Does Knowledge of Theory Help You?

[The Fex]

well yes, because sales means quality, obviously.

I didn't say that. But Paul McCartney is worth >£700 million, and Les McKeown isn't. There is a connection. Factor people's gullibility into the equation, and it all makes perfect sense.

[vurt]

well yes, because sales means quality, obviously.

I didn't say that. But Paul McCartney is worth >£700 million, and Les McKeown isn't. There is a connection. Factor people's gullibility into the equation, and it all makes perfect sense.

i dont see a connection between money and music. its not about ego or achieving some legendary status. its a creative act that people will do their best to fit into some regulatory form so as it can be controlled. thus we end up with a music business/industry which is a whole different thing to what music actually is, an expression of self.

[jopy]

Think about it in terms of Bach, there were few (if any) rules for him to follow, he created through his visceral, deep understanding of harmonic movement which, at the end of the day, is the whole point of theory.

The concepts of well temperament, major and minor scales, chordal shapes, concerto, dance suite, the mass as a compositional structure, fugue, French overture, homophony, polyphony, and voice leading were very well established prior to Bach. He copied the harmonic ideas he heard in Lully, Corelli, Telemann, and Vivaldi so directly that there are quite a few of his works that are flat out plagiarism by today's standards, and he also understood theory well enough at an intellectual level to write several works that could best be described as lessons in music theory.

That's not a knock on Bach, he did some fantastic innovation by bending dozens of rules (playing just enough with the audience's expectations to make his music exciting and still orderly) and creating emotionally powerful spaces within the structures he encountered, but he was hardly composing in a theoretical vacuum.

[The Fex]

i dont see a connection between money and music. its not about ego or achieving some legendary status. its a creative act that people will do their best to fit into some regulatory form so as it can be controlled. thus we end up with a music business/industry which is a whole different thing to what music actually is, an expression of self.

Whatever. Well then, it used to be people who were good at it tended to sell more of it and therefore made more money than people who were shit.

Phil Collins gets to sell shit songs like 'Another Day in Paradise' because, for a couple of minutes in the 1970s, Genesis were actually quite good.

Enya gets to keep making the same album over and over again because, for the duration of the theme from 'Harry's Game', anyway, Clannad were quite good.

Andrew Lloyd Webber can compose. Sorry, but he really can. He blows his nose, and killer tunes fall out. He's a seriously talented guy. Don't ask me to explain why he keeps turning those killer tunes into bloody awful songs for shitty musicals, but there is obviously a huge market for that sort of thing, and Lloyd Webber's probably the best composer of shitty musicals there is. I'm just pleased that more people aren't doing what he does.

I have no idea how Chris de Burgh gets away with it. You'd have to ask my mother.

Richard Clayderman? Again, I have no clue. Ask the Chinese. Maybe he's still riding the wave made by his first single, which sold 22 million copies.... yet, somehow, I've managed to avoid hearing it, so I won't opine. It could be as bad as 'Lady In Red' for all I know.

Noel Gallagher has written some very good songs, IMHO. Sorry.

Elvis Presley may have just started in the right place at the right time with the right face, but compared to most of the other pretty white guys making records in America at that deeply racist time, he was quite good. If you ignore all the hype, you're left with a guy who could at least hold a tune and put on a show.

Of course, that's not the end of the story.... since money was being made, accountants eventually took over the industry, and it all went to hell in a handbasket. But there is still a connection between making good music and selling it. I should know. Mine's shit, and I'm skint.

[herodotus]

This thread topic pops up all the time. I agree with others above that the OP has the wrong perspective on music theory.

Music theory is not a set of rules that musicians either follow or break. Rather it is the explanation of why music sounds the way it does.

An analogy I like to use is 'the laws of physics.' The 'laws' of physics are not a set of rules that scientists follow. It is the set of explanations that scientists have discovered that explain the natural behaviors within physics.

OK, I don't want to pick on you, but your statement provides a convenient pretext for a rant.

Physics is a science. Music Theory is not. Music theory is a hodgepodge. Almost all of the scientific elements in it have long since been subsumed by the branch of physics called acoustics. What is left ranges from things that are almost science (e.g. the work of Forte, Rahn, Babbit, etc.) to things that are almost theology (e.g. the work of Heinrich Schenker and his minions) to lists of harmonic traditions and compositional strategies that can be very helpful to people looking to develop certain musical attributes.

But it is not a science, nor indeed anything close to it. Scientific theories can be tested and verified or falsified, but how does one test the rule that one shouldn't use parallel fifths? Science is predicated upon a consistent use of well-established terms, but music theory has numerous different terms for the same harmonic phenomenon, depending on context, cultural origin of the music, cultural origin of the theorist, whether the theorist is a Shenkerian or a Schoenbergian or a hybrid of the two, and a thousand other variables.

Music theory tells us that music can be looked at as having to 'axes', the 'vertical' axis (pitch) and the 'horizontal' axis (rhythm and meter). But it concentrates overwhelmingly on the former, while the latter has barely grown at all since the advent of mensural notation (Don't take my word for it. Look up the theory of prolations and compare it with the discussion of rhythm and meter in a modern theory text to see just how little advance there has been since then). You will find no two discussions of the rhythms of the Rite of Spring that use the same terminology or come to the same conclusions, and it was written before the first world war.

Think of it: in the same amount of time, technology has advanced from the origins of wireless through AM radio, FM radio, tube circuitry, solid state circuitry, magnetic tape, digital recording, all the way up to now, when musicians are on the verge of being able to jam in real time with other musicians on opposite sides of the globe. But theorists can't even arrive at a consistent explanation of what Stravinsky was doing back in 1913.

Now please don't misunderstand: I am NOT saying that people shouldn't learn theory, or that it is useless. Let's repeat that: I AM NOT SAYING THAT THEORY IS USELESS OR THAT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT LEARN IT.

Learning theory of whatever sort is a great attribute development tool. Knowing how to read music is extremely useful. Knowing the names for intervals and common chords is very helpful. Even plowing through the abstruse scholasticism of Schenkerian analysis will develop parts of your musical understanding.

But music theory is NOT A SCIENCE.

[hibidy]

If I knew, I'd tell ya

[tranel]

All of these things, combined with my years as a classical pianist, has GREATLY improved my ability to write and improvise music.

+ 1. Classical training has given me so much in terms of knowledge of scales, harmonies, chord progressions and a pretty good ear for pitch and chords—this is just invaluable to me when I compose. As an example, it allows me to listen to bass/drum loop and imagine pad chords and melodic progressions in my head, which I can then just translate into finger action on the keyboard. In my view, if you have the theory base, you can translate your ideas into music that much faster—depending on the type of music you make, of course.

That said, rules are made to be broken, and I sometimes wish I could more easily just "break out" of what my teachers have taught me is "right" and be more adventurous. I am listening to a lot of jazz at the moment to try and pick up new chords/progressions and ideas.

[tranel]

Enya gets to keep making the same album over and over again because, for the duration of the theme from 'Harry's Game', anyway, Clannad were quite good.

I was thinking exactly this at HMV the other day. Ah, another Enya album... should I give it a listen on the off-chance that it might actually sound different this time. But no... Honestly, do people still buy her music? If you have one album you have them all, no?

[jackson]

I think it completely depends on how you learn music theory.

Unfortunately I and a ton of others (I'm guessing all those who blindly rail against theory) were explicitly instructed that music theory is a very strict set of rules and concepts you were forced to learn and adhere to alongside the practical study of your instrument of choice. Unfortunate, but true.

[zircon]

One excellent aspect of knowing music theory is that you can listen to existing music, be it pop, big band, trance, or whatever, and deconstruct it in your head - on the fly - and know why a particular change sounds as cool as it did. The disadvantage is that this can demystify some very cool songs at first, since you realize "oh, that part was just a VI-VII-i with jazzy voicings" but then later when you try to do it yourself, you realize that details are what separate a bland piece from a fantastic one.

Anyway, I'm not sure where the Enya hate really comes from. It's not as if she writes and produces everything she sings on. She doesn't. She has two sisters and both of them have a very similar style of recording, but I doubt it's because they all happen to have the same exact preferences. More than likely, the producer influence is showing up. I agree that I would not buy multiple albums of her music, mainly just singles, but it still takes some skill for the performer, writer(s) and producer(s) involved to pull off her style. That's why she's constantly imitated but never topped.

[Aziraphal]

I choose "Bobby, Screw the rules! I'll play a German Aug. Sixth Chord"

What the heck is a German Aug. Sixth Chord anyway? Isn't the German chord progression something like Ab/C/Eb/F# -> G/B/D/G ?

[Sascha Franck]

i dont see a connection between money and music.

Strictly on a personal level: I do see this connection very clearly. You may call this an unfortunate even, and I may even agree with you.
Originally, I always thought something like "yeah, music must come from the heart, it must be a thing of intuition, refelecting my inner feelings" etc.
But once you work as a musician, this is simply not the entire truth anymore.

Having said that, I'd almost place a bet that 95% of "working" musicians do have at least some theoretical knowledge (which doesn't mean it's gotta be "standard" theory knowledge, there's more to it, IMO).
In case you really "plan" to make a living as a musician, you will most likely need to know some things about theory. All the studio musicians I know do. All the regularly hired live musicians do as well. All the arrangers, producers, etc - they all do as well.

It's really not about whatever wellknown acts.
Take me as an example. Almost nobody outside Hannover/Germany has ever heard my name (ok, minus some internet folks) as being a relatively sucessful guitar player. But I am just that. I'm making my living out of playing guitar. And it's defenitely not because I can play some guitar-hero-ish 32nds at 180 BPM (I simply can't), but because I have a relatively proper allround sense of music and some knowledge theories behind it. And again, it's not only some sort of classical theory. It's also something like "oh, we could do with some country-ish chord-swell licks, but dirtier, think Tom Waits or so". To me, something like that is just as much of some theoretic knowledge as knowing about drop 2 4-part voicings.

As said, once you're in the realm of "working musicians", they will all know the things they're doing more or less well. And most (if not all of them) will also show some flexibility and familiarity with various styles (pretty much the reason why none of all those endless YouToube guitar shredders will ever play a paid job in all their life).
Personally, I can't compete with any of the wellknown guitar heroes. For obvious reasons, I also can't comnpete with whatever "stars", producers, remixers, arrangers, songwriters and what not. But a rather broad knowledge of things is what keeps me getting paid. I would have absolutely no chance to survive in this environment otherwise.

Now, we may start a (rather philosophical) discussion about whether this is making music as it's meant to be. But, again strictly personal, as I'd probably never made it as either a songwriter, producer, arranger, etc. or as an instrumentalist on my own, I can only say that I'm quite happy about the way things turned out for me.
And my knowledge of certain "theories" has been quite a part of that experience.

Cheers
Sascha

[Sixofour]

Musical Theroy has never taught me anything new musically. I already knew every single thing in theory, without training. Theory only taught me the terminology of those things.

Music theory is useful if you want to communicate aspects of music with others, but it does absolutly nothing with you skill. If you have to "learn" how to be creative, then you shouldn't be doing music. You don't learn creativity.

Its like math.

For those who say bad music is only made by people who don't know theory...Well, you must not have heard Bach. He has some of the most shitty, stolen, musical ideas ive ever heard. Also, don't forget the whole of Jazz, its pretty crap too. There has never been a decent jazz song.

[tapper mike]

You learned math so your comparision fails.

[shogger]

I've heard, "Well, Beethoven broke all the rules and re-wrote them...just like Eddie Van Halen."

Well, basically this is Shullbit. For both.
Somebody taught Eddie the pentatonic scale and he practiced it. He learned some stuff here and there. It didn't hinder him doing his stuff and influencing millions of guitar players.
So the real question should be: How much is good and useful FOR YOU? To me it's important to have theory available and to be able to just let music flow without thinking in theory terms. Then theory doesn't do any harm but does help because it doesn't enslave me but is an available tool to me. Like a plugin that I don't have to use but it waits for it's next gig.

Shogger