Just realised I know nothing. What's going on in my track?

[chk071]

Someone can easily become a master of music theory and be completely deaf.

I don't think someone who has no idea about music theory will be able to create complex, interesting song structures on the other hand. You got to have at least an idea of what you are doing. And be that, from just listening to music intensively, and studying how it is built up, what chords are being used, and stuff like that. You can't make music without having an idea of the theory of it.

[HordePrime]

I don't think someone who has no idea about music theory will be able to create complex, interesting song structures on the other hand.

Well, it's debatable how "complex" and "interesting" they are, but many successful pop musicians clearly know very little, if anything, about traditional music theory.

But again, there is the difference between being naturally aware of things, and consciously studying them. Many people know what sounds "good" and what sounds "bad", but very few can say why. - It is this "why" that music theory teaches us about. But do we really need to know "why"? Isn't enough that is sounds "good" by itself?

[tenshin111]

You can't make music without having an idea of the theory of it.

I disagree completely. You can be a great musician without knowing the theory of music just like you can be a great painter without studying the theory of art or a terrific journalist without a degree in journalism. The world is full of examples that contradict your statement.

[cron]

Some really odd statements in this thread. As I've already said it's just about efficiency, not validity. I'm perfectly capable of transcribing pretty much any musical idea that I want to, I'd just like to be able to do it quicker, with less frustration, and perhaps stumble across other otherwise unattainable ideas along the way.

Someone has said that music theory may act as a "straightjacket" or potentially put my stuff at risk of sounding unoriginal. In all due respect, if you're worried that will happen you need to look at developing some strength of character. The formal training I received in electroacoustic music made my experimental stuff (some old bits from 2003-2007 here: http://archive.org/details/KieronJohnson ) much more idiosyncratic and original. Again, not compared to the music that people without such training make: the only important comparison is to the music that I was making before it.

Must refrain from writing long rambling posts in the future. I would probably have just skim-read that splurge myself to be honest

[HordePrime]

I'm perfectly capable of transcribing pretty much any musical idea that I want to, I'd just like to be able to do it quicker

No amount of music theory will help you with this. What you need is practice, practice and more practice.

[Aroused by JarJar]

"learning theory" consists first and most importantly of ear training.

That's not theory, that's aural, a different category, and I agree probably more relevant.
Someone can easily become a master of music theory and be completely deaf.

My point was that aural is not a different category. It certainly is not a separate category in a formal musical education.

Maybe some person could be deaf all their life and just read about music, and come up with some wild new compositional ideas, or something like that. But in that case, they would probably be hearing things in their imagination somehow.

But in real life, it's more like the other way around. People who have ears but no formal training acquire large- and real- theoretical knowledge without even realizing it.

[cron]

I'm perfectly capable of transcribing pretty much any musical idea that I want to, I'd just like to be able to do it quicker

No amount of music theory will help you with this. What you need is practice, practice and more practice.

Now you're just being silly. Theory and practice are unrelated? Come on!

[HordePrime]

It certainly is not a separate category in a formal musical education.

It is actually. You sit written exams (theory), you do practical exams, and you do aural tests. They are all different categories.

People who have ears but no formal training acquire large- and real- theoretical knowledge without even realizing it.

Indeed, I think I said that.

Theory and practice are unrelated? Come on!

Did I say they were unrelated?
Knowing how do to something does not necessarily make you good at it.

Learning how a car works won't necessarily make you a better driver. Knowing the rules of football won't necessarily make you a world-class player etc.

[Aroused by JarJar]

It certainly is not a separate category in a formal musical education.

It is actually. You sit written exams (theory), you do practical exams, and you do aural tests. They are all different categories.

Of course, but that's an administrative issue. In practice the two are not separated until an advanced stage, after a solid aural foundation. How can you be ear-tested on chord progressions if you don't know what they're called? Didn't your music teacher always play the stuff you were learning in theory on the piano or from recordings for orchestral stuff, etc.?

Don't get me wrong. I don't think studying music in a formal way is for everyone. And studying music can turn matters of ignorance into institutionalized bigotry, for example, "there's only 12 notes".

And I've noticed a recent development in which "artists" seem to be going into graduate school composition study without having any foundation, i.e. skipping straight from listening to pop their whole lives to talking about John Cage, then making noise in Pd. But that is a vivid example of why "theory and ear-y" have always gone together. If you separate them, you get drool.

[qa2pir]

Someone can easily become a master of music theory and be completely deaf.

I don't think someone who has no idea about music theory will be able to create complex, interesting song structures on the other hand. You got to have at least an idea of what you are doing. And be that, from just listening to music intensively, and studying how it is built up, what chords are being used, and stuff like that. You can't make music without having an idea of the theory of it.

total and utter bullshit

[PurpleCatfishBettie]

--I start with the D minor sans the fifth, add the fifth completing the triad, raise it to the 6th so we've an inverted Bb minor triad--

one thing; it appears that it's actually a Bb Major triad.

starting with a completed d minor (d f a) and raising the 5th (a) to Bb results in Bb Major; Bb D F

[cron]

--I start with the D minor sans the fifth, add the fifth completing the triad, raise it to the 6th so we've an inverted Bb minor triad--

one thing; it appears that it's actually a Bb Major triad.

starting with a completed d minor (d f a) and raising the 5th (a) to Bb results in Bb Major; Bb D F

*facepalm*

You're absolutely right. Daft error on my part there. A good example of how my current methods can lead to my missing really trivial things before I even start thinking about the complex stuff.

[tapper mike]

Theory is like reading a book on how to become a better swimmer without getting wet. Practice helps to develop your muscle memory and note articulation. If you memorize playing things you don't have to think your way through every moment because the notes are already under your fingers.

What you practice is in direct correlation to what you play/write. And how well as well as how often you practice has a direct relation to how well you play/write. It's not rocket science. And it's not something that thinking about will make you a better player / writer. It's doing. Practice enough Beethoven with fire and determination you might be the next Yngwie Malmsteen. Practice enough Nate King Cole with passion and energy you might develop into Bill Evans. Practice isn't enough it takes passion and persistence. Only when you are strong in your technique can/should you expand your musical knowledge. Most people don't need all that theory. It clutters your mind not clears it. Somehow people think when they've found the lost chord everything will lay into place and they'll be able to cast the magic spell. I'm here to tell you that's a load of crap. You may indeed find some type of deeper intrinsic meaning limited to an audience of one. To the rest of the world it will sound like crap.

[jancivil]

People who have ears but no formal training acquire large- and real- theoretical knowledge without even realizing it.

absolutely. every observation you make and recall it the next time is 'music theory' knowledge. It doesn't have to be formalized.

[jancivil]

It certainly is not a separate category in a formal musical education.

It is actually. You sit written exams (theory), you do practical exams, and you do aural tests. They are all different categories.

My experience wasn't that at all! The sight singing was done in 'theory' class. the part writing was done in that class, the rhythmic exercises... there was one class. Cincinnati College/Conservatory of Music, Honors Music Theory. the professor must have believed this was not compartmentalized, specialized study but integrated into musicianship.
The only 'writing' I did was a graduate paper I was allowed, per 'Form and Analysis'. I was never 'tested aurally'. We were put through our paces and it was rigorous. We learned how to write parts in four part harmony through late harmonic practice. The sight singing we did definitely had the result of, you more or less hear the parts you write. If your effort sounded crap I think the grade was likely to reflect that.