Do you need music theory?

[Mark Ambler]

I think you need to catch up. This is the end of a lengthy discussion. It's all been described in detail in the posts above yours.

Well, I've read some of them, but AFAIK music notation (manuscript) is the accepted form of notation. Being illiterate (unable to read or write music) doesn't necessarily mean you will be unable to play 'music', but will limit your ability in some ways. If your goal is to create music and share it with others, sure, you don't need to be musically literate.
Maybe one of your songs will get successful and they will publish sheet music of it.

 

[vickerekes]

Don’t take this wrong - I was a theory/composition major for a reason. Many of the most profound staggering life-changing truths I’ve received came from people with only a smattering of grammar. Along the same lines, some of the most epic memorable musical experiences came playing with people having no real knowledge of theory: like trying to push a train already barreling down the track… just happy to be along and lucky to keep up.

 

[LBS-bass]

Well, I've read some of them, but AFAIK music notation (manuscript) is the accepted form of notation. Being illiterate (unable to read or write music) doesn't necessarily mean you will be unable to play 'music', but will limit your ability in some ways. If your goal is to create music and share it with others, sure, you don't need to be musically literate.
Maybe one of your songs will get successful and they will publish sheet music of it.

I would maybe substitute the word "traditional" for "accepted" and pretty much agree with most of what you said.

One problem with the newer tools that I know all too well is that they are relatively easy for anyone to use, but not necessarily to master. So there's a lot being produced by people who maybe think they are more talented than they are that just isn't very good. I suppose, though, that the same could be said for things that have been notated using traditional methods, although it's less likely friends and family would be forced to listen to the end products

 

[byacey]

I suppose one could generate a midi file or computer generated notation, but with the midi file, someone still needs to recognize or decipher what they are hearing from the midi file, and the computer generated notation is useless unless a musically literate someone can read it. If it's on paper in black and white there's no errors through listening by ear and trying to recognize what is being played.

I primarily play violin and bass by ear, but it sure helps to be able to read and not having to trust my ears when I'm not sure about something.

 

[byacey]

I think that a musician that can hear and create music in their head only needs some way to translate what is in their head to something that can be shared with others. Such a person could use a pen and paper to transcribe that, or they could use other tools. The difference between what you and I seem to be saying appears to boil down to whether or not musical literacy is defined by the use of one specific set of tools and not another one.

Other than conventional musical notation, I don't know what other method could be used to convey your musical ideas to another person without them hearing what you are playing.

 

[LBS-bass]

Other than conventional musical notation, I don't know what other method could be used to convey your musical ideas to another person without them hearing what you are playing.

There is no other method. Old methods are transitional things that exist between imagination and actual sound, whereas newer methods allow you to transcribe what is in your head directly to sound.

 

[LBS-bass]

I suppose one could generate a midi file or computer generated notation, but with the midi file, someone still needs to recognize or decipher what they are hearing from the midi file, and the computer generated notation is useless unless a musically literate someone can read it. If it's on paper in black and white there's no errors through listening by ear and trying to recognize what is being played.

I primarily play violin and bass by ear, but it sure helps to be able to read and not having to trust my ears when I'm not sure about something.

I find this to be true as well. I like to learn more complicated material by ear, but after learning it to the best of my ability I often will look up other versions and sheet music to get a better idea of how close I am. The problem there is that often the sheet music is incorrect. It's really only as good as the person doing the transcribing, in many cases. So there's always an element of uncertainty. I believe more in my ear, in those cases, but sometimes the transcriptions are good and help me with problem areas.

 

[byacey]

I find this to be true as well. I like to learn more complicated material by ear, but after learning it to the best of my ability I often will look up other versions and sheet music to get a better idea of how close I am. The problem there is that often the sheet music is incorrect. It's really only as good as the person doing the transcribing, in many cases. So there's always an element of uncertainty. I believe more in my ear, in those cases.

There is no right and wrong in music. Sometimes your own interpretation can be a better, more imaginative idea compared to what is written in someone else's notation. There is generally accepted theory, but it boils down to this: if it sounds good to the listener, it is good.

 

[Colin Cunliffe]

I think that a musician that can hear and create music in their head only needs some way to translate what is in their head to something that can be shared with others. Such a person could use a pen and paper to transcribe that, or they could use other tools. The difference between what you and I seem to be saying appears to boil down to whether or not musical literacy is defined by the use of one specific set of tools and not another one.

Me again, Im on the other side of the pond and my sleep time caught up...

Re-reading your posts again I think you are looking at pen & paper as (to use the language analogy) one and eg a computer as another. By the way I use computer because no one could ever read my scribble and it allowed multiple copies.

These are in fact two methods of the same language. The PC using midi or two keyboards plugged in are using the same language. That language just defines the varying elements, measurements. A very simple example play 4th string fret 2, F sharp or G flat. What's the difference?

From my point of view nothing, however there is a chance of confusion because you can play multiple F# and multiple Gb. So the tab wins, however tab cant tell me how long a note, how quiet a note or if I have to modify the note as/after I produce it. Notation is much better at that (I know you can add all sorts of bits to tab but it is so close to notation you may as well use that).

So back to the PC, guess what? Yes you guessed correctly midi is using music notation to clarify, standardise what each bit of info means. You right to say that pen and paper is old fashioned youre wrong to say it is a different language.

I recently visited France, as I havent been for a while I took a refresher course, instead of going to night class I did an on line course, same results just different methods of getting the information - the important point is they both used the same language/standards/descriptives.

Once again your friend using electronics to record music, c, e, g will still sound pleasant compared to c, d# f
The theory behind why they sound that way is still there.

Look after yourself and refresh your music reading skills

 

[Turnaround]

Being illiterate (unable to read or write music) doesn't necessarily mean you will be unable to play 'music', but will limit your ability in some ways. If your goal is to create music and share it with others, sure, you don't need to be musically literate.

Being illiterate at reading doesn't mean you will be unable to speak. But you will speak better if you are well-read. So it goes with music.

 

[LBS-bass]

Me again, Im on the other side of the pond and my sleep time caught up...

Re-reading your posts again I think you are looking at pen & paper as (to use the language analogy) one and eg a computer as another. By the way I use computer because no one could ever read my scribble and it allowed multiple copies.

These are in fact two methods of the same language. The PC using midi or two keyboards plugged in are using the same language. That language just defines the varying elements, measurements. A very simple example play 4th string fret 2, F sharp or G flat. What's the difference?

From my point of view nothing, however there is a chance of confusion because you can play multiple F# and multiple Gb. So the tab wins, however tab cant tell me how long a note, how quiet a note or if I have to modify the note as/after I produce it. Notation is much better at that (I know you can add all sorts of bits to tab but it is so close to notation you may as well use that).

So back to the PC, guess what? Yes you guessed correctly midi is using music notation to clarify, standardise what each bit of info means. You right to say that pen and paper is old fashioned youre wrong to say it is a different language.

I recently visited France, as I havent been for a while I took a refresher course, instead of going to night class I did an on line course, same results just different methods of getting the information - the important point is they both used the same language/standards/descriptives.

Once again your friend using electronics to record music, c, e, g will still sound pleasant compared to c, d# f
The theory behind why they sound that way is still there.

Look after yourself and refresh your music reading skills

I don't think I said it was a different language. I believe somewhere in there I clarified that music is the language, all the tools, old and new, are just ways to make it reproducible and experiential. The analogy does break down a bit when talking about Russian vs. English because, in that context those languages are tools to produce and record thoughts and concepts. The difference here, of course, is that the end product of, say, a book, is not analogous to a finished recording, because if you don't know Russian (or English) you still cannot experience the creation without another step being taken.

But basically I agree with all of this. As I said several times, pen and paper or modern tools, they are all just tools.

 

[Turnaround]

I don't think I said it was a different language. I believe somewhere in there I clarified that music is the language, all the tools, old and new, are just ways to make it reproducible and experiential. The analogy does break down a bit when talking about Russian vs. English because, in that context those languages are tools to produce and record thoughts and concepts. The difference here, of course, is that the end product of, say, a book, is not analogous to a finished recording, because if you don't know Russian (or English) you still cannot experience the creation without another step being taken.

But basically I agree with all of this. As I said several times, pen and paper or modern tools, they are all just tools.

This is drifting off-topic though. The topic is whether we need music theory, which is not a question of notation or reading.

Do you need to understand language theory to speak? Do you need to understand music theory to make music? I think not in either case. But having a good grasp of each makes us better communicators in the respective medium.

 

[LBS-bass]

This is drifting off-topic though. The topic is whether we need music theory, which is not a question of notation or reading.

Do you need to understand language theory to speak? Do you need to understand music theory to make music? I think not in either case. But having a good grasp of each makes us better communicators in the respective medium.

Whether it's off topic or not sort of depends on whether you believe formal education, particularly in notation and reading, is necessary for a person to have a strong grasp of theory because a lot of people would tell this person I know that he doesn't know any theory at all. But I'll stop now.

 

[Colin Cunliffe]

Whether it's off topic or not sort of depends on whether you believe formal education, particularly in notation and reading, is necessary for a person to have a strong grasp of theory because a lot of people would tell this person I know that he doesn't know any theory at all. But I'll stop now.

Firstly my apologies for miss understanding your view point.

As to do we need THEORY, the answer is still yes. Like lots of subjects I think people shy away from "high brow" lots of technical words, "it sounds difficult therefore it must be".

As I said before loads of musicians, and I use musicians deliberately, run around key changes, modes, transposing and a 1001 other things "BUT DON'T KNOW THEORY". What they really don't know is what the technical term is for what they just did.

Again, as I hope you picked up on, I do not support the theory in a class room arguing is it this or that, stupid point scoring. In a practice or open mike and someone shouts R&R in G - off you go, someone turns to you and says can you walk on the Pentatonic?

The theory is done in your head in a flash - Yes Im in ?? now so if I use the leading note and then walk down the scale back to the root of the next bar.

Its all theory, if you then want to describe what you did in a way that every one understands NOT well I 4-4, 3 -4 and dropped a string to the !!!!!! etc etc etc. I know a lot of keys players will be sitting boggle eyed. But you could have explained the notes to a German Violin, A Lebanese Sitar, or an American (no sorry not American because you all speak different musical terms QUARTER Note, 1, 2, 3, 4) OK OK I was only joking, but the American guitar player would understand it as well.

And just to get myself out of trouble, I was taught to use the American by an Australian musician and have to say how much easier and obvious it all is.

Whatever - ENJOY WHAT YOU ARE PLAYING.

 

[Manuel Bass]

There are great musicians with tons of knowledge in your head and great others with basic notions and they are both great
Example1 pat metheny
2paco de lucia
Love both

 

[Mark Ambler]

This is drifting off-topic though. The topic is whether we need music theory, which is not a question of notation or reading.

Do you need to understand language theory to speak? Do you need to understand music theory to make music? I think not in either case. But having a good grasp of each makes us better communicators in the respective medium.

Really depends on your goals. In my experience

Being illiterate at reading doesn't mean you will be unable to speak. But you will speak better if you are well-read. So it goes with music.

Given the choice of walking or driving 100 miles, driving is preferable, but you don’t ‘need’ a car. Although there are very good players who have primarily learnt by ear, especially in the blues / rock genre, a lack of studied theory makes it much harder for them to play more complex music. But you all know this, surely?

 

[byacey]

The theory is done in your head in a flash - Yes Im in ?? now so if I use the leading note and then walk down the scale back to the root of the next bar.

Its all theory, if you then want to describe what you did in a way that every one understands NOT well I 4-4, 3 -4 and dropped a string to the !!!!!! etc etc etc. I know a lot of keys players will be sitting boggle eyed. But you could have explained the notes to a German Violin, A Lebanese Sitar, or an American (no sorry not American because you all speak different musical terms QUARTER Note, 1, 2, 3, 4) OK OK I was only joking, but the American guitar player would understand it as well.

And just to get myself out of trouble, I was taught to use the American by an Australian musician and have to say how much easier and obvious it all is.

Demi Semi Quaver anyone?

 

[reverendboom]

Houston jazz piano player Joe LoCascio said something to the effect "Music Theory is a tool to make up for deficiencies in our musical ear."

Some people are born with a gift. Some acquire it by experience, Others can learn it from a book. The end result is the same.

I've spent years as a Worship leader and in of the churches I worked for I was told that they had a pianist (should have known something was up then) that was working on a masters degree in music composition. I thought I was the luckiest worship leader on the planet until the first practice. I discovered that all the theory in the world will not make you a musician. I was ever so thankful that he left shortly after that as he was the pastor's son-in-law and I couldn't just ask him to leave.

Just to make it clear, I am not against learning theory. My two years as a music major (voice) taught me a lot and while I never really think about theory it is a part of what helps me to make music. At the same time it is the giftedness that makes me a musician. The theory just improves the gift.

Whatever happened to people knowing what they want? I don't get it. This question makes zero sense.

If you never had apple pie, how would you know that you wanted it?

 

[DJ Bebop]

I think we have reached a place where we are confusing two different things,
music theory and music literacy.

One can have a full understanding of music theory, scales, intervals, major, minor yet, still be musically illiterate as far as reading.

Again like any language, you can understand someone talking to you after years of hearing it like, a child learns to speak but if one doesn't learn to read write the language, they are still illiterate even though they can speak it and understand it when it's spoken to them. There is nothing wrong with the term musically illiterate. It is not a slight, it is a statement of fact.

So, I can't read music but I can play songs. Then you are playing and performing music and that's fine but,
one is still considered musically illiterate if they can't read or write it, whether it's written in pen or a computer prints it. Now if one takes offense at that classification, there's a solution

As an example:
Danny Elfman Biography | Composer & Guitarist

 

[LBS-bass]

Really depends on your goals. In my experience


Given the choice of walking or driving 100 miles, driving is preferable, but you don’t ‘need’ a car. Although there are very good players who have primarily learnt by ear, especially in the blues / rock genre, a lack of studied theory makes it much harder for them to play more complex music. But you all know this, surely?

I would not characterize my friend's compositions as simplistic in the least. Kinda jazzy with a rock influence, mostly, not many simple chords or predictable changes. It's pretty easy to dismiss self-taught people as only being capable of reaching certain basic levels, but this is not that. Maybe he's just unusually gifted.