The ignorance is bliss fallacy

[Topiness]

The term 'music theory' needs to be dumped.

a 'theory' in science is something used to explain why something happens and allows prediction of what would happen in hypothetical situations, or the real future.

Music theory aggrandises itself by calling itself 'theory'. But you can guarantee that current music theory would have difficulty explaining how a piece composed 200 years from now had its effect on its audience, just as standard western music theory cannot deal with african polyrhythms, or filter sweeps.

At its most useful, music theory is simply a catalogue of how people have thought about, composed, and performed music in the past and present, across the different countries of the world...

...and in that respect, it's incredibly valuable, because people have thought of lots of interesing ways.

But it's the composer's decision what influences they want to choose. To call music theory 'useless' is silly, If you mean that it's useless for everyone. But to say that you're not interested - i.e. 'it's useless for ME' - is fine too.

With the equipment we have today, it's quite possible just to dial up patches, hit the keys, and find stuff out for yourself.

That said... and a KVR wiki or something would be awesome, even if it was called 'Music Theory'. Just think if all the energy and vitriol in these threads could be usefully harnessed.

[Amberience]

never heard anyone say that theory is useless

Nor have I. I did say the other day that it wasn't as important to me as just going with the flow, but I never said it was useless.

Yeah, but I have been almost called a "theory wanker" by a mod (? breaking the forums rules ?) on this board, for suggesting that not having this skill that is contained in music theory may produce simplistic music.


You put it in a more lucid way, Nuffink.

Visibly, or should I say, I believe that some people are born with an inner sense of theory/music skill and others have to study for years to do the same.

What is a theory wanker?

I don't believe people are born with theory skill. I do believe some people are naturally more musical than others, but I think theory is learnt.

[Lord Snarebottom]

You have to know music theory before you can forget it. If that makes sense. Before you can make it an intuition thing, you do have to study it and learn it from a left-brained perspective.

HAHA! Fool.

[Shane Sanders]

Merle Haggard. D. G. A. Words. Life experience. History. Time. Songs. Moments. Genius.

Igor Stravinsky. Promethean chords. Juxtaposition. Life experience. History. Time. Ballets. Moments. Genius.

Britney Spears. Bb. Bcup. Ccup. Life experience. History. Time. Songs. Moments. Stripper poles. 15 minutes too much.

edit: "Chaser" the hangover pills that you take while drinking...about 90% effective, imo. Well worth the $5 if it's a school night.

[Caleb]

Musical theory is a way of explaining why things work yes? That and to display the beautiful mathematics of it all.

So in that way it is as important as any theory yes?

Completely unnecessary for some, but very helpful - maybe even vital for others.

Music, of course, would go on whether there was any music theory to describe it or not much like gravity before Newton "discovered" it.

Regards
Caleb

[Topiness]

Musical theory is a way of explaining why things work yes?

...But what 'works' for one audience doesn't work for another. That's why I think that theory = how music works is pushing things a bit too far.

Also, (for a particular audience), there are always things that work that haven't been discovered yet and are waiting to be created - either as a development of current ideas, a fusion of different cultures or a development of new technology.

To take the gravity analogy: since the time of Newton, we have found out (i think) that the way he described gravity is only a limiting case of the way gravity actually works... what he found out was useful, but not the whole story.

in most fields of science, the basic idea is 'let's find out MORE, and add that knowledge to what we know'.

[Caleb]

I think we're talking about a different slant on the word "works". I think I should have said "how" things work instead of "why".

And I completely agree with what you're saying otherwise. I'm just saying that music theory is a way of describing music. It isn't music itself and music doesn't need to be completely captive to music theory.

I don't think we're disagreeing.

Regards
Caleb

[Topiness]

... it so often seems that when discussing anything interesting you end up bumping up against the limits of the English language before you actually make any progress in the discussion...

[Amberience]

This whole topic is a fallacy in itself though. Because it stems from one mans assertion that when people say "great music has been made by people with no theory" that it must surely mean "Therefore music theory is useless"

Yes, people have said (I'm basing this on my own experiences) that great music is made without theory (or knowledge of) ... but why does it automatically follow that the people offering this must think that theory is useless???

It's an illogical conclusion to make. If someone doesn't specifically say so, then they do not automatically think theory is useless.

Theory is useful, but (in my opinion) it is useful AFTER the music has been composed. This then also goes on to influence the next composition, then some theory comes after that, which influences in the next, and then the next, and the next.

It's a strange cycle of inspiration and technical knowledge. It isn't as clear cut as Nuffink would like to make us believe with his first post.

My final opinion: People who put no inherent value on theory do end up making crap music. People who put TOO much value on theory, well, most often they end up making crap music too.

There must always be a balance between just doing it and analysing it. Over analysing ruins the joy of making music.

At least it works this way for me.

[rachmiel]

> You have to know music theory before you can forget it.

when you learn something deeply, it changes you. even if you eventually purge or forget (most of) what you learned, it doesn't alter the fact that you have been forever *changed* from the initial learning.

[Aardvark]

But if people write it all off as this thing that kills inspiration and makes you boring and middle aged, that will never happen.

I'm boring & middle-aged despite having no formal musical training.

[eduardo_b]

Those who know and understand music theory are quite naturally going to believe in its vitality to music, whereas those of us who are not well versed, or even versed, in music theory simply see the incomprehensible and live with the reality of this.

Nufflink has taken his knowledge of music theory and of chords in particular and created some brilliant software for the rest of us. I suppose I could use it more effectively if I knew what he knows, but it ain't going to happen.

But does knowing music theory mean better music or even good music? I doubt the correlation is proportional, but I can't prove it.

[mucoder]

I think much ignorance comes from being needlessly intimidated by Theory. I sure was, as a complete beginner not so long ago. And am still nowhere really, but stopped being ashamed of it and even started enjoying the unorthodoxy that only noobs can get away with.

In that light, Nuffink's efforts to make theory more accessible through tools are absolutely great and inspiring. There should be way more initiatives like this.

I mean, having a zillion synths/effects is fantastic and I love playing with them. But I wouldn't mind a little revolution either that would bring on another zillion fun theory tools.

Not only the serious ones but also the imperfect-what-on-earth-is-that? kind of stuff (I plead guilty ). If it lets you have a spark of insight every now and then, its existence is more than justified.

[Hovmod]

But does knowing music theory mean better music or even good music? I doubt the correlation is proportional, but I can't prove it.

Not all mathematicians win nobel prizes either. What is this idea that the music you make is supposed to be the proof of the value of musicology?

Music, unlike almost everything else, CAN be made without any knowledge even of the most basic theory about it. That's one of its charms, that the LOGIC maps perfectly with SUBJECTIVE PLEASURE. So while some people will marvel at the math of Bach's fugues, way more people can appreciate the beauty of it.

If physics were like music, many more space shuttles would blow up.

[Freeform]

There are two sides to this, and I am a hippie at heart, so I say both sides are right. I have studied a bit of theory, and really it does explain alot of what I hear and pick up in songs on my own.

I think that some people like to learn the past theory used, and excercise that & combine methods that have been time tested and found to be pleasing.

Another side of this is people who like to think a bit outside the box and use more than 3 chords to write a song, not write the bass line in 5ths, and come up with their own arrangement algorithm that combines chorus and verse and maybe even something else.

Both sides are creative in their own way, and I have found pleasure in listening to completely non-structured atmospheric fiddling on a synth and found it just as pleasing as a professionally produced track. I believe personally that the idea of a right & wrong in music is like having tunnel vision in heaven.