What is wrong with music theory?

[adXok]

I thought you saw it in my first post.

Melkor (a user) above saw it. And for the rest I would like to explain:
The standard music theory is very, very well known to me. I just have a different view over it. A personal approach that you can see in the link (video) in my first post.

Nothing so special but I still would like to find people who have different perspective views on the subject like I have. The standard music theory (in fact not the theory of sound or tone structure but the names, designations and the overall appearance of it) is somehow inaccurate or at least I do think so.

P.S. Yes, it is more like you have to start to learn new language.

[jancivil]

I don't think that hands-on learning is obvious to most people here, and the sheer number of software suggestions offered in this forum in lieu of that experience demonstrates that well enough. ("press the button and hear the chord", just saw that in a thread. No. Play the notes of the chord and sing them, and hear the fvcking chord.)

I was already a working arranger when I took part writing courses at my community college.
I had a lot of information, I knew my way around chords and extensions and my ear was alright, but I did not not how to part write really, and the procedures were laid out coherently in excercises daily.

The teach would demonstrate concepts like so: <Here is a 'weak progression' under 'this melody', work it out in 4 parts and make it stronger>.
My writing made a quantum leap nearly at once with this kind of cogent approach.
I was able to apply what I knew from experience, colorful sonorities/jazzy chords, onto a chord progression (sneak the cute tones in as suspensions and appogiatura) and make the thing WORK - and got a *piece of music* out of it right there in class.

This kind of learning is not going to happen all by one's lonesome browsing the internet. It may be true that one can have a focused approach to what question they ask someone here, but it won't equate to the kind of coherent strategy I'm trying to elucidate.

[planetmullins]

Hi, dear forum members. I am new to music theory lessons and I am searching to find some music theory lessons videos and currently found some on Youtube. Is it worth do learn music theory from online videos or will I learn more from the books. There a re plenty of videos out there and they say exactly the same things except maybe that:

Hi-I teach theory several days a week to students who do all kinds of music. Theory is very helpful to being a great musician.
College theory was frustrating for me as it moved very slowly and was based on very old systems which I found only partially useful.
I was lucky to study with the greatest theory teacher of the 20th century-George Russell-who's ideas inspiring Bill Evans, John Coltrane, and Miles Davis. I wouldn't recommend his book to beginners as it could be very confusing. I did get a lot of clarity about how to think about music from George though. George was all about the tonal center or key of the music, and the bass notes. If you think of every bass note being part of a KEY of music, then every chord built on a bass note is part of the scale that is the parent key of the music. Once you have determined what key you are in things get a lot easier.

[A.M. Gold]

I agree. Melodic music is about the progression of relationships and the relationshiips between melodic notes all occuor within a context, that context being established by the implication of keys. I think you learn a heck of a lot about chord progression when you learn about the interaction of chords within key contexts and also about the shifting of key contexts through fluid modulation, even if modulations are very transitory (e.g. in the from of accidentals).

[rnms]

I studied music theory to A level when I was at school, I've spent the last 40 years trying to forget it, it's still all lurking in the background though.

[trimph1]

I think that both an active teacher AND an active learner is important..I want to absorb and KNOW what I am talking about here..and play it as well...

[herodotus]

I advise a teacher at the outset, as the teacher has the applicable experience and YOU DON'T.

I don't know that I agree. Teachers all come to the subject from their own direction, which may or may not be applicable to what the student needs to know.

For instance, all the theory teachers that I met in my youth were jazz players who were teaching to help pay the bills. They were great at improvising over various chord progressions, and explaining how they did it, but they knew nothing about the kind of things that I wanted to know (like how to write canons and fugues and whatnot).

Since the goal is to obtain the mechanics in a cogent way, trusting your own brilliance is only a good idea if you're truly brilliant, truly focused, and have a true knack for cutting thru bullshit. Unless you have a goodly experience going in that applies to this kind of task, this is probably not going to be true.

This applies to any kind of learning, though. A dullard swallowing everything their teacher says without question is going to gain as little as a dullard who thinks that they already know everything. The first dullard is probably going to be a less annoying student for the teacher to deal with than the second, but neither of them are going to start the world on fire with their brilliance.

A lot of what you'll find online is some bullshit that's liable to get in the way and waste your time.

Sadly, you are quite right about this.

A curriculum designed by a person of experience, with exercises designed to maximize your information and get you to turn it into knowledge, demonstrated in concrete results monitored by someone who knows wtf gwyne on is a focused approach. 'I'm going to browse the internet and parse through all the noise by myself' is assuredly not.

Again, though, at some point in your life you are going to have to do this anyway. It's good to have some guidance in the early stages, I agree. But a carefully selected list of books is all the guidance that a focused person should need.

And if you aren't focused, you aren't going to get anything of lasting value out of any lesson.

[Rangtangtang]

I put my 2 cents in.....

There not much in it but if you can find a good source on the net or whatever you will be on your way. Problem whith music theory that it used to be too tied up whith historical music which makes it appear a little more complicated than it realy is as well as being useless for the contempory musician.

I don't realy have a need for music theory that much whith the computer music and its piano roll and nor whith rock band stuff, which is realy only concerned whith beats to the bar. Your software piano role is ussualy set up as 4 beats to the bar by default which you can change if you desire.

A music manuscript is a way of recording music on paper so it can be replayed by an instramentalist or ensemble and as well as recording it for copyright, And some basic elements you will see is, the treble and bass cleff where the notes sit, it has a time signature for the beats in a bar, and there will be sharps and flats to indicate the key of the music which can be a little harder to decifer. It helps if you have an understanding of the major and minor scales, an understanding of note values and timing, and a bit about the rules of harmony or just chords. Paper was all that there was in the past to be able to record music and so the player was the playback machine. In more recent history there was the roller piano player and vynal.

What else can I say. Simple music is relatively easy to record or read, but not all music is such as the guitar or modular synth lead breaks as well as experimental music or non westen music. I must say when I was younger I simply used my ears to work out a piece off a contemporary album that I liked.

How about that.

[Rangtangtang]

Anyone mentioned that you can use the midi files of your tune and send it to a manuscipt program and convert it into sheet music. And visa versa and write the tune in the manuscript program and send the midi files to your music program. Anyone mentioned Magix, Sibilous and Band in Box for example?

[johnrule]

You will need the discipline of guided instruction to gain any substantial benefit. Otherwise, you may just glean a small bit of information that wouldn't do you much good.

I think that's terrible advice. Most people I have ever talked to agree that any amount of theory that they learn is useful, and it's certainly no impossible to learn it without instruction.

Instruction is helpful but not absolutely necessary, and you don't need to learn everything there is to learn about theory for it to be useful.

I am a self-taught musician that later went to school for a degree...always felt like having the foundation after the fact was not the best way to do it. I also felt like just picking up a theory book and perusing its pages was not a good idea either (I didn't say it was impossible to gain knowledge). I don't see anything wrong with what I wrote.

Theory teaches you the rules that you can break...

[jancivil]

I advise a teacher at the outset, as the teacher has the applicable experience and YOU DON'T.

I don't know that I agree. Teachers all come to the subject from their own direction, which may or may not be applicable to what the student needs to know.

For instance, all the theory teachers that I met in my youth were jazz players who were teaching to help pay the bills. They were great at improvising over various chord progressions, and explaining how they did it, but they knew nothing about the kind of things that I wanted to know (like how to write canons and fugues and whatnot).

For me, the key phrase of my statement was the '& you don't'.
I went into a theory class in the first place wanting to learn to part-write, as I knew that eg., JS Bach was doing something I had no clue towards. I went to community college and got Webb Wiggins, an organist with a solid grounding in it and a fantastic teacher that made things clear, and practically at once. There isn't really another way to get that clarity and concision. Someone else wanted to learn more extensions, 'tv chords' he called 'em and he took Mr Washington's jazz harmony class, another concise, clear and brilliant class, which I took afterwards.

I personally have an abiding interest and an approach based in counterpoint, and eschewed all instruction in it in school because I wasn't interested in the received ideas on it; what I saw my roommate go through with David Sheinfeld at SFCM seemed a colossal waste of time [FOR ME, having already a focus (out of a thorough grounding in part-writing, graded by very wise teachers), and a POV] so I take your point, but I think this is somewhat exceptional.

A lot of what you'll find online is some bullshit that's liable to get in the way and waste your time.

Sadly, you are quite right about this.

A curriculum designed by a person of experience, with exercises designed to maximize your information and get you to turn it into knowledge, demonstrated in concrete results monitored by someone who knows wtf gwyne on is a focused approach. 'I'm going to browse the internet and parse through all the noise by myself' is assuredly not.

Again, though, at some point in your life you are going to have to do this anyway. It's good to have some guidance in the early stages, I agree. But a carefully selected list of books is all the guidance that a focused person should need.

And if you aren't focused, you aren't going to get anything of lasting value out of any lesson.

Focus can be learned, and I found that the structured approach of the material as it was conveyed to me by more substantial people was key in my development of my own focus. I think this is true in general.

[jancivil]

Anyone mentioned that you can use the midi files of your tune and send it to a manuscipt program and convert it into sheet music. And visa versa and write the tune in the manuscript program and send the midi files to your music program. Anyone mentioned Magix, Sibilous and Band in Box for example?

this is a big problem in actual practice. A midi that sounds like people played some music is NOT NEAT; a direct translation to a notation program is going to be a MESS (unless it's baby simple). You have to make sure all the durations are neat (as opposed to useful), ensure everything starts on the bar and on the beat, to even hope for a translation that can be read. A perfectly readable file in a notation app is going to be a pretty robotic and less-than-musical sequence owing to the same differences and will require work in the sequencer before it's very useful as a sequence.

[adXok]

Theory teaches you the rules that you can break...

That is what I did (more than 10 years ago) and still continue to do now.

[Haha_YouAint]

I don't think learning basic music theory is hard. After I took an online music theory course, it seemed so simple to understand. I think applying music theory to my music is my problem.

[tapper mike]

The differences between what people think they should know and what they could know are vast. One could indeed be very focused. So focused on what they think they need to know they miss the path they should know. Here in lays the failure of independent studies over interactive studies with someone who knows the way.


I seriously studied jazz with serious jazz teachers who were players as well. Sure there was time for improvisation however there also was time between improvisation where critique occured. Along with that critique came an examination of approaches and various methodologies. To discredit a teacher because they are a player as well is folly. The point of a musical education is to embrace the concepts put forth. This isn't something that comes in a vacuum or as an afterthought. It comes thru dilligence, applying yourself to the instrument. It is both physical and intellectual. I've yet to meet a martial artist who learned it all from a book.