Did music theory help you much with chords etc?

[vurt]

Transposition is not ”adding or subtracting semitones”, it’s the selfsame intervallic structure moved up or down.

im guessing, he means more +3 in the transpose menu rather than making it a ten note scale, but yes, the correct term would be move up or down

[jancivil]

The thing is, after a point ‘by semitones’ wastes time. That post seems like the orientation is to a piano roll. Transpose by ‘minor seventh’ is by ten semitones, and we want to have that without having to count, but hopefully the DAW has a way to save that (and maybe all of ‘em) to a key command… and “minor seventh” is a musical thought or context.

besides the way it reads could lead to confusion to those who haven’t done.

[vurt]

true, best we try to use the correct lingo

adding the intervals to key commands is a great idea!

[plumpgangnam]

Diatonic theory and learning chords from scales was eye opening for me. Rather than memorizing, it let me figure out chords and scales (or vice versa) much more quickly. I was just wildly guessing before.

[Timaeus]

I did have a little bit of music theory lessons while learning piano from my teacher, but I never officially took an actual music theory course. I think even if I did, it wouldn't suddenly become easier to write music. There is still the usual hurdle of just becoming inspired at the right time and having the idea stick long enough to project onto your DAW before you forget how it goes.

I think of Music Theory as a way to describe music after I hear it or write it, not a prescription to guide me how to write, per se. At least then I'm not pigeonholing myself into how I "should" write based on theoretically "correct" chords, but rather, I might hear/write a chord progression, think it's not quite how I want it, goof around a bit until it sounds like how I visualized it, then gradually get to where I want it to be. None of that goofing around requires me to truly know music theory---sometimes what I write is too complicated for ME, personally, to analyze mid-writing.

[Fannon]

I think even if I did, it wouldn't suddenly become easier to write music. There is still the usual hurdle of just becoming inspired at the right time and having the idea stick long enough to project onto your DAW before you forget how it goes.

Well said

I think of Music Theory as a way to describe music after I hear it or write it, not a prescription to guide me how to write, per se. At least then I'm not pigeonholing myself into how I "should" write based on theoretically "correct" chords, but rather, I might hear/write a chord progression, think it's not quite how I want it, goof around a bit until it sounds like how I visualized it, then gradually get to where I want it to be. None of that goofing around requires me to truly know music theory---sometimes what I write is too complicated for ME, personally, to analyze mid-writing.

Here is where music theory can help you get there faster, imho.
If you know what typically fits together and the rules why (actually, most of music theory seems to be redundant to me - it appears in many places much more complex than it actually is.) - you can easier fill in something that fits, or diverge from the rules.
Knowing the rules doesn't mean you need to follow them. It's even nice to know the rules and conventions, because then you can better break them on purpose and you know what you've broken.

But I get your point. There are too many people who learn music theory like learning the rules of traffic. I would rather see it as learning society norms. Helps you to get along, but sometimes you definitely don't want to follow them and just be your own person.

[jancivil]

I never officially took an actual music theory course. I think even if I did…

You can’t know what the result is never having done, can you.
I don’t know how your process goes, but the course (if a good, solid course, of course) is a very different thing than not having it, or basics conveyed in piano lessons (unless that was the same applied rigor).
So:

There is still the usual hurdle of just becoming inspired at the right time

Waiting for inspiration is a pitfall out of not having music writing as a habit, not having the technique, the muscle from exercise and training… the discipline.

I think of Music Theory [as] not a prescription to guide me how to write, per se. At least then I'm not pigeonholing myself into how I "should" write based on theoretically "correct" chords, but rather…

No one serious is using “music theory” as a recipe or a book of how to do the thing. There are no correct chords.

The “rules” apply to sort of prescribed results, yes, but this is totally style-bound. No parallel or covered fifths, avoid leaps beyond a certain point, don’t cross voices etc are extrapolated, first from Fux Gradus, then more or less out of the practice of JS Bach.
(and some of this is mistaken, even. If Bach or Mozart write, eg.,a German Sixth predominant to V7, we get covered fifths. It’s actually called Mozart fifths. So:)
The cliché ‘learn the rules in order to know how to break them’ works in a very specific case such as this, but as a general principle amounts to a kind of misconstruction of the thing. IE: if the goal is a rock sound, or atonal music, free or serial, or modal music, ad infin, the rules out of standard music theory (read: harmony) class don’t apply, you’re ignoring them.

That whole trip is like saying you practice scales so the music you create is all about scales, or the scale exercises you built muscle from. The point is to develop the muscles.

[tehlord]

Waiting for inspiration is a pitfall out of not having music writing as a habit, not having the technique, the muscle from exercise and training… the discipline.


That whole trip is like saying you practice scales so the music you create is all about scales, or the scale exercises you built muscle from. The point is to develop the muscles.

]

This we can agree on, and is the crux of my point about playing vs theory.

I can sit down and jam or improvise. I have friends who also make music who have sat and watched me do this and proclaim my 'magical skill'. It's nothing of the kind, it's just years of practice. Anybody who has done what I have done can do exactly the same, probably better.

It also meant that I spent some time in my late teens/early 20's in bands and in musical collaborations that I would not have been able to partake in had I not been able to play the instrument.

You cannot do this by reading about and learning theory.

You can do what I did just by taking (for example) piano lessons and absorbing that skill with the minimal theory that goes along with lessons and taking grades.

[Harry_HH]

OP asks, “if music theory is going to help him much for doing music,or should he bother at all of the theory”.

Who knows - none can’t tell what suits to the other.

If he asks, if I have gained for learning the theory, the answer is: a lot.
Although music is basicly intuitive and emotional, and for many its a skill of hands, there is a strong logic-rational dimension, how the music is structured.

All the music elements from the rhythm to harmony can be derived from the mathematics.

Creating different chords, corresponding melody and bass, harmonic structure, modulations - knowing the theory gives a new tool for creating good sounding music.

Special cases such as dodekaphony or seralism are logic-derived.

Of course there are millions, who create great music without knowing anything of the book-based music theory.

[jancivil]

OP asks, “if music theory is going to help him much for doing music,or should he bother at all of the theory”.

Who knows - none can’t tell what suits to the other.

That’s one way to approach the question, to act as though the original poster is the only one reading. So it’s the same question as ‘has it helped you?’ As a matter for the community I believe in clarifying a matter. A number of people with opinions they apparently must share inevitably misconstruct the entire thing.

Overall, while I’ve known individuals, and known well enough, who didn’t appear to have any use to verbalize or analyze what they hear and do in a way most will construe as “music theory”, they were exceedingly rare individuals with overwhelming talent - in terms of an ear - and that type of person is not very likely to be at an internet music theory forum with this question… so we’re talking in virtually every case with people who, if they’ve the desire and interest, will benefit from knowing how music works on a mechanical level.

[jancivil]

And, if we’ve noticed how, for example a C to F & back to C move is the same thing as E to A & back to E, only at a different pitch level, we’re doing the very same thing as music theory, whether we externalize it in some way or not.

Do you want to see as opposed to wandering in the dark always?
Now, I like not yet knowing, and the possibilities of discovery out-of-the-blue, but there is no necessity for a dichotomy there really.
The places you can go having gained some sense of direction might be the more interesting…

[Harry_HH]

OP asks, “if music theory is going to help him much for doing music,or should he bother at all of the theory”.

Who knows - none can’t tell what suits to the other.

That’s one way to approach the question, to act as though the original poster is the only one reading. So it’s the same question as ‘has it helped you?’ As a matter for the community I believe in clarifying a matter. A number of people with opinions they apparently must share inevitably misconstruct the entire thing.

Overall, while I’ve known individuals, and known well enough, who didn’t appear to have any use to verbalize or analyze what they hear and do in a way most will construe as “music theory”, they were exceedingly rare individuals with overwhelming talent - in terms of an ear - and that type of person is not very likely to be at an internet music theory forum with this question… so we’re talking in virtually every case with people who, if they’ve the desire and interest, will benefit from knowing how music works on a mechanical level.

Yes, partly that's why I used expression "the book-based music theory."

Although not "book based theory", people who have not formally studied music, and neglect the importance of "the theory", in practice use and understand music theory in a very deep level. One popular example often used, is Paul McCartney, who claims he doesn't even read notes at all, but we all know that from the early days in the 60's Lennon-McCartney used most of the classical music "constructions" such as harmony, voicing, counterpoint, modulation, time signature change etc.

[jancivil]

McCartney in particular experienced a great lot of music growing up, his father was some kind of musician, and the English music hall tradition was strong there; and this sort of process of osmosis is crucial. However virtually everybody we’re going to encounter in this context we can safely say isn’t a Paul McCartney, beginning with myself. And a lot of these situations here specifically are people who want to create music as if ex nihilo, having no such experience.

Training, well, I needed it on multiple levels to have any chance.
Modern times with the internet are fraught with pitfalls, chiefly a notion of doing less since so much is there for the asking, for little work.

[jancivil]

Dweezil Zappa claims he doesn’t read a note as well. When I was a teen, the best jazz player I knew didn’t, and acted like he didn’t really follow chord names. In a post-bop vocabulary.

But there’s a point where a wall comes up if you go far enough. Macca needed someone to score his oratorio, and he’s no George Martin.

let me say this, I got my ear going by picking as much off of records, or trying to, as I could hear. I also tried to play all kinds of songs, and sing them, off of lead sheets (and went around watching every show I could get in, and bothering people). By the time I took a course, I was way ahead, and wrote parts like a mother.

[Timaeus]

If you know what typically fits together and the rules why (actually, most of music theory seems to be redundant to me - it appears in many places much more complex than it actually is.) - you can easier fill in something that fits, or diverge from the rules.
Knowing the rules doesn't mean you need to follow them. It's even nice to know the rules and conventions, because then you can better break them on purpose and you know what you've broken.

Agreed - there is simply an extent to which you can wish to be rigid to the rules that you may know, and sometimes breaking said 'rules' generates excitement. However, sometimes I even break them without knowing exactly what I just did...

I'll pull an example from something I've done because this rarely happens for me. Consider 0:29 - 0:56 here, compared to 2:47 - 3:14.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTeX9Ua01nE

I never figured out how to describe what I did here.

I'm using the same melodic ideas, in both sections, but the bass progression and chord progression feel like... a different mode? All I know aside from that is it sounds cool, and that I managed that happy accident without successfully analyzing what I did afterwards because of the musical intuition I gained from writing for 11 years, but without sufficient music theory knowledge.

There are too many people who learn music theory like learning the rules of traffic. I would rather see it as learning society norms. Helps you to get along, but sometimes you definitely don't want to follow them and just be your own person.

That's what I mean - I think music theory is not supposed to be a 'fixed prescription' - it should be (imo) a guide that you perhaps consider and know of (ideally), but preferably don't let control how you write to the extent that you are suddenly treating it as a chore.