The difference between "theory" and basic facts/definitions/terms

[Lobster11]

I've posted thoughts in numerous threads about this issue in which the point was tangential to the thread in question, but it occurs to me that it might be worth devoting a thread to it....

One of the most common debates around TB concerns the degree to which it is important or useful to learn "music theory." Some argue that it's possible to be a good or even great player without knowing anything about theory; others argue that knowing theory is essential to be a competent player. I don't want to litigate that question here. Rather, I want to raise the question of what kinds of knowledge constitute "theory," versus what constitutes basic facts, terms, and definitions that everyone should know.

For example, here are some things that I regard as basic facts or definitions that everyone should know: the names of the 12 notes that comprise our Western system of music (C, C#, D, D#, etc.); the fact that if you follow that sequence, the next C is referred to as an "octave" higher than the C note at the beginning of the sequence; the location(s) of these notes on your fretboard; the names of common chords (G major, F#minor, Amin7, etc.); what a "key" means (as distinct from a "key signature" in written music); that a C major scale contains the notes C-D-E-F-G-A-B, and other major scales follow the same pattern of whole note, whole note, half-note, etc.

It seems to me that these are all just facts, or definitions of terms, that are essential to know in order to be able to communicate effectively with other musicians. In contrast, "theory" is a whole other level of analysis that endeavors to explain how these various facts/definitions/concepts are interrelated. Knowing the various modes of a major scale, and how they are interrelated, is "theory." Knowing how chords are constructed by "stacking thirds" is theory. Knowing the circle of fifths (fourths) is theory. But dammit: Knowing that the third fret of the E string is "G," or that the name of a certain chord is "A minor," is not THEORY.

Discuss....

 

[mambo4]

What you outline as "facts" I'd just call theory fundamentals.

All theory is definitions describing sounds and groups and patterns of sounds.
If a pattern has shown up enough times over the ages for musicians to give it a special name,
It is probably a pattern that is useful to know, and often more useful to know by name.

It seems like you are hoping to isolate what all players "should" know about theory from what can be skipped.

Fact is some of these patterns are more useful or common than others.
rather than seek a line between "facts" and "theory"
I'd say there is a spectrum of usefulness, very dependent of genre and style
with the names of the notes and chords at one end
and Andalusian cadences, 12 tone serial music or quartal voicings at the other.

 

[MalcolmAmos]

Theory - an abstract plain or hypothesis.
Hypothesis - an educated guess.

Thus theory is an educated guess of what could happen.

 

[Clef_de_fa]

there is some fundamental that everyone should know and most people do, they just never venture further because it would require time and it isn't useful in their favorite music.

to me scales, modes, arpeggio, chord name and quality, how to construct a chord are all fundamental. Then you fall in more complex stuff that require that you understand the Fundamentals so you get into napolean chord, augmented diminish chord, chord with the 3rd or 5th or 7th as the bass, 4 parts harmony, obscure figuration in music ( like singing a fast glissando from high to low as you sing the world "fall" etc or an instrument play something that makes you think of a wave ) then dodecaphonism, serialism, exploration in music, how gregorian works and their writting, groundbass, etc etc etc

 

[Bob_Ross]

What you outline as "facts" I'd just call theory fundamentals.

Yeah, I think OP is trying to draw a line in the sand...and while I could potentially acknowledge that there might be some value in drawing that line, I think you'll find that any two musicians will have a hard time agreeing on precisely where that line needs to be drawn.

"Music Theory" to me means, in the most basic sense, How Music Works ...and to understand how it works you need to know what its constituent parts are. Notes (and note names) are certainly one of the constituent parts of music. It might be arbitrary to claim that "the 12 notes that comprise our Western system of music" is a fact rather than a component of music theory per se; or it might not be. But as soon as you start making observations about how those notes get used -- e.g., to construct chords -- I don't think you can continue to claim that's a fact rather than a component of music theory, because chord construction is just one of the fundamental descriptions of How Music Works

 

[BassChuck]

In the broad sense of the study of music theory even your 'facts' can be drawn into question. A little study of the non euro-centric music will yield some interesting scales and chords that could only be played on a fretless bass. That said.... Music THEORY is just what Malcolm said, it 'could' happen. We choose to limit our scales and chords to 12 pitches. And different styles (in our euro-centric thinking) are limited to certain harmonic progressions and rhythmic sequences. All of this makes it easy to learn instruments, songs and to create new music in ways that people who have been brought up listening to these limitations can relate to and enjoy. As John Cage would say, there is no inherent emotion in sound. There is nothing emotional about a C#, but... given that we have a palette of sounds we are used to, and can manipulate in reasonably expected ways, it IS possible to make that C# one of the most beautiful and loved sounds you'll hear. And there is where sound becomes music.

The problem that a lot of people have with music theory is they accept the study as 'rules'. Rules to be adhered to, or broken. This attitude is a block towards learning. Any so called 'rules' in music theory are just the limitations that have been set up and agreed upon over a period of time. Use them or ignore them as you wish, it's your music, make it what you want.

 

[Mushroo]

"Music theory" to me means "knowing how to fill silence with notes that will probably sound good because you understand how music works."

Paul McCartney for example doesn't read music, but I would argue he is in the top 0.00001% of the planet's population in his knowledge of "music theory" based on the incredible songs he has written.

If you are correctly playing songs you already know, then you are dealing in "music fact of what is" rather than "music theory of what might be."

 

[chungweishan]

To me, Theory is just a means to communicate music with words. A lot of it we take for granted as basic facts, but it's still under the realm of Music Theory.

I just randomly looked up the term ostinato. Very "music theory" sounding, but it's basically a repeated riff.

I could tell someone to play a three-chord song C-F-G. Someone could say it's a I-IV-V. Another will tell me it's Tonic, Sub-Dominant, Dominant chords using Primary Triads. Another person will go, "Play power chords on the A-String at frets 3, 8, and 10." And another will say just play "Wild Thing" in a different key (and use a capo).

Heck, I don't even know scale-modes by names. I just think, "That's the major scale with the flat 7." Or another scale I'll go, "That's the Japanese sounding scale." Beats me. Fortunately, I can break down chords names like E7#9. But don't ask me if there's an alternate name for it other than "the Jimi Hendrix chord."

 

[ZenG]

Seems to me that in-depth "theory" is often presented as some kind of elitist mechanism to separate the unscrubbed from academics.

Knowing more about what and why you are doing it is always good. And it is helpful in many cases.

But I think the use of theory or knowledge is equal to it's necessity in a particular application also.

I have some electronic manuals that are near two inches thick. I don't need to know everything in those manuals....I only need to adequately know enough to get the job I'm doing done.

Depending on certain factors pertaining to your mental abilities, you can become a very good musician with little theory.

If you are a music 'natural', you will take to it like a duck to water.

Others will be nowhere near as skilled or gifted.

I know people that can play Chopin from a music sheet no problem......but couldn't write a song to save their lives. They read music and play very well...but they have zero "creativity".

Ones' ability as a musician depends on several factors...not just the absorption of 'theory'.

I maintain that the more you know per theory......the better off you are overall.......but I wouldn't rely on it alone as a marker of musical success...

 

[DiabolusInMusic]

I stress to my students that there are no facts in music, only theories. If there were facts, there would be right and wrong answers.

Theory is not essential for song construction but it is extremely helpful for communication.

 

[2.6kHz]

It's all in the level of detail you want to use describing something. You can go "i play thump thump thump thump here" or you can say "I'll play quarter notes in G". Both are the same thing. Although I guess some would call one of those a "theory" answer. As long as someone can understand what you are saying, and you can understand what they are saying it's all good. Whatever works.

 

[Clef_de_fa]

Seems to me that in-depth "theory" is often presented as some kind of elitist mechanism to separate the unscrubbed from academics.

Knowing more about what and why you are doing it is always good. And it is helpful in many cases.

But I think the use of theory or knowledge is equal to it's necessity in a particular application also.

I have some electronic manuals that are near two inches thick. I don't need to know everything in those manuals....I only need to adequately know enough to get the job I'm doing done.

Depending on certain factors pertaining to your mental abilities, you can become a very good musician with little theory.

If you are a music 'natural', you will take to it like a duck to water.

Others will be nowhere near as skilled or gifted.

I know people that can play Chopin from a music sheet no problem......but couldn't write a song to save their lives. They read music and play very well...but they have zero "creativity".

Ones' ability as a musician depends on several factors...not just the absorption of 'theory'.

I maintain that the more you know per theory......the better off you are overall.......but I wouldn't rely on it alone as a marker of musical success...

Hum ... but the thing is, the guy playing Chopin but can't write music will have many many many many hours of praticing, studying that is insane for most bass player as it isn't in the bass player mentality.
To me that person who play Chopin from sheet music is pretty much an actor, can't write that beautiful and complex music but it gave it life. So the actor is as important as the part to make it convincing ...

so in all music theory is just a tool just like you learned to write and read English and it is useful in many instance, knowing the rules of English didn't stop anyone to right beautiful lyrics, or book or whatever. If you are creative you are and I think you may have more chance to make something coherent if you know how that language work.

 

[Groove Master]

I want to raise the question of what kinds of knowledge constitute "theory," versus what constitutes basic facts, terms, and definitions that everyone should know.

Then it means learning theory is the art of studying something. You cannot based something on facts if you don't know on what basis the facts are coming from.

Studying theory is the best way to justify the facts

 

[Pacman]

Theory - an abstract plain or hypothesis.
Hypothesis - an educated guess.

Thus theory is an educated guess of what could happen.

Theory - a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject.

There is more than definition, and this is the one that applies to "music theory."

 

[friendlybass]

At the end of the day the theory is proven by practice, and if you go through any in depth theory course no one ever breaks any "rules" because theory is just writing down what we're doing and explaining it and why I works. There's even theory for atonal music. Just calm down and play your instrument homies!

 

[zontar]

I think the OP is splitting hairs--it's all part of theory--call it what you will--but it's all theory--and nothing to be afraid of.

 

[Fergie Fulton]

'Theory' is a broad term and was coined from a time when lesser examples of language were available to include the whole world.....English is not everyone's first language so do not be literal on definition.

In short, what works and has proven use is theory, what does not are just ideas or distractions from the correct subject matter.
Because music evolves new ideas are being added all the time, the jazz age and those jazz players that followed added 'new theory' because they played new ideas. The new ideas needed to be explained so new terms and learning developed to explain it.
If enough people adopt it and use it then it will have theory behind it to explain its use.
Tab is theory, Nashville Numbers System is theory, even chord charts are theory.
With new music comes new challenges, in guitar the use of a tremolo needs to be explained in SN, but look at all the things a tremolo can do?
two fingered tapping, or harmonics all need new notation to make sure the difference is known between the uses.

So in a broad sense if it has purpose and is used widely enough it is theory, if it is not it is snake oil.
There are defined areas to learn that will encompass other ideas without you having to studying them as you go along, but when you encounter them you will have the foundations and tools to cope with them. Ideas such as the many ways to write a Major 7 chord, or identify one, on a chord sheet.
All we need to know is how to form a M7 chord, what a Maj7 chord sound like.....how the ^7 cord is written is not really an issue if you recognise it.

Music theory can be put in one book, how to use it will fill libraries around the world.

 

[Rick Auvil]

My opinion - on the page, music is theory until the it is played, analyzed, or put into practice. A master's degree in Music Theory and Composition has never reduced my level of curiosity and awe. Composers and artists put together the collection of simple tones that comprise the fundamentals of music theory in some amazing ways! I love it all and try my best to understand, interpret and perform it. Don't get bogged down with understanding it. Study and practice just enough to make it music and enjoy it!

 

[Rick Auvil]

Theory - an abstract plain or hypothesis.
Hypothesis - an educated guess.

Thus theory is an educated guess of what could happen.

True. Without these educated guesses (and sometimes even theoretical failures) we would not have some of the most creative musical discoveries of our time! Just imagine if Miles Davis only played the "correct" notes - pretty bland stuff, eh?

 

[lfmn16]

Just my opinion, but you cannot know too much theory. People that say you don't need theory are invariably the ones that don't know any. If you don't even know it, how can you judge whether or not it is useful?

Having said that, how much you should know depends on your goals. If you are happy banging out classic rock hits in bars on weekends, and happy with your level of playing, and don't care about improving as a player, why bother? If you want to become a better player, there are some fundamentals that will speed up your progress. Knowing how to read music and knowing music theory are the two best and easiest ways to improve your playing.