How much music theory do you really need to know?

[HeadWind]

the bass clef, the time signature, the key, the tempo, whole notes, half notes, quarter notes, sixteenth notes, etc., dynamics, bar lines, fermatas, codas, etc.... none of this is music theory?

I would call that notation, not theory, but I can understand why some people would lump it into theory.

Maybe it is because I am an engineer in my day job, but to me theory is rooted in the physics of sound. Why sounds fit together, and how you leverage that understanding into developing the lines that you play. How the semi-arbitrary division of the frequencies within an octave into 12 equal tempered half steps (or not for just temperament) provides interesting relative pitches (intervals) and how building different combinations of major and minor triads provides different moods to the music. Then the modes and other scales (e.g. melodic minor, harmonic minor, etc.) can be used to provide the raw material for the melodies on top of the various combinations of triads, creating what we know as music.

You can outright memorize theory concepts, but once you really understand them (and I still have a long way to go), you can see how they fit together in a logical system rather than a random combination of notes and intervals. Understanding that logical system is theory.

I guess a corollary to this is that you can really understand theory but still not be able to play for crap ;-) And the converse of course.

 

[DJ Bebop]

Ok, I buy into that

 

[nonohmic]

I'm not going to read this thread cause I don't want to buy into it. But to me this is like asking how much science do you need to know to be a scientist.

Music is a lifelong endeavor why would you ever stop learning?

 

[DJ Bebop]

Music is a lifelong endeavor why would you ever stop learning?

Exactly!!!

Ron Carter: Finding the Right Notes | PBS

 

[Hounddog409]

the bass clef, the time signature, the key, the tempo, whole notes, half notes, quarter notes, sixteenth notes, etc., dynamics, bar lines, fermatas, codas, etc.... none of this is music theory?

No. Writing it did.

Learning to read takes zero theory. You dont know the whys behind what was written. You dont know how or why the bass notes fit with the other parts. You just play whats on paper.

 

[SteveCS]

the bass clef, the time signature, the key, the tempo, whole notes, half notes, quarter notes, sixteenth notes, etc., dynamics, bar lines, fermatas, codas, etc.... none of this is music theory?

It's the part that helps you read the dots on paper.

No. Writing it did.

Learning to read takes zero theory. You dont know the whys behind what was written. You dont know how or why the bass notes fit with the other parts. You just play whats on paper.

Right, but it doesn’t make the stuff Smooth mentioned “not theory.”

The stuff that @Smooth_bass88 mentioned are elements of Standard Notation. They are necessary to write music down, and an understanding of how to parse them into technique on the instrument is necessary to play from a score, be that signtreading or just reading. So in that sense they a very small part of music theory. So maybe my blanket "reading and theory are not the same thing" isn't as binary as all that. Unfortunately there are a lot of folks whose understanding is that theory IS reading and reading IS theory - they are not. So for the most part I stand by what I said, and here's why:

If you look at a typical formal syllabus for any given instrument, students are taught to sight-read from the get-go. They know how to see something on a score and play a version of it on their instrument(s) of choice. Theory is not (rarely) taught as a separate topic and even more rarely taken as a graded exam at grades 1-4. In the progression through the graded performance/instrumental exams there is a 'breakpoint' at grade 5. Most students stop at this point. At that breakpoint, as a pre-requisite for continued performance study at grade 6+, students are required to pass a separate Theory exam at Grade 5. Theory grades 1-4 are not pre-requisites and most go straight in at 5. This is because they are already proficient sight-readers and know all of the notation-related aspects inside out. They are a significant part of the theory syllabus at lower grades but in the scheme of things are quite trivial - grade 1 covers most of the stuff listed by @Smooth_bass88. By the time students are into grade 5 and above they are taken for granted, as is a degree of audiation*. Most of the rest of the topics cover intervals, scales, enharmonics, keys, all clefs, rhythm, 'odd' time signatures and irregular sub-division, 4-part harmony, chords and inversions in all keys, cadences, modulation, basic aspects of composition, arrangement and orchestration and a whole bunch of other stuff.

* Reading a score and hearing it in your head without playing it on an instrument.

 

[Smooth_bass88]

No. Writing it did.

Learning to read takes zero theory. You dont know the whys behind what was written. You dont know how or why the bass notes fit with the other parts. You just play whats on paper.

oh! Cool.

 

[Bob_Ross]

Yes, it is part of music theory, but it's not all of music theory.

Reality Check: Very few musicians become conversant with, or are even ever exposed to, "all of music theory."
It's a vast subject matter. One can have a busy successful career as a professional musician for decades and never even encounter some aspects of music theory. (E.g., when was the last gig you did that required a familiarity with Combinatorial Homomorphism, or with the difference between Carnatic Melakarta and Hindustani Thaat?)

But at it's most basic -- at least in the Western tradition -- familiarity with standard musical notation is indeed a part of Music Theory 101. An important part, I would opine.

 

[Smooth_bass88]

 

[DJ Bebop]

Reality Check: Very few musicians become conversant with, or are even ever exposed to, "all of music theory."
It's a vast subject matter. One can have a busy successful career as a professional musician for decades and never even encounter some aspects of music theory. (E.g., when was the last gig you did that required a familiarity with Combinatorial Homomorphism, or with the difference between Carnatic Melakarta and Hindustani Thaat?)

But at it's most basic -- at least in the Western tradition -- familiarity with standard musical notation is indeed a part of Music Theory 101. An important part, I would opine.

Agreed, that's why here:
How much music theory do you really need to know?

I said this, "Matter of fact there are a lot of readers that have been reading music for years and still don't know these things (the rest of music theory). Of course IMHO"

 

[Mark Ambler]

Kudos for a long thread about something meaningful.

As Piano is my first instrument, I'm pretty much on top of contemporary harmony / theory.

Imo, the greatest musicians never stop learning.

Dr. Albert Einstein has a famous quote: “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.”

 

[primusfan1989]

If you have good ears and are good at recognizing patterns you don't "NEED" to know any theory. However learning how to build scales and spell chords wouldn't hurt

 

[Cal03]

Everyone's said lots of good stuff already, so I'll just offer my $0.02. The reason I was able to pick up bass guitar on my own was thanks to having a working knowledge of music theory! Being tuned in all fourths meant it was easy to figure out where all the notes are once you have an anchor. Then I got started playing worship songs with haphazardly written in chord changes, which just boiled down to timing and using my ear.

 

[DJ Bebop]

10 legendary musicians who never learned to read music - Classic FM

Question:
Does not reading music mean then these people don't know any music theory?

 

[DJ Bebop]

10 legendary musicians who never learned to read music - Classic FM

Question:
Does not reading music mean then these people don't know any music theory?