Does Knowledge of Theory Help You?

[pinkjimiphoton]

i was a far better guitar player in terms of passion when i knew wayyyyyyyyyyy less theory.
that said, i am a far better musician than i was...
they are not the same thing, if that makes sense..
while theory opened many doors, it also closed many doors to things that were too similar to other things, and thereby abandoned.

dunno if this helps as an answer...
i think it's important to learn as much theory as ya can

and chuck that shit out the window when it's time to actually play.

your mileage may vary.

peace

[BERFAB]

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.
But music theory is NOT A SCIENCE.

The outcome of the act of producing any combination of musical notes (any scale, style or instrument) is completely predictable and reproducible. But the methods of analysis of these results (the theory) is what can be the subject of debate.

There is, for example, a reason parallel fifths sound the way they do. But the so-called 'rule' that you shouldn't use them is a fallacy. The 'rule' only exists within certain other music strictures which the rule-maker has assumed you accept. And that is merely his (or her) method of analysis applied of the results produced by the playing of the parallel fifths. Other methods of analysis applied to the same musical results may (and do) produce perfectly valid uses for parallel fifths. And then debate ensues...

The difference between the science and the theory is, of course, that theory provides no correct answers--it's all in the ear of the beholder. And so perhaps the analogy is not perfect. Upon reflection, I suppose that my music theory/science analogy only really holds if we all accept the same basic rules of structure and tone. Which, of course, we don't.

Cheers
-B

[Sascha Franck]

if however youre making music because you enjoy the feeling of being creative for its own sake, then does theory make that any better?

I really don't know. I guess it depends on the mindset. I for one might be a little limited by theory. Not a biggie for me, really. I wish I could come up with some more interesting chord progressions, though...

- Sascha

[Sascha Franck]

Isn't it normal for a musician to never listen to music like an audience member?

No, not for me.
Theory always only kicks in once I'm in fact anaylzing things, doing my own stuff or whatever. The only thing I noticed that has changed in my "general" music perception is that I'm a *lot* more aware of things such as intonation and timing issues. But that hasn't got much to do with theory.

- Sascha

[The Fex]

I had the same problem. I wasn't able to analyze NOT. Now I am again. I made the basic decision that I want to enjoy music. It's like "don't worry, be happy" I thought I can't but in fact I can. The same way I trained myself to always analyze I trained myself to only do it if I want to do it.

Same here.

The inability to analyze NOT allowed me to breeze through my final exam after a night of hard partying.... the alarm clock radio woke me up with 'Like a Virgin', and I took the whole thing apart in my head while trying to find the energy to drag my carcass out of bed. An hour later, I staggered, still half asleep, into the exam room, and turned over the paper....
Question 1) "I made it through the wilderness"
LMAO. I'd answered half the questions before the cassette rolled!

Mission thus accomplished, I started to find my automatic analyzing of every piece of shit I heard on the radio to be really annoying, so I trained myself to stop doing it. I don't think about music like that any more unless it first sounds completely baffling to me, and usually not even then. I enjoy music for what it is, or, in the case of utter rubbish, I try not to listen at all.

I do find, however, that these days I much prefer listening to music that I couldn't possibly recreate without great effort.

[The Fex]

Most jazz songs give me a negative feeling. And a very deep feeling of irritation. The way i would describe the norms of jazz is sound that does everything that annoys me. Kinda like when you have a scale that sounds good, and the person goes offkey..it just erks you. Its the same when I hear jazz. Its like listening to someone scratch their nails on chalkboards.

I can totally relate to this. When I was fifteen, my parents used to go off on jazz cruises. They'd invite me along, but I felt that I'd prefer water torture.... besides, two weeks alone in the house has a certain appeal when you're fifteen....

My folks would tape the gigs (with permission) and encouraged me to listen. Erm, no thanks.

A couple of Christmases ago, as a BIG favour, I transferred all their tapes to CD for them.... six hours worth.... By the end of it, I'd come to the conclusion that some of that stuff ain't bad....

[BERFAB]

Most jazz songs give me a negative feeling. And a very deep feeling of irritation. The way i would describe the norms of jazz is sound that does everything that annoys me. Kinda like when you have a scale that sounds good, and the person goes offkey..it just erks you. Its the same when I hear jazz. Its like listening to someone scratch their nails on chalkboards.

I can totally relate to this. When I was fifteen, my parents used to go off on jazz cruises. They'd invite me along, but I felt that I'd prefer water torture.... besides, two weeks alone in the house has a certain appeal when you're fifteen....

My folks would tape the gigs (with permission) and encouraged me to listen. Erm, no thanks.

A couple of Christmases ago, as a BIG favour, I transferred all their tapes to CD for them.... six hours worth.... By the end of it, I'd come to the conclusion that some of that stuff ain't bad....

A pro musician friend that I very much respect once told me that there is no music you don't like. There is only music you don't UNDERSTAND.

Discuss.

-B

[amiga909]

imho:

theory can block my music making. 'good music' should not be a proof of existance for a theory, it should sound like it was easy to do.

but if you never do any theory, progress is hard. rather you will continue to make the same mistakes again, or you fail to reproduce good stuff coz u dont know how u did it.

yet I dont think there is one particular kind of theory that counts. if you are a sound engineer you may analyze music in technical terms, if you are a psychologist you may analyze psychoacoustics, if you are trained in classic music theory you may analyze chord progressions, if you are a sociologist you may analyze the history and cultural backgrounds that are hidden in music. all will help you to progress with your music.

but nobody can do all levels of analysis. therefore the hunting for a omni-perfect theory is illusionary, as it is to believe one can make music without ever reasoning about.

[The Fex]

A pro musician friend that I very much respect once told me that there is no music you don't like. There is only music you don't UNDERSTAND.

Discuss.

Nah. I understand 'Achy Breaky Heart' well enough. What I don't understand is why it's illegal to kill Billy Ray Cyrus.

[amiga909]

A pro musician friend that I very much respect once told me that there is no music you don't like. There is only music you don't UNDERSTAND.

Discuss.

Nah. I understand 'Achy Breaky Heart' well enough. What I don't understand is why it's illegal to kill Billy Ray Cyrus.

yep. u forget there is music that is good when u dont understand it and bad if you understand it - lets say this is true for most chart hits

[hibidy]

A pro musician friend that I very much respect once told me that there is no music you don't like. There is only music you don't UNDERSTAND.

Discuss.

-B

I disagree, I'll leave out the gory details...........

[Laraka]

imho Music Theory is not a set of rules that must be applied, rather a way of understanding what is going on. Also a way to know in advance what is probably going to work and what probably won't work.

I play a lot of blues piano, often improvised. I recently gigged with a blues band I had never practiced with. I was a last minute replacement for the regular keyboardist.
The guitarist just told me what key each song was in and the basic structure (twelve-bar, turnaround, whatever). I was able to do a decent job of it because I understand what chords and progressions were going to work OK. Being able to listen to the other instrumentalists and understand what they were doing enabled me to follow along and solo.

For me that was because of 10 years of classical piano and music theory training, and spending most of the time since then playing blues. Rather than being restrictive, the theory - and the playing experience - lets me plan ahead and predict where the music is going I guess.

[jancivil]

I'm in the Fish camp here.

I'm trained. Well-trained.

I did not start with much of an ear for pitch. Great natch rhythm, more or less a tin ear.
I now have a good ear, it's trained. Lot of it, is self-trained. Some things, I know what I am hearing because I know from the practice, & <the analysis after the fact what we call 'theory'>.

Theory is not music. If one believes it is, that's classic cart before the horse.
It's good to have some info about tension notes against a sonority.
If you're going to embark into a style with a tradition, you have to know all you can know, find out all you can, and never stop, or you're just pretending.

But, you have to know when to throw out the bathwater. Keep that baby, but drain the tub.

And, you can't learn music from books.

[jancivil]

One thing is for certain, some people have it.....ALLOT don't! Though practice and theory will help anyone, ya gotta have IT to be an eddie or a beethoven.

Well, hey I like some things by Paul McCartney better than either, and he don't know a thing from theory; I don't believe that means it's inferior in any way.
in fact I think EVH or the guy off the Beet Farm could've stood to lose some of their preconceptions and their thing coulda sounded even better as a result.

[jancivil]

A pro musician friend that I very much respect once told me that there is no music you don't like. There is only music you don't UNDERSTAND.

Discuss.

-B

Wow. I think I understand what moves a shitty rock band makes enough to not like it at all. Also, there is much C&W I think really does not sound very good. I rather doubt it's beyond me. ET CETERA.

I think that a pretty stupid statement, really.