There are some things that need to be clarified, IMO. Music theory aims to explain the basic stuff about music, nothing else. There are other disciplines that develop further on the music subject, like musical analysis, which study subject is mainly what has been done (not what should be done), by composers throughout the centuries.nighteye wrote:So,
music theory is good, but don't be tied down by the rules.
?yes
Therefore, by studying it, musicians usually become able to fully understand all the inner workings of the pieces studied, and why we reached some point, where from and how could it possibly go from it. And that's not all. There's also aesthetics, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, etc.
If someone approaches music theory (alone) with the hope that, by studying a little of it, they will become composers overnight, they couldn’t be more wrong. It's like trying to become a mathematician by just learning the multiplication tables.
What I wrote about melody is just because melody is a very simple and immediate approach to music. That's the primary dimension of music, the one we can build up with just our natural instrument (the voice), therefore, there's no need to complicate what's simple. Now, when we go from the melody to the development, to the building of a musical piece, arrangement, etc., then there's a lot that can be said and done.
And there isn't a right way and a wrong way to harmonize it (if harmonizing it is what we want). There are several styles of harmonizing, and each one will produce different results.
My advice would be to start with the melody alone. Then try out very simple and sparse chords, and feel free to experiment with consonances and dissonances, to see where it leads you.
If you have enough skills, try to listen to some of the songs (or pieces of music) that you like the most, and decompose them into their elements to see how they were done, and what makes them good to your ears. That's the best theory you can learn, and that's how composers have been training since ever.