I am turning into a theory slut

[funkychickendance]

OK, I can no longer resist.

(...)

Learn how to read music by all means. That isn't theory, it's literacy. Follow scores while you listen to stuff if you want to, play with things like Chord space, and have fun.

And rid yourself of the notion that you know what music really is.

Because at this stage of the game, all we have are guesses.

Whooo! Pythagoras, Fux, Rameau, Schenker...and common sense conclusions derived therefrom.

"Dude knows his shit," as Charlie Parker woulda said.

/fcd
who thought tritones were a band, for a long time

[Frippertronix]

But does theory help you improvise?

[Sascha Franck]

But does theory help you improvise?

I'd say, partially yes.
You may now argue whether improvisation based on theory (even if only vaguely) could still be called improvisation.

[Frippertronix]

But does theory help you improvise?

I'd say, partially yes.
You may now argue whether improvisation based on theory (even if only vaguely) could still be called improvisation.

I'd say certainly yes, but there is a question of spontaneity. How spontaneous can one even manage to be while referencing a catalog of theory-derived progressions and tension/resolution concepts in real time? Particularly at high speed?

I would argue that theory might introduce you to many new options you might not have anticipated on your own, but if you are expected to improvise, you will need very strong spontaneous creative instincts as well.

There's also a major flaw in a theory oriented approach to composition, which arises from the issue of overall context. Songs or pieces have a distinct identity from beginning to end, IMO. Everything reacts in the context of everything else that occurs in the whole course of the song. It's simply impossible to anticipate what a formulated chord sequence will actually sound like once it exists within the context of an entire song structure. Too many variables. One can only know by direct experimentation.

And there is one more caveat: no one can know a library's worth of theory unless they are a serious professor of music and study it all the time. Most musicians probably have a fairly limited store of it in their minds. If they are constantly referencing that limited store, it's bound to have them falling into similar patterns over and over again.

[herodotus]

herodotus, once again, you're the man.

Saved for further reading and use. Hope you don't mind if i cite it in the next thousand theory threads that will pop up on KvR?

Thanks, but I have to make one correction:

Johann Joseph Fux was not actually a student of Palestrina.

The form of his Gradus ad Parnassum was indeed a dialogue between Palestrina and Fux, but this just reflected his enthusiasm for the great master who had in fact died over 60 years before Fux was born.

Sorry.

[Frippertronix]

How about Brahms? He was cool.

[glurgle]

I'm not as confident with classical theory, but as a probably interesting add-on for the jazz/rock/pop realm: ...

This was a very interesting read for me Sascha. I've only recently (last year or so) started getting into voice leading and using the various tensions to build melody into a progression. It's fascinating for me. If you have any further reading reccomendations on this subject I'd be really interested.

I am also gaining perspective by collaborating with a friend who knows 0 theory but is talented/persistant enough to get what he hears in his head out on the guitar. He finds it fascinating when I explain what he's doing in terms of music theory, and I find it fascinating when I can't

It's simply impossible to anticipate what a formulated chord sequence will actually sound like once it exists within the context of an entire song structure. Too many variables. One can only know by direct experimentation.

A problem that I still wrestle with on a daily basis. I tend to come up with all kinds of neat stuff while improvising, and can't remember what chord progression came after which and key I was in at that time etc. Which leads to a much less interesting song when I try to force it through my limited understanding of music theory.

Maybe I should pull my controller keyboard out of the closet and start practising with that so I can record midi and analyze my performance a bit more.

Guess I don't really have anything to contribute but I always enjoy these threads because of all the interesting theory I read about after.

[rollasoc]

A large part of it is that I just seem to have alot less fun making music when I'm not also trying to learn new things to do with it;

Keep it up, I try and learn something new in every song I write and record, be it new chords, scales, genre, use of an effect or other production technique Else what would be the point?

Rollasoc

[Frippertronix]

My advice is to practice improv more than I would advise people to delve into theory. Look into it and pursue it if you find it interesting, but don't feel obligated. Do feel obligated to push yourself to search for and find new and stirring effects in composition, though. If you work at it you will be both interesting and original, instead of just juggling formulas that work well in their own right, but have been used countless times before, as most formulas have been.

[Lunatique]

It's kind of strange how people tend to splinter off into either " I hate established conventional music and only like experimental/edgy/underground stuff" or "Soundscape/noise knob tweakers are not musicians--they are a joke" camps. Why can't people just embrace ALL musical styles and all time periods? Does it have to be one or the other? Isn't that kind of limiting? I personally try to appreciate, understand, compose, and enjoy all types of music, and I think I'm far happier and fulfilled that way. To only like certain types of music is similar to only watching one or two genres of films. You won't get as much enjoyment out of life being that way. It's much better to be able to enjoy watching all genres of films.

[robenestobenz]

Personal experience is: I haven't yet done anything I've liked by playing in accordance with theory from the start. However, it's been very useful when analysing something I like and using the analysis to make harmonising easier. The three things theory has taught me that I use most often and enjoy are how to get melodies and chords cooperating, modulation and substitution.

[Vervil]

This argument(and I am hearing it often) if does theory helps improvisation and composing or can it hinder originality is really based on some false presumptions, and mostly comes from people having experience of working with not-so-talented people coming from the music schools:

Learning theory is just a basic skeleton for a music body, flesh comes later, and based on talent (or lack of) there will be difference in interpretation of what someone has learned and the way player or composer builds on previous knowledge.
When we learn, it is different procces then improvising and composing, at least when I am doing that, I am not able to use theory in a consiouss way, it is there to help, but my playing much more depends on state of mind I am in at that very moment than on theory.
Concept, "theory is not needed, and makes you play like everybody else" is actually excuse and defensive mechanism I have heard from lot of players, who may be unsure about their validity as a players. You HAVE to know some theory, even if someone is self thought thru learning process he will make some kind of his own set of rules, so it is theory again, it is unavoidable.
For instance Holdsworth was going around usual theory stuff but he made his own system of scales and chords, so it again becomes theory.

I am giving private lessons and one of the most usual things is that the young guy comes and he has some kind of problem...most of them are self thought players, and they are simply in a root. So I often use some pieces of theory as eye-openers. It is hard to learn when someone does not where to go. When he gets some theory he is missing as a basis for work, if he is creative, he can use that and build on it in a lot of different ways. Some things that were mistery to them become easy and comfortable.

I have never seen someone whose playing was hurted by theory, who was playing or composing less good after learning some stuff.

[soulata]

I teach sax and one of my students (with 3 years of playing sax behind him) said (after having great difficulties playing things in rhythm) - screw that, I'm all for experimental music, i don't need to have a sense of rhythm.

We both had a laugh after that...

The point being, even if you're not that much into rhythm, melody & harmony thing - a bit of knowledge can't hurt.

[soulata]

Putting someone under pressure to adopt a system of notation or theory which does not actually cater for aspects of their creative output is certainly capable of 'cramping their style'.

there's a difference between knowing something and being forced into using it.

i know some theory (enough probably) but can still choose not to use it.

i mean, i still have ears, you know.

k

[vurt]

" I hate established conventional music and only like experimental/edgy/underground stuff" or "Soundscape/noise knob tweakers are not musicians--they are a joke"

i would argue that the former of those two exists far less than the latter.
most experimental artists i know also have a love of more conventional stuff too,for instance shamman likes abba,i myself have a wide and varied selection of conventional music. it tends to be the people who learnt the theory who cant see past their own small world

im with you, embrace the experience if its good music does it matter?