books for everything.

[nuffink]

I've read various bits and things of music theory. Unfortunately I was born without the ability to relate any of it to what I actually hear. Whilst I can find a 3rd or a 5th on a keyboard (mostly), I cant actually hear a chord and know there's a 3rd or a 5th in it.

On the other hand I can hear something and know (for myself) whether it 'works' in its context. The theoretical side doesnt really help me with that at all. Spending a lot of my time experimenting, without worrying whether or not it fits with 'theory' or not does, however.

Hi Sean,

Knowing harmonic theory expands your pallette. Massively. It gives you a huge number of contexts that you didn't know existed.
People seem to think that it will, somehow, set limits on their creativity. It doesn't. Learning it makes your sandpit larger. Much larger.

[whyterabbyt]

Hi Sean,

Knowing harmonic theory expands your pallette. Massively. It gives you a huge number of contexts that you didn't know existed.

Quite probably.

I just dont seem to be able to relate the theory in any 'deconstructive' way (ie hear -> analyse).

People seem to think that it will, somehow, set limits on their creativity. It doesn't. Learning it makes your sandpit larger. Much larger.

Indeed, but I dont believe its the only way to expand that particular sandpit.

Although in a broader sense, that might be a moot comment if the definition of 'theory' being used here was actually inclusive of other aspects of composition (rhythm, timbre et.c.) Unfortunately a lot of that is less likely to be covered in a textbook. The resources Ive found for information on most electronic music composition, for example, has always been descriptive (ie Cage performed X piece by doing blah) rather than theoretical.