Does Knowledge of Theory Help You?

[tapper mike]

When theory works for you you work it.
Ususally there is a theory that justifies something it's just a matter of digging.

Theory can only fail in two instances.
1 You have no knowledge of theory can't carry a beat and are tone death.
2 You've surcomb to a limited knowledge of theory as the only theory.

Theory doesn't tell people where to go it simply points to possiblities.
If you have a limited knowledge of theory and take theory as a mandate then you will be equally return limited material.

Music not science or theology It is not dogma. Music is personal expression. How you choose to paint the canvas of song is up to you. You don't have to be Beethoven, Basie, Jimi Hendrix, Milli Vannili or Chic Corea. You simply find a forum that best reflects your expressive tendencies. B.B. King is not less of a musician because he has stuck to a formula that has best served his desire for personal expression. The same can be said of theory. When a theory works for you you put it in the pile of works for me. When it doesn't
you say it doesn't and look for some other theory that may.

[Sascha Franck]

What do YOU think? Does theory help or hinder?

With my regular jobs, it helps immensely.
To be a little more elaborate: A main part of my job is playing from lead sheets (and/or exact sheet music), which often does leave some room for interpretation. And whenever that's the case, a certain bit of theory helps immensely. Plus some other bits of knowledge of course.

Does it provide "answers" to composition, production or performance?

Production and performance: Yes. Composition: Perhaps partially.
I still think some older stuff of mine to be more creative, but I really don't blame it on my theory knowledge, even if there seems to be at least some sort of partial truth to it getting a bit in the way.

Anyways, for me, it sometimes also helps in some, hm, shall we say "unlikely" situations.
As an example and as we're on KVR: Let's take a synth with an arpeggiator. Let's assume said synth is playing an arpeggio containing root, 5th and 9th (or second, depending on how you look at it). Now, with some theoretical knowledge, I do instantly know that on, say, a minor chord, I could as well just use it on the 3rd, resulting in a min7/11 chord.
Further, to me, theoretical knowledge isn't all about harmony and the likes. It's also about rhythms and how they are constructed. There's great things one can explore checking out various rhythmic approaches, being aware of the "principles" does help, at least IMO.

Do you have a good relationship with theory or is it a rocky marriage?

In the end, I think I have a nice relationship with it. It helps me to stay in my job and as I probably would've never made it to a great "intuitive" songwriter or so, that might not be a drawback, either.

Cheers
Sascha

[The Fex]

I seem to remember reading that some boffins in white coats had compared the brain functions of performing rock musicians with those of performing classical musicians, and found them to be quite different. They concluded that the orchestral types, through all that reading, had come to think of music as something that moves from left to right. That strikes me as being a bad thing. Staring at a DAW probably has the same effect, though....

On the whole, theory is a good thing. All the worst music is made by people who don't know any. Theory can't hinder your creativity, unless you've been told "thou shalt not", and you're stupid enough to obey. Anyway, just knowing stuff never stopped me acting like an idiot.

[Ogg Vorbis]

All the worst music is made by people who don't know any.

Theory can't hinder your creativity, unless you've been told "thou shalt not", and you're stupid enough to obey.

Anyway, just knowing stuff never stopped me acting like an idiot.

Wow, three interesting and provocative statements in one post. My hat is off to you.

[The Fex]

My hat is off to you.

I can see your bald patch!

[aciddose]

i think theory is most useful when you're trying to go about composition in a scientific manner. following a particular progression for example might be very useful to do a samba, or a specific style of chamber music, or whatever else.

if you're just writing "music" without a genre, perhaps theory or experience (study...) can have a negative influence on you because as i've found, i tend to follow the knowledge i have most often rather than freely experimenting.

i'd much rather, being at the point i am, take some knowledge of theory in many genres and create new progressions and melodies via a combination of this knowledge with a little bit of experimentation rather than trying to start from zero and do 100% experimentation. the result of following only a free path tends to be (again, i find..) that i come up with short bursts of very interesting melody or rhythm but then find myself unable to continue it past a very limited point. i attribute this to a lack of musical knowledge and experience entirely.

[The Fex]

perhaps theory or experience (study...) can have a negative influence on you because as i've found, i tend to follow the knowledge i have most often rather than freely experimenting.

In my experience, you shouldn't do that, then, in theory....

[aciddose]

unfortunately not all people are like spock, able to control all impulses and thought processes to take the most logical theoretical route. knowing certain movements and progressions i automatically insert them without thinking. if you're writing note-by-note that's different, i was referring to composition on a piano which has a lot of influence from motor-memory.

so perhaps that's a good idea - do it note-by-note if possible to avoid this issue.

[The Chase]

It would take a small mind for more knowledge of something to hinder one's ability to make it.

On the whole, theory is a good thing. All the worst music is made by people who don't know any.

That's quite a bold statement. To even get started with it you'd have to define what constitutes music as the worst or even bad for that manner. Then, you'd have to find examples with proof of people either not knowing theory or not using it.

[jopy]

I've actually heard pop/rock players say that music theory classes/lessons "ruined" their playing or writing by taking what was once visceral and intuitive ("feeling") and applying "all these rules" which ultimately harmed their creative process.

I've noticed that these were the same sorts of people who were sure their music would be ten times better if they just had a more expensive guitar, and then maybe a better amp, maybe a new set of pedals is the problem, no, well maybe it's that they don't have a ...

In other words, I suspect a lot of this negative reaction comes from people who were never all that confident or capable to begin with, but who assumed that there must be some internal brilliance lurking within themselves that somehow was obscured by someone else. They latched onto theory thinking it would save them, and then when it didn't work out, they blame the theory for "holding them back."

[coops2]

Theory is a good thing when used correctly. If you can read a map then you wont get lost and can get where you want to go. But the map doesn't just have to show you one way it can guide you down routes and pathways you would never have found wandering around on your own

Don't give, once you can the learning curve you will be glad you perservered

[trewq]

I saw this quote from a book on another website, worth the read IMO.

'Technical skill and stylistic versatility have only one purpose: to bring into existence what we called the vision of the composer. Technique and style are obedient servants so long as they are kept under control. Once out of control they either dominate the process of constructing a piece, or they degenerate into routine and fashion. They are indispensable aids to our work; without their help we cannot produce any musical form. Yet, like many versatile but stupid attendants, they must be held in subservience if they are to give us the best service; they must be treated with contempt. Thus we have the grotesque situation that a man who writes music has to go through many stages of learning, experimenting, and constructing in order to achieve technical and stylistic adequacy, only to despise all these achievements, because they must remain the humble slaves of superior ideas.'

'A Composer's World'
Hindemith, Harvard press, 1952

Learning and applying basic theory is just a small step on the way to what he is talking about. But let us know how taking the big shortcut turns out.

[The Fex]

i was referring to composition on a piano which has a lot of influence from motor-memory.

This is why Tom Waits chooses to seek out new instruments to compose for. He finds that when he sits at a piano, his hands take over, and the same old progressions come out. But as you say, it's motor memory that's to blame here.... I don't think it has much to do with music theory.

On the whole, theory is a good thing. All the worst music is made by people who don't know any.

That's quite a bold statement.

Okay, maybe it was slightly provocative.... but note that I'm not claiming that great music can't be made with little or no theory....

To even get started with it you'd have to define what constitutes music as the worst or even bad for that manner. Then, you'd have to find examples with proof of people either not knowing theory or not using it.

Unless you'd attended my high school with me, you wouldn't be familiar with my examples. I wasn't thinking about pretty boy bands, or Billy Ray Whatsit's Achey-Breakey bullshit, I was thinking about the high school bands that never get as far as learning the third chord, and think it doesn't matter. The worst music.

[cron]

I've actually heard pop/rock players say that music theory classes/lessons "ruined" their playing or writing by taking what was once visceral and intuitive ("feeling") and applying "all these rules" which ultimately harmed their creative process.

I've heard the same thing. It's just because they're not very intelligent people though.

I've heard a lot of people say that someone said this, but I've yet to see it attributed to anyone or hear anyone actually say it. Surely this is an invented quotation, a meme as ubiquitous as it is ridiculous. A theoretical grounding in anything tells you what to do no more than it tells you what you're doing.

Of course, here's the point where someone links me to an interview where Beethoven said this

[jplanet]

IMO, I think it's important in the beginning, when one's knowledge of theory is limited, to try to go with your instincts as much as possible - then refer to theory when something isn't working the way you want it to. But there are many places that you simply cannot go musically without theory. Try composing a melody or solo that follows many changing chords with only luck, your ear, and how cool you are, and you'd probably end up over-simplifying the song (thereby compromising what you really wanted to accomplish), or sounding terribly out of tune, or take several weeks to accomplish what would take minutes with a good knowledge of theory.

I never understand why anyone would deliberately avoid more knowledge in any aspect of something they want to do well - it's like being a painter, and saying that you don't want to learn how to blend colors, or you would never want to use the color blue. If you know theory, you can still compose things that are simple, full of attitude, and spontaneous - the only difference is, with theory in your pocket, you'd be doing that out of choice, not because it's the only color in your palette.