, but still, it was plainly evident.

Anyways, it just annoys me when people are so steadfastly ignorant when it comes to trying to learn about music. Oh, and the best quote from talking to one of these people:

"Music theory is for talentless musicians!"

you know you gotta point, but perhaps you're looking at it from the wrong angle...tell me if you knew where the goose that laid the golden eggs was and no one would believe you....would you care?....

[mark77]

in my opinion something more important than music theory is having AN EAR for music. And when you HAVE AN EAR for the style of music that you make, then the world is your oyster. Yes of course u have to know the basics, and u need experience, but there will come a time when u can produce professional quality music and progressions on your own. U just have to have a 'feel' for it. And that feel comes naturally to some people, and its also something you cant teach, you either have it or you dont. That is also what separates true artists from wannabes.

[cron]

Too bad that end is usually that horrible, lifeless, TV-sports-theme music or fake funk that seems to be the enduring legacy of most overtrained session players who try to go solo, and not, say, Penderecki's 'St Luke Passion'...

Couldn't have said it better. I'm by no means a total slouch on the theory front, but it strikes me as terribly sad when very well trained musicians exclaim "Ooh! 12 part canon!". I know a few people who judge pieces of music solely by the number of 'party tricks' stuffed into them.

Incidentally, there's a rich (albeit relatively recent) history of theory in experimental (read: awful) music. Try Schaeffer's Solfege de l'Objet Sonore for a beautifully thought out, intelligent treatise on musique concrete theory through categorisation of sounds. Stockhausen has done some excellent work in this department also.

[dystonia_ek]

Incidentally, there's a rich (albeit relatively recent) history of theory in experimental (read: awful) music. Try Schaeffer's Solfege de l'Objet Sonore for a beautifully thought out, intelligent treatise on musique concrete theory through categorisation of sounds. Stockhausen has done some excellent work in this department also.

Familiar with both, prefer Schaeffer to Stockhausen, prefer Xenakis to both of the above.
Tod Dockstader did that sort of thing to a very advanced degree in the 60's without any theory at all, though.