How useful is theory, and musical education

[the_nihilist]

Theory is completely indispensible when collaborating. It's just a much more reliable way of getting good results, if you can say to someone "just solo in E phrygian" rather than saying "do some flamenco-sounding thing".

Usually I'm telling guitarists to STOP doing that.

[IIRs]

Music Theory is like a map.

You don't need it if you are happy where you are, or if you are going the same place you go every day.

If you are trying to find some place you never went to before you probably will need it... though if you have a really good sense of direction you might be able to manage without.

[Hink]

thats a very specific timeframe for moving considering its quite far off.
most people would say "im moving to wherever next year".

either way, no trees to hug in new england?

yeah but I live in Lowell



Maine is what I was raised with, trees, lakes and ocean...and no it's not specific for being so far off...of course shit happens so who knows...but my lease expires in june....I wouldn't of signed this year if it weren't for dad...next year I'm leaving this horrible state...they would charge me 2k to break my lease (even though I have lived here over 10 years)...so I'll wait...but no way is Lauren going beyond the 5th grade in this city (a lot of gangs)...she needs to grow up in the country like I did, not this city...

[Ford Prefect]

How useful? It slices, it dices, it juliennes all for only 19.99! And if you order now, you'll get this handy dandy buttscratcher at no additional charge!

[vurt]

Music Theory is like a map.

You don't need it if you are happy where you are, or if you are going the same place you go every day.

If you are trying to find some place you never went to before you probably will need it... though if you have a really good sense of direction you might be able to manage without.

your one of those lucky people tho dan, you have the knowledge and a soul, whenever ive heard you play its not like listening to a lesson, if ya get what i mean?
some players are so locked into the theory they often sound clinical and lifeless.
plus you also have an open mind when it comes to none theory based music, theres none of the pomposity when weve met up you seem to enjoy most of what is presented aurally

[herodotus]

Music Theory is like a map.

You don't need it if you are happy where you are, or if you are going the same place you go every day.

If you are trying to find some place you never went to before you probably will need it... though if you have a really good sense of direction you might be able to manage without.

Hi!

Although I have no quarrel with you whatsoever, I am afraid that your well written post makes the perfect springboard for an extended rant.

Because it is my considered opinion that music theory as it is commonly practiced and understood is a pretty crappy map of todays musical world.

Theory is ok when it comes to describing chords and their use in tonal music. Of course there is nothing remotely like a standardized terminology or methodology; and revered texts are often glaringly inconsistent with each other; but still, if you go through two years of theory courses at most universities you will have at least some useful knowledge concerning harmony.

But standard theory tells you very little about rhythm and meter. This isn't because they are 'more primal' or because they 'can't be taught' or anything like that, but because this is a glaring weak point in contemporary music theory.

Stravinsky wrote his 'Rite of Spring'over 90 years ago and there is still nothing like a serious attempt to understand what in hell is going on in that piece of music in terms of rhythm and meter.

Worse, a piece of music as old as Ockeghem's Missa Prolationem (c. 1460) is still a mystery as far as contemporary music theory is concerned.

And of course, non western musical traditions from Bali to Cuba with all of their rhythmic intracacies are similarly suffering from theoretical neglect.

Don't take my word for it. Go through some back issues of the Musical Quarterly or the Journal of Music Theoryand prove me wrong. It would thrill me.

And the same goes for timbre.

For all of the genius of the modern symphony orchestra as a musical instrument, the fact is that composers for this instrument are, quite literally, a bunch of 'preset whores'. They concern themselves with the combination of musical sounds, which consist of specific pitches played by a selection of instruments. The creation and manipulation of the sounds themselves is never really considered.

It is hard to fault traditional theory for not studying the difference between a 2 pole resonant bandpass filter and an allpass filter, but the fact remains that things like filters do actually have a fundamental involvement in almost all of the music that is listened to by people on a daily basis. And theory texts don't even mention their existence, apparantly because that is the province of another department at the university.

The fact is that theory isn't a science the way cartography is.

It is a few misunderstood acoustical principles, that were eulogized by a semi-mythical figure (Pythagoras), treated fetishistically by generations of ecclesiastics, codified into rules meant for a tuning system (just intonation) that is employed by considerably less than 1% of all musicians today, and which rules were poorly adapted to the modern tempered scale by various people who are rarely in agreement with each other and none of whom are anything like scientists.

If there is a cartography of music, it is in the future.

Like, way in the future

[rp314]

Stravinsky wrote his 'Rite of Spring'over 90 years ago and there is still nothing like a serious attempt to understand what in hell is going on in that piece of music in terms of rhythm and meter.

Very interesting and provocative post.

However, is the claim about theory aimed mostly at its most basic forms? When we look at the rhythmically complex works of composers like Nancarrow, Boulez, Xenakis and Messiaen, to cite a few from the second half of the 20th century, were they not the result of the composers' study of music theory as well as of the works of people like Stravinsky and Varese? Does the proof need to come from the work of all composers or average composers?

I think that throughout history there have been musicians like Wagner, who loved the work of those before him, studied it profoundly and then did his own thing. It's just not clear to me that the text books of his time should be expected to reflect the complete wisdom of the discipline, let alone a full understanding of his creative contributions.

In that sense, in art theory may always be a foundation rather than a set of prescriptions.

[soulata]

1. Does a formal musical education help or hinder? Is it only useful for certain genres of music, and are there genres of music where a lack of musical education is an advantage?

It helps, you need a decent teacher though, he's got to be active musician so he can explain it to you in terms of usability as well. Lack of education is never an advantage (IMO), theory knowledge is only being a disadvantage when you follow it blindly, but that's your choice.

2. Could we all benefit from having a broader taste in music?

sure

3. If there are any good books that anyone would recommend, what are they and why? Not just books on musical theory, etc., but books that might make you think differently about how music is played (what about someone's biography for example?)?

Mark Levine - Music Theory
Various biographies, Miles, Zappa,...Peter Guralnick's books on music

[soulata]

Because it is my considered opinion that music theory as it is commonly practiced and understood is a pretty crappy map of todays musical world.

It's not complete, never will be, can't be. But it still helps.

But standard theory tells you very little about rhythm and meter. This isn't because they are 'more primal' or because they 'can't be taught' or anything like that, but because this is a glaring weak point in contemporary music theory.

agreed. I've got to say rhythm isn't well taught even at academy level. I've used some string quartets for recording and they have piss-poor rhythm skills (like can't follow the click and need a conductor to show them where the 1 is, and I'm not talking odd rhythms here).

I was really surprised seeing percussionists with ac. degree play with no groove at all. strictly notes.

hope your academies fare better.

k

p.s.: nothing against academies tho , I've a masters...



edit: now that I've gone thru all the answers in this thread...I second ugo.

[deastman]

Theory is completely indispensible when collaborating. It's just a much more reliable way of getting good results, if you can say to someone "just solo in E phrygian" rather than saying "do some flamenco-sounding thing".

Sounds just like my friend Brian:
http://www.flametal.com/pages/FRONT.html

[DWb]

But standard theory tells you very little about rhythm and meter. This isn't because they are 'more primal' or because they 'can't be taught' or anything like that, but because this is a glaring weak point in contemporary music theory.

agreed. I've got to say rhythm isn't well taught even at academy level. I've used some string quartets for recording and they have piss-poor rhythm skills (like can't follow the click and need a conductor to show them where the 1 is, and I'm not talking odd rhythms here).

I was really surprised seeing percussionists with ac. degree play with no groove at all. strictly notes.

That's a good point actually. As I said earlier in the thread, I'm all in favour of learning theory, but I do get pissed off by people who listen to music - which might be rhythmically and texturally amazing - and complain that it's boring because it doesn't contain any extended chords.

[xtp]

I would have liked to have had formal training but did not start playing until I was twenty (I had no interest in music when I was at school).

I have picked up a hodge podge of knowledge along the way. I rely on my ear for most things though I have picked up a basic knowledge along the way, and an interest in Jazz has helped.

I have one reference book on scales and modes which I have used for the last 2o years to identify what I am doing when I hear a new melody.

If I learn something new its generally because I can now hear and identify it whereas previously I could not.

[mistertoast]

>>That's a good point actually. As I said earlier in the thread, I'm all in favour of learning theory, but I do get pissed off by people who listen to music - which might be rhythmically and texturally amazing - and complain that it's boring because it doesn't contain any extended chords.

Yeah, that's annoying, but as someone who was subjected to a whole lotta Do-Wop 45s as a child, I can personally attest to the fact that the same old chord progressions can get old. Especially when you put them next to popular music that's being a bit wilder with chord progressions.

If V7 always goes to I, I might lose interest. A good composer will at least know what other people are doing with inverted chords that make the bassline better. Or what to do with a tritone substitution. Or when to borrow from minor keys when writing a song in a major key. Or what to do with a sus4. Or try interesting ways of getting from one key to another.

It doesn't have to be book learning. It can be creful observation of that other people do.

Like it or not, when a listener hears a V7, he's going to expect a I. It's what you do with that expectation that makes music theory worth something.

[DWb]

Yeah, that's annoying, but as someone who was subjected to a whole lotta Do-Wop 45s as a child, I can personally attest to the fact that the same old chord progressions can get old. Especially when you put them next to popular music that's being a bit wilder with chord progressions.

If V7 always goes to I, I might lose interest.

I'd lose interest if it was music where the chord progression is a key part of what's going on. I get a bit annoyed by mainstream trance because so much of the emphasis is on the uplifting chord progressions which tend to just recycle the same two ideas. On the other hand a lot of music - punk, jungle, reggae, minimal techno or whatever - has a lot of other stuff going on, so if it's good it doesn't matter that the chord progression is actually pretty basic.

But some people seem to be so caught up in western classical theory - ie harmony - as quantifying everything that can be interesting in music that if something isn't harmonically interesting, they can't find anything in it at all.

[mistertoast]

People are always trying new things. Nasty semitone riffs and tritones. Drones and pedals. New rhythms. Polyrhythms, new jack swing, reggae. I think it's just plain useful to know what people are doing.