Music Theory under rated

[longfinger]

Since that other thread is so popular, with many people disagreeing with the title, I figure it might be good to start this thread where advocates can chime in. (But feel free to debate as well!)


Music Theory defined:
I think of music theory as simplifications/reductions of specific topics, derived from thousands of individual real world music compositions and practices, into models and paradigms that can be more easily learned and communicated.

For example, if people take a 1000 compositions of a similar genre, from a similar geography and era, and compare them all, they can find many commonalities of the salient musical practices among these compositions. Simplifying the 1000 into a few models than can represent the 1000 accurately, is the process of creating music theory. This has been going on for centuries now and will continue as to be developed as the art of creative music making continues to be developed.


It takes hindsight, to create new music theory, one has to look at pieces already made in order to compile them and sort them out. In time, people will be able to make very accurate abstract models to describe the music of specific genres being made today. (Taking thousands of pieces developed over many decades of full time work, and making reasonable accurate simplified models of them that can be learned in a mere 4 months time by future students of the music of our era.)

Music Theory is not just about pitch, though in western european music that was what was the most easily notated and discussed. It can also be about Timbre, Rhythm, Form...

[BassChuck]

I generally avoid these kind of threads, but I like the way you are seeing and defining 'music theory'. I have two music degrees and, in doing such a thing, I've studied a great deal of music theory and use it quite a bit in playing bass, composing and arranging. However.... I have performed and continue to perform in several groups in which many of the members would claim then "don't know much (or any) music theory". Some don't read music.

I enjoy very much watching and listening to these so-called uneducated musicians and I'm often very impressed with the way they've constructed their own 'music theory'. Many of them could not really articulate how the elements of music work, yet they understand them very, very well in their own way. They know what notes work best together, what chords are needed for different styles. Often times their power of observation is keener than musicians who have studied a broad scope of music. They memorize quickly and hear very well. And.. most important, they understand how sounds and rhythm work together.

The upshot of all this is.... I don't believe them when they say they 'don't know music theory'. They do. They just don't know what Walter Piston has to say, or could do Hanson or Schenker analysis. So what? I guess the means they won't be teaching in a university soon. But... they are able to deal with the music they have at hand, and they DO know music theory.

[Papa Dangerous]

Theory, to me, is putting to paper what the ear already knows.

iii - vi - ii - V - I can make sense to person visually and another through pure sound.

Just because a person does not know why, or what those chords mean does not mean they cannot hear it, and play it.

Sometimes its better to know theory so you already know what works and you can build off of that.

Sometimes its better to not know it, and just discover the good sounds as they come naturally to the ear.

It does not matter to me what a person does, as long as it makes my brain tingle in the special electrical way when I hear something pleasing.

[Snarf]

Better thread title: Music Theory Not Understood By Many Who Offer Advice On This Forum.

I think we should STOP talking about "music theory" and start talking about harmony, melody, and rhythm. Those terms are easily defined, while "music theory" is not. The term "music theory" I think drives people to overcomplicate something that is really very simple.

An even bigger problem is that trying to explain via text something that must be HEARD to be understood is pretty damn futile.

Also, a lot of people here I think are trying to explain harmony with scales and bass concepts. THAT IS A DUMB THING TO DO.

[Papa Dangerous]

Originally Posted by Snarf

Better thread title: Music Theory Not Understood By Many Who Offer Advice On This Forum.

I think we should STOP talking about "music theory" and start talking about harmony, melody, and rhythm. Those terms are easily defined, while "music theory" is not. The term "music theory" I think drives people to overcomplicate something that is really very simple.

Harmony, melody, bass progression, rhythm, form, and so on are all aspects of music theory.

[Billnc]

Originally Posted by Snarf

Also, a lot of people here I think are trying to explain harmony with scales and bass concepts. THAT IS A DUMB THING TO DO.

Anyone who does not at least play chords on a harmony instrument can not understand harmony. You do not have to do more than play chords and understand leading from one to the next but it is crucial to play piano or guitar if you play bass, or another non chordal instrument.

[Mesa XI]

I've always seen the theory versus no-theory discussion like this...

You can take a flower, look at it on a cellular level, analyze the way it functions, follow the genetics from generation to generation and find some truly amazing works of nature and mechanics while discovering why it is what it is. Me, I just like to look at the flower.

[Snarf]

Originally Posted by Papa Dangerous

Harmony, melody, bass progression, rhythm, form, and so on are all aspects of music theory.

Yes but my point was that people should learn to treat the different subjects that fall within the term "music theory" as their own subjects.

For example, I take issue with how chord progressions are labeled as "music theory" subjects and not the more accurate "harmony" subjects.

[Basshoofd]

I'm giving out free Fodera's to anyone that can give me a good argument against knowing theory. Hint: such an argument can only be given by someone that actually knows theory.

[capnsandwich]

Originally Posted by Basshoofd

I'm giving out free Fodera's to anyone that can give me a good argument against knowing theory. Hint: such an argument can only be given by someone that actually knows theory.

My definition of music theory is the common language musicians communicate to one another about their music. If you can communicate to other musicians about the same music some other way, there you go. However, whatever method you choose outside of music theory probably won't be universal enough to play with all musicians.

Yeah, I probably won't get a Fodera, will I? There's really no argument against it unless you're afraid to learn it. Then it's not an argument, it's an excuse for not wanting to learn it.

[basskidd]

Originally Posted by Mesa XI

I've always seen the theory versus no-theory discussion like this...

You can take a flower, look at it on a cellular level, analyze the way it functions, follow the genetics from generation to generation and find some truly amazing works of nature and mechanics while discovering why it is what it is. Me, I just like to look at the flower.

Me, I like to smell flowers. XD
Seriously though, I agree with you, but I think that it needs to be taken a step farther. Its nice to look at flowers, but when you're making them, it helps to know how to build them. Even if you can only put a name like 'secondary dominants' to it in hindsight, it helps to know what it is in order to be able to construct a more beautiful and harmonious (or not, sometimes) flower. I'm not advocating relying entirely on theory, and thinking to yourself while playing 'gee, you know, a tri-tone sure would sound cool here...' but rather, just to be able to do it. For me, actually learning about music theory has helped a lot with that. If approached correctly, learning about music theory can help your ears grow.

http://benjaminbrandt.com/cutaways/w...1/07/DUMBO.jpg

[capnsandwich]

Originally Posted by Mesa XI

I've always seen the theory versus no-theory discussion like this...

You can take a flower, look at it on a cellular level, analyze the way it functions, follow the genetics from generation to generation and find some truly amazing works of nature and mechanics while discovering why it is what it is. Me, I just like to look at the flower.

That would be the listener's point of view. We create music, or create the flower. Therefore we would need to know the genetic makeup of each flower we make.

[Jim Carr]

Originally Posted by basskidd

...music theory can help your ears grow...

And your imagination.

[GoesThump]

Originally Posted by Papa Dangerous

Theory, to me, is putting to paper what the ear already knows.

Certainly historically true. (ex. the identification of sonata form took place long after Mozart was done writing them.)

I would also offer an alternate explanation : theory can be precisely the opposite - a way of opening up what the ear does not yet know.

A lot of our listening is culturally conditioned. It sometime takes an oblique strategy to get around our hearing habits.

My experience with students over the last oh... 12 years or so of college level music showed me the use of theory as a listening tool is underrated.

Example: A lot of people in our era don't really hear polyphony well - they're highly conditioned by homophonic textures. If you walk them through something contrapuntally simple (say, a Bach 2 part invention) w/analysis, their ability to hear what's going on in similar and more complex pieces (i.e. a fugue) gets a lot better.


GT

[GoesThump]

Originally Posted by Jim Carr

And your imagination.

So very, very true. It does (at least to some) seem counterintuitive, but that's often what happens.

I recall a "famous rock person" (to borrow Frank Zappa's term) saying that she didn't want to learn theory because she didn't want to be "boxed in."

The problem is that she's boxed in already, and not astute enough to realize the tiny dimensions of the box.

What was it that Hamlet guy said?

"I could be bounded in a nutshell
and count myself a king of infinite space -
Were it not that I have bad dreams."

Imagination is what drove me to learn & later teach theory - that notion that there was a wider musical experience I was not seeing. I didn't want to miss it.

GT

[ToddC]

Music theory is a sub-domain of musicology focusing on the science of music often handled within the context of time or periods of time. So doesn't the science of music touch all physical attributes of music? And if it doesn't wouldn't it be incomplete science? And aren't those physical attributes constant across all styles? The only difference being how periods and styles limit the utilization of the science of music.

Is it reasonable to mix the history of music (an ever changing dynamic), with the science of music (a constant); and call them the same; "music theory"?

I think so. Because music theory is just a view, perspective, or model of music within some context. But if you don't have a well formed view of music you're fishing without bait.

[Papa Dangerous]

Originally Posted by Snarf

Yes but my point was that people should learn to treat the different subjects that fall within the term "music theory" as their own subjects.

For example, I take issue with how chord progressions are labeled as "music theory" subjects and not the more accurate "harmony" subjects.

I agree, I guess what if trying to identify is that people who are not familiar with theory should learn what theory encompasses before they assume it is just how notes function and mathematics.

I find the most difficult part of a bassist, and only a bassist knowing music theory is how to incorporate it. Chord progressions use between 2 - 7 note chords. Bass tones, on any instrument, start to get muddy when you stack a lot of them low tones on top of each other.

So it is no longer just the bassist knowing theory, the guitarist has to know it as well. The guitar player can play a certain chord progression (regardless of inversion) because the bassist will then play the root, or an inversion of the chord, and that overall sound will make up how the chord sounds.

When playing in a band, it is exactly like playing in an orchestra (except most orchestral instruments play a single line, except piano, harp, or those various percussion instruments that are set up like a piano). It is not the individual instrument, but the overall sound that is generated that people can hear chord quality.

[joroched]

I'm giving out free Fodera's to anyone that can give me a good argument against knowing theory. Hint: such an argument can only be given by someone that actually knows theory.

I have a guess. First of all, I have made it a point to understand music theory because it's interesting, and can help someone like me, who may not be very musical, create music. That said, perfect pitch hearing. Rare, but a gift that can create harmonies without the textbook knowledge. I promise to wear the hat.

[Papa Dangerous]

Originally Posted by GoesThump

Certainly historically true. (ex. the identification of sonata form took place long after Mozart was done writing them.)

I would also offer an alternate explanation : theory can be precisely the opposite - a way of opening up what the ear does not yet know.

A lot of our listening is culturally conditioned. It sometime takes an oblique strategy to get around our hearing habits.

My experience with students over the last oh... 12 years or so of college level music showed me the use of theory as a listening tool is underrated.

Example: A lot of people in our era don't really hear polyphony well - they're highly conditioned by homophonic textures. If you walk them through something contrapuntally simple (say, a Bach 2 part invention) w/analysis, their ability to hear what's going on in similar and more complex pieces (i.e. a fugue) gets a lot better.


GT

+1
Very good point. There are plenty of surprises through "classical" music that provide certain things that one would not except to hear. I offer another example, one such example is modulations. Most people except a V - I all the time, because it is the dominant... it desires relations from I. But if you play a V chord, then play a secondary dominant and play a V/V (making ii into II) and lead back to V, we hear resolution from a V chord and not the I. This is a great opportunity to play vi chord and modulate into a different key. (I think I got that correct ).

A rhythmic example I can offer is Hyden's 94th symphony. That packs a nice surprise

And I do understand about the polyphony portion. After really trying to understand music in general, and after working with an orchestra (hearing them practice twice a week, plus concerts) for 5 years, it helped incredibly to be able to pick out the clarinet, from a flute, and the cello from the bass lines. This applied to electronic music works well, but it also difficult in its own aspects. Electronic music takes a lot of noise and manipulates there timbre into a musical sense. To try and pull out each layer can be very daunting, but not impossible.

[Papa Dangerous]

Originally Posted by Basshoofd

I'm giving out free Fodera's to anyone that can give me a good argument against knowing theory. Hint: such an argument can only be given by someone that actually knows theory.

By not knowing music theory, a person can feel a bit more free in choosing what they want to play. Perhaps they want an to play a Peruvian Chinese Jewish Native American rock band with a fiddle. The idea of eastern scales and western scales are not the same and thus can cause conflict. If a person is so in tune with their cultures adaptation of how music should flow, this "band" would be impossible if everyone knew their own cultures theory.

A lack of knowledge of theory is less confining in many aspects and allow a person to operate more freely based on the other instruments and what they are doing.

Also, if you listen to John Cage, his music has consisted of all metallic sounds and noises. Granted, I am pretty sure he used notation, but it is not necessary. If you just want to hit things, and make complete abstract noises and only work with seems to work together, then that could a reason why someone wants to ignore theory.

EDIT: I wrote this in the next post, and think it fits in here as well.

"Music theory is based on what we have designated as our musical setup. If you look at a piano, we have sharps/flats and whole tones. There is a sharp/flat between each note except BC and EF. Why? I think it was partly due to making the piano an instrument that can actually be manipulated. If there was a black key between every white key.. how would anyone know where middle C is located?

Also, we have A and A# and they are noted and understood by certain amount of vibrations/ cycles per second. We understand that A(4?) is 440 cps, it really seems arbitrary. Why not 445 vibrations as A? Why do we need to tune to these certain vibrations? Why not invent a new tuning system and have 442 vibrations be called Alpha Ding Dong?

Music theory, of the western culture, is based on the idea that our notes are to be remained constant in all ranges of all instruments. A4 will be A4 on any instrument."
-Perhaps if someone wanted to alter their instruments tuning to what ever they pleased. Then theory will not apply at all as to what is to being played. I had a friend who detuned the guitar and would play with 3 busted strings and can make an incredible song out it. He played what he liked to hear, and no one had a damn clue as to what chord structure/quality he was even going for. He is from a very punk perspective and found no care to know theory. It was not his thing. So knowing theory to play his style would be useless, considering he did not even play a "tuned" guitar.


Did I win a Fedora?!?!?