Theory v. practice

[jancivil]

For anyone just starting out, looking for information to get some knowledge behind, maybe it's instructive to know that Music Theory exists as a way to explain what's generally accepted to have worked, in the past, IE: 'sounded good'.

As an end in itself, it might exist to give employment, or an interesting hobby, to someone who loves music too much to leave it alone, much less to have to find another gig.

When there is a rule book, there is a practice period which that 'book' explains, eg., Baroque, Mannheim School, late Romantic chromatic style, serialism. If you are trying to get it right in terms of these schools, especially if you have to be graded by a professor, you have to know this stuff. If you are trying to make music qua music, maybe not so much.

Here's an interesting anecdote:

"Zappa... bought a copy of H.A. Clarke's Counterpoint: Strict and Free (1928), the second page of which began: 'Never write any of the following successions...', then gave musical examples with explanations. 'Numbers 1 and 2 are very harsh...' The intervals were F and A, a major third, expanding to E and B, a perfect fifth. Clarke... said you could not write [...], a major third, expanding to [...] a perfect fifth. Frank played them on the piano.

Why? Why can't we do this? This sounds great!

He never read any further."


Now, mainly because I thought, eg., J.S. Bach and F. Chopin sounded 'pretty good', I went much further than this basic sort of theory text. That isn't to say my thing sounds better than FZ's, by any means.


I hope this is useful to someone, and not strictly-from-argumentative.

[vurt]

im not sure it is a versus thing, is one "better" than the other?
doesnt it depend on what the individual is setting out to achieve?
some people have a heavy base in theory and are for want of a better phrase "sterile" when it comes to playing, some people i know practice daily and to hear them you think "wow". put even the simplest piece of sheet music in front of them they have no idea...
some people just get on wqith it and dont worry so much what others think, others need to be seen to be knowledgable...

[sloworm]

Its good to practice with a knowledge of the theory.

[Emerald Tablet]

theorise your theory

or preach

or so

[jancivil]

im not sure it is a versus thing, is one "better" than the other?
doesnt it depend on what the individual is setting out to achieve?
some people have a heavy base in theory and are for want of a better phrase "sterile" when it comes to playing, some people i know practice daily and to hear them you think "wow". put even the simplest piece of sheet music in front of them they have no idea...
some people just get on wqith it and dont worry so much what others think, others need to be seen to be knowledgable...

Ayup.

I thought I covered 'depend on what the individual is setting out to achieve' in my OP. IE: If you want to sound like Bach, et al, you learn the guidelines just that thoroughly.

I lived next to a guy, who was the go-to guy on ANY pitched percussion, in the whole Bay Area. SF Symphony included, which is world-class. Couldn't improvise really at all, couldn't play a kit of drums... but was a good guy to talk music with; he didn't have a lot to prove though. In his field, he was the shit.

I had a heavy base in theory, and so I know what to look for in certain contexts. I had a teacher once tell us, very emphatically, 'not a good idea at all to try and write looking at a book in your hand'.

the only comp course I took (outside of electronic music) was a strict serialism thing, which style I can improvise quite handily in, because it was strict. I don't make things out of 'rows', tho', and I quit the course before I had to present for a grade, because I don't believe in that sort of thing.

[Tony Ostinato]

oh for sure, most of modern music uses an interval that at one time was banned by the church.

literally a good player/arranger can make any chord progression sound good and have context.

i think instead of jumping headfirst into classical theory people would do good to get some of the "real books", jazz fake books that have lead lines and chord progressions, many of them including zappa songs. i think some even have them in zappas own handwriting.

zappa was a good conductor also, as seen on saturday night live, he knew all the legit motions that youre supposed to use for the meters. a lotta guys just go up and down or somethin theyre just semiconductors.

the thing about theory and reading i always say is no you dont need it if youre working alone, you can literally hunt and peck at notes for as long as you want to get results.

its working in groups, and especially larger groups it becomes more handy for getting things done really fast.

basically the less you read the more you reherse, if you read great you may not have to reherse at all, if you dont read youre lookin at a lot of rehersals. long rehersals where you have to go over the stuff again the next rehersal because of everything people forgot. then they try to make rehersals fun by bringin beer etc. which is fine but good luck with the show.

people try to divide ear and theory, and clearly they arent. guy shows up to a jam session gets up on stage with a little theory and ear he doesnt have to ask what key theyre in he immediately fits in and can take solos that fit etc. without ear and theory you might get into a situation where you think it sounds good and noone else does.

i just think of theory as more of a language than a set of laws.

[me109]

A good knowledge of theory allows you to create more effectively the sound that you want. There are many more options open to you. Instead of pure trial and error to choose chords and voicings, for example, you already have an idea going in of what you want to experiment with.

The idea is to learn the rules established centuries ago and see how more modern composers bent and broke those rules, eventually establishing new ones, and eventually eliminating many. But to ignore the wealth of accumulated knowledge in music theory is like trying to build a house without power tools.

[buscemi]

I prefer to learn the rules before I break them (exactly how my mentor put it when I was studying music, so I'm biased) but YMMV. Whatever gets you to making music that is what you hear in your heard I suppose.

[stimresp]

You need basic theory as a reference guide, otherwise you're just aimlessly wandering a tonal desert, waiting for happy accidents.

[Meffy]

Tourist: "Pardon me, sir, how do I get away from Carnegie Hall?"

Rubenstein: "Theory, theory, theory!"

[nuffink]

I'll take practice every day.
Except in a forum specifically devoted to theory. Look, it says so. Up there. Top left.
Now, of course, if your theory chops ain't up to it by all means have a bleat. It's a toss up whether this is the forum though. There's always Everything Else (Music related).

[Meffy]

Looks to me as if the OP's less about theory vs. practice than A's theory vs. B's theory. *shrug* Zappa embraced musical devices that went far beyond what the guy writing in 1928 thought sounded "right." We live, we expand our horizons.

[vurt]

Looks to me as if the OP's less about theory vs. practice than A's theory vs. B's theory. *shrug* Zappa embraced musical devices that went far beyond what the guy writing in 1928 thought sounded "right." We live, we expand our horizons.

can we ban quoting zappa all the while as some be all and end all.
this isnt aimed at anyone in particular i just dont find him all that "special". well no more special than any other musician/artist out there...

[me109]

Here's a real quote from Rubenstein when he was in his 80's:
"If I miss one day of practice, I know it.
If I miss two days of practice, my critics know it.
If I miss three days of practice, my public knows it."
However, I'm he would never have advised a student to avoid studying theory.

It's not a question of theory vs. practice if you want to be a complete musician. Both are necessary. If you're able to play well and express the emotions of the piece, then great, just practice. But if you're interested in what makes music tick and how to make your own music, it takes more to do it well.

Some have an inherent understanding of theory, and have been quite successful.
But it's been said that if you don't have the words in your vocabulary for a certain concept, it's difficult to conceive of it. Theory takes it out of the subconscious and lets you think more clearly and make informed decisions about your composing and arranging, just as the working knowledge of a sequencer allows you to be more productive with the tool.

[jancivil]

A good knowledge of theory allows you to create more effectively the sound that you want. There are many more options open to you. Instead of pure trial and error to choose chords and voicings, for example, you already have an idea going in of what you want to experiment with.

It does, but relying on guidelines outside your own ear's conception can obviate that ear.

The idea is to learn the rules established centuries ago and see how more modern composers bent and broke those rules, eventually establishing new ones, and eventually eliminating many. But to ignore the wealth of accumulated knowledge in music theory is like trying to build a house without power tools.

IF you're trying to fit in historically. I like Varese in that, ca. 1925, he threw it all out, and went for music of the future, instead of a career.

I don't have to see all of it as wealth, what's been done. All of it isn't sacrosanct to me like it is apparently to you. EG: do I have to go back prior to say Debussy? Why.

Now it so happens, I did, and excelled at it, but not everything applies for me, and a certain amount was in the way for YEARS.