as someone who's been through the academic mill (conservatory education) i'd like to offer my take on the question: should someone interested in making music get a solid foundation in theory: harmony, rhythm, notation, etc.?
in general, i'd say: yes.
learning theory can broaden your palette as a performer and songwriter, open new channels of expression, help you to find your personal voice. it's also extremely fascinating. if you've been making music intuitively for a long time, you'll probably be thrilled to learn what you've been doing from an analytical point of view. endorphin rush baybey!
but i'd also say: beware, there are risks involved.
there's no guarantee that learning theory will help you compose or play better. some great intuitive musicians are ruined (temporarily, at least) when they start engaging the analytical part of their brains to make music. it's a different ballgame, different rules, and to some extent different objectives.
i think everyone has to decide for himself/herself ... and then accept that decision and NOT feel insecure about it (if you choose not to study theory) or superior about it (if you choose to study). or vice-versa. both paths can lead to great music.
for me, personally, the best thing about having put years and years into learning music theory is that now i can choose to ignore it, without any guilt, and let my ears guide my music.
my take on learning music theory
-
- KVRAF
- 3726 posts since 30 Jan, 2005 from rochester, ny
-
Polite Company Polite Company https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=95393
- KVRian
- 1193 posts since 23 Jan, 2006 from wrapped up in the fuzz - Boston, MA!
I don't know if you've read any recent interviews w/ Keith Jarret but he has pretty much said thinking to much about his technique and 'voice' as much as ruined his music for a while.there's no guarantee that learning theory will help you compose or play better. some great intuitive musicians are ruined (temporarily, at least) when they start engaging the analytical part of their brains to make music. it's a different ballgame, different rules, and to some extent different objectives.
I agree that learning theory can be a great help, but thinking that knowing 'the rules' will make you a better musician is also a danger. The trick is to know all the rules and to know when not to follow them.
"Music is a hidden arithmetic exercise of the soul, which doesn't know that it is counting." - Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz
---
e to the i pi plus one equals zero
---
e to the i pi plus one equals zero
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3726 posts since 30 Jan, 2005 from rochester, ny
> Keith Jarret but he has pretty much said thinking to much about his technique and 'voice' as much as ruined his music for a while
what years? and i wonder if he feels it was worth it in the long run.
what years? and i wonder if he feels it was worth it in the long run.
-
Polite Company Polite Company https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=95393
- KVRian
- 1193 posts since 23 Jan, 2006 from wrapped up in the fuzz - Boston, MA!
I don't remember off the top of my head, it was in a recent Keyboard interview. If I recall correctly he wasn't down on theory he just thought he had fallen into a rut of playing in what he thought was 'his voice' before he got past it and outside his comfort zone, when he thought his stuff got better.rachmiel wrote:what years? and i wonder if he feels it was worth it in the long run.
"Music is a hidden arithmetic exercise of the soul, which doesn't know that it is counting." - Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz
---
e to the i pi plus one equals zero
---
e to the i pi plus one equals zero
-
- KVRAF
- 2217 posts since 15 Jul, 2003
any musician who grows goes through cycles
1) i want to do something
2) something like this
3) what do I need to know to really do that? I should work on those things
4) hey this is working; this is what I do
5) what should I do next? (see #1)
theory can be part of that cycle or not, but picking up anything new requires an integration phase or unlearning/relearning that may feel like slowing down
i would think it's really useful to figure out what suits ones temperament and way and pulling in that sort of new information that will advance what you can do.
historically that's been theory and I think just saying theory doesn't cover it -- because there's also historically been evolution in theory and if one studies theory (and certainly jazz theory) one will get a historical perspective from early blues based jazz to bebop to post bebop modern modal cluster stacks etc. that theory itself advances and outgrows theory as it develops, as music evolves and develops
and classical has the same historical thrust
theory isn't a static return to JS Bach
that's been done
Keith Jarrett must have reached the same conclusion that whatever he'd been doing, had been done
1) i want to do something
2) something like this
3) what do I need to know to really do that? I should work on those things
4) hey this is working; this is what I do
5) what should I do next? (see #1)
theory can be part of that cycle or not, but picking up anything new requires an integration phase or unlearning/relearning that may feel like slowing down
i would think it's really useful to figure out what suits ones temperament and way and pulling in that sort of new information that will advance what you can do.
historically that's been theory and I think just saying theory doesn't cover it -- because there's also historically been evolution in theory and if one studies theory (and certainly jazz theory) one will get a historical perspective from early blues based jazz to bebop to post bebop modern modal cluster stacks etc. that theory itself advances and outgrows theory as it develops, as music evolves and develops
and classical has the same historical thrust
theory isn't a static return to JS Bach
that's been done
Keith Jarrett must have reached the same conclusion that whatever he'd been doing, had been done
-
- KVRAF
- 1975 posts since 4 Feb, 2005
A musician should never feel the NEED to unlearn anything. If you feel this need, all that has happened is you have already inadvertently unlearned something and need to relearn it.
If you study diatonic harmony and feel it "restricts your use of chromatics", all you really did was unlearn whatever chromatic harmony you already knew.
rather than trying to "forget the rules", you should learn MORE theory. So when studying diatonic harmony, don't say "this restricts me, I should forget this theory", say "I wonder what exists beyond this?"
I know this discussion has sort of been done to death, but to put it another way:
When thinking about Music theory, it's tempting to think about it as a set of rules. "This is how you use chords", "this is how you work with rhythms", "This is what constitutes X or Y". This is a misleading approach that is often used in entry-level primers or discussions of the topic, and in many ways is helpful. If you are trying to compose, after all, it helps to think of the principles set forth in theory as guidelines or rules for creating effective music.
However, as the music you compose evolves outside the realm of 17th century classical principles you start to get the feeling that theory's rules are things best forgotten when not needed. This leads many people to discard theory whenever their limited knowledge of the subject is at a loss to explain a musically valid idea.
I find that it's better to think about theory as a product of music, not an initiator. There are an infinite number of musical consructs, ideas, etc. that work for an infinite number of reasons; whether or not they appear in a textbook does not change the fact that they work. Theory is about studying these constructs and figuring out WHY and HOW they work.
For example, Chromatic Mediants, when introduced by Romantic Era composers, did not fit the standard diatonic approaches to harmony of that day. Rather than simply "throw away" theory, as if it were rules that they were breaking, theorists studied these chords, their functions, and expanded upon the collective knowledge that makes up music theory itself.
Music Theory is like an encyclopedia of musical techniques. It explains what IS, it doesn't dictate what will be. And whenever a musical idea is come across that truly not in that encyclopedia (and I mean truly, since most everyone here, myself included, would probably find it if they had more than a couple of the volumes), the best thing to do is not to say "Theory doesn't get it", it's to add to that encyclopedia the knowledge you have acquired.
My $.02
If you study diatonic harmony and feel it "restricts your use of chromatics", all you really did was unlearn whatever chromatic harmony you already knew.
rather than trying to "forget the rules", you should learn MORE theory. So when studying diatonic harmony, don't say "this restricts me, I should forget this theory", say "I wonder what exists beyond this?"
I know this discussion has sort of been done to death, but to put it another way:
When thinking about Music theory, it's tempting to think about it as a set of rules. "This is how you use chords", "this is how you work with rhythms", "This is what constitutes X or Y". This is a misleading approach that is often used in entry-level primers or discussions of the topic, and in many ways is helpful. If you are trying to compose, after all, it helps to think of the principles set forth in theory as guidelines or rules for creating effective music.
However, as the music you compose evolves outside the realm of 17th century classical principles you start to get the feeling that theory's rules are things best forgotten when not needed. This leads many people to discard theory whenever their limited knowledge of the subject is at a loss to explain a musically valid idea.
I find that it's better to think about theory as a product of music, not an initiator. There are an infinite number of musical consructs, ideas, etc. that work for an infinite number of reasons; whether or not they appear in a textbook does not change the fact that they work. Theory is about studying these constructs and figuring out WHY and HOW they work.
For example, Chromatic Mediants, when introduced by Romantic Era composers, did not fit the standard diatonic approaches to harmony of that day. Rather than simply "throw away" theory, as if it were rules that they were breaking, theorists studied these chords, their functions, and expanded upon the collective knowledge that makes up music theory itself.
Music Theory is like an encyclopedia of musical techniques. It explains what IS, it doesn't dictate what will be. And whenever a musical idea is come across that truly not in that encyclopedia (and I mean truly, since most everyone here, myself included, would probably find it if they had more than a couple of the volumes), the best thing to do is not to say "Theory doesn't get it", it's to add to that encyclopedia the knowledge you have acquired.
My $.02
