So why DO people get so emotional about music theory topics?

[Rolphy]

Yup - and replying to forum topics requires no form of "english language theory" lol

It doesn't hurt to learn a bit of music theory if you are making music...

Yeh - Bach was total shit???

hmmmmmm

LOL

[rp314]

it's the two people who are the extremes of the opposite sides that get so emotional...you've got the chaps who are insecure about their lack of music theory and are afraid to learn it, and then the ones who took 7 years of dedicated education of theory and now are entitled to look down upon the mere cretens that live around them.

Well the insecurities are really in every group IMO. Every day conservatories around the world are turning out folks with plenty of expertise in music theory who for the most part will produce rather modest outputs and are generally aware of that. It isn't like there's some orchard out there that turns out geniuses like Charlie Parker or Igor Stravinsky.

As long as there is no clearly discernible vocational path to becoming a great musician, disagreements about the importance of music theory are likely to continue. That said, I find some of the arguments against it to be rather exaggerated.

[liqih]

learning many music styles is not learning a Music Theory,

no?

No.

Studying various styles and the musical qualities which make them what they are/make them function is EXACTLY what Music Theory is.

ok, that's Musicology to me not Music Theory, just a matter of terms

Code: Select all

Before this turns nasty, let me sort of recap the argument that's been made before:

You seem to be under the impression that "Music Theory" is a set of rules for writing stuffy 17th-century court classical pieces.

ehm.... nope, <grin>, there are many theories, like how they teach Jazz at Berkley for istance, you see that's not a way to understand the musical qualities, but a true method

This is not true, that is a very SMALL aspect of the grand world of Music Theory but one that is given more than it's due because it is usually the easiest to learn and chronologically a nice place to start, and so features in most introductory texts and lessons.

ok, I see it sounded like I'm against Music Theory,
that's not, I studied too, but the subject of the thread is : (see above) and my answer is "Music Theory is (like all theories) dangerous,
as it happens to put bounds where there are none just to explain something in non musical terms"

and people get emotional about where to put those bounds,
just like a religion

[Toxikator]

I would argue that Music Theory has nothing at all to do with placing bounds. It's less like religion and more like science; there are areas, I'm sure, that Music Theory education hasn't touched on in a satisfactory way but that doesn't mean that there ISN'T a theory to that music and that it's "secrets" will eventually be unlocked and studied.

BTW:
Musicology is the scholarly study of music and music history.

Music theory is a field of study that investigates the nature or mechanics of music.

[liqih]

I would argue that Music Theory has nothing at all to do with placing bounds. It's less like religion and more like science; there are areas, I'm sure, that Music Theory education hasn't touched on in a satisfactory way but that doesn't mean that there ISN'T a theory to that music and that it's "secrets" will eventually be unlocked and studied.

BTW:
Musicology is the scholarly study of music and music history.

Music theory is a field of study that investigates the nature or mechanics of music.

IMHO you can investigates the nature or mechanics of sound,
not of music which is an Art,
could you investigate the nature or mechanics of painting?

beside that IMHO science places bounds as well and need to be updated, Tolomeo, Galileo, Newton, Einstein

(interesting discussion thanks, <grin>)

[eduardo_b]

Musicology is the scholarly study of music and music history.

Music theory is a field of study that investigates the nature or mechanics of music.

I would imagine that to varying degrees, musicology might include music theory as it relates to the evolution of music over time. Which brings up the issue of the complexity of music theory.

For those who find music theory easily comprehensible and even enjoyable, the myriad of details presents no impediment. But many will find the complexity overwhelming and simply too much to cope with.

So, the question is, how difficult must music theory be in order to be of value? Which is to say, could there be several levels of difficulty, with the least difficult for those who simply want more knowledge, but aren't trying to write symphonies or avant-garde compositions?

[liqih]

sorry, more about "placing bounds",

when I write that I think in italian as this is my mother language, but in this international forum, which use english
as universal language, "placing bounds" may sound diffeernt from what I think.

What I mean is that when you try to explain something you
MUST put bounds to what you are saying or writing otherwise
you can't explain nothing, that's a comunication law,

we all use conventions to comunicate and when you try to explain something new you have to invent new conventions and thus new limits as bound to you message otherwise nobody will understand it a reproducible way, clear?

Now music is "ethereal" by definition, it happens,
you can record it and you put bounds: bandwidth, noise, sampleRate etc...

you may explain a part of its "nature", that's right you must choose a "part", and use bounds again,


hoping it's clearer now

[liqih]

So, the question is, how difficult must music theory be in order to be of value? Which is to say, could there be several levels of difficulty, with the least difficult for those who simply want more knowledge, but aren't trying to write symphonies or avant-garde compositions?

I think it's like that, one starts with the basics of a music system and then can expand in several directions,
deeper in the system and towards other systems

[Chuck E. Jesus]

For the jillionth time: Music theory is not about telling you what to do, but rather telling you what you're doing.

can music theory tell you what i'm doing right now?








sorry...carry on...

[Kingston]

why not argue over learning the alphabet or maths? the main issue would not change a bit ie. my cock is bigger than yours.

[WoJ]

"i have a cunning plan, my lord..."

SHUT UP! and make some music!

[nuffink]

why not argue over learning the alphabet or maths? the main issue would not change a bit ie. my cock is bigger than yours.

Nope. That's not what's going on here. Is that what you thought about school too? Just a bunch of teachers trying to prove they were cleverer than you?

[MotorMind]

Well?

Good question. I find that people who understand music theory - if even only part of it - generally make more interesting music than those who don't. There are exceptions of course, but those are far and in between. I am always amazed by people who insist on not learning anything about the theory, since knowing your stuff is a great way not to get stuck in mannerisms. It also doesn't have to be that hard, really... you can go a long way by knowing a few scales and their relationships, for instance. You can start out simple and expand your knowledge bit by bit.

Of course I really had a pressing reason for learning music theory: as a bass player in jazz bands you have to know it well, if only to communicate with other band members. But now I find it highly usable for my electronic music as well.

[Toxikator]

we all use conventions to comunicate and when you try to explain something new you have to invent new conventions and thus new limits as bound to you message otherwise nobody will understand it a reproducible way, clear?

While a valid statement it's akin to saying that taking a cooking class is a waste of time because "flavor" is just as ethereal as "music" and by discussing it you must place bounds on it.

In fact, I'm not sure that's true at all. Yes, something is "lost in the translation" from music to a discussion thereof but it's gained back in recreation. The beauty of a chord progression vanishes when it's written as a series of letters but returns when that series of letters is reconstructed.

[Toxikator]

I would imagine that to varying degrees, musicology might include music theory as it relates to the evolution of music over time. Which brings up the issue of the complexity of music theory.

An oft-debated point, and the defenitions are a bit unclear.

Musicology, as I understand it, is the external study of music; how it reflects and affects cultures, arts, sciences, etc. throughout time and history.

Music Theory, conversely, is the internal study of music; how it functions and operates as an art and a science.

The two do overlap but I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that one includes the other...