What Do You Guys Think About Theory?

[James Austin]

Thank you so much guys. There's some really worthwhile advice here. I wasn't being a 'no theory lulz' guy out of some misguided elitism, I just started out without it and got into habit. I guess a few good theory books are now in order.

[M57]

My two cents.. in two parts..

 

The somewhat arbitrary western temperament of the 12 notes that we all know and love has a peculiar evolution that is pretty well documented, starting around the 9th century C.E.  Chords and intervals that would have been considered dissonant then are now consonant - and over time, and on the scaffolding of major and minor scales, the complex, yet finite number of three and sometimes four note chords voiced in thirds that could be derived from them were discovered, explored, and became part of the vocabulary of what is now considered acceptable and agreeable in most contemporary music styles.  Along the way was developed a way to organize and communicate these otherwise abstract frequency-based relationships, and even more sophisticated methods of organization and harmonic understanding have been investigated and incorporated/synthesized, yielding the theoretical understandings of music such as jazz.

 

Yet, and possibly with the exception of serial music, most if not all of these discoveries and advancements came before the theories that 'defined' them were developed. That is to say, deep theoretical knowledge of the genre being developed was not necessarily a part of the training or the vocabulary of the originators of the music.  In fact, one could argue that the most creative music must by definition break rules in order to be considered truly creative.  Moreover, the theory that ostensibly allows musicians to participate in the playing of complex music, including jazz, is unknown to many who nonetheless manage to somehow appreciate it, i.e., the "uneducated" listening public. Ultimately, what sounds good, sounds good, and clearly the 'rules' of theory are clearly wrong, or overrated at best.

 

One might think that this is an argument for eschewing the study of theory. After all, if the "uneducated" can hear the rules that are defined within the genre, then they can intuitively know when they are being broken, and because ultimately good music must sound good - and in the end, the ear is the final judge of what sounds good, then any musician with an 'ear' should be able to figure out how to make and break the 'rules, which, need I remind you, are overrated in the first place.

 

It's getting late, I have to sleep on part two..

Edited January 4, 2014 by M57

[M57]

So.....here's what I gather from that....

- At some point, you personally took the time to learn a lot about both theory and the history of it.

- Knowing what you undoubtedly spend a tremendous amount of time learning, you now doubt it's value and its overall importance.

So....here's my only question to you. Setting aside your individual views on the topic for just a moment, how would you have even been capable of making this value judgement without your own personal background-in and knowledge-of theory? Bottom line....you wouldn't! In my mind, that in and of itself has value.

Tom

Tom, I'm not sure what your are implying, if you are implying anything at all, but I think you may have jumped the gun. Though it should come as no surprise that I value its importance for myself, are you assuming that I equally value and recommend its importance to all musicians?

 

Edit: even after re-rereading your post - I'm not sure if it's complementary or confrontational,     but I do believe that my knowledge of theory coupled with the way I use it puts me in a position to both defend and criticize it with at least some authority.  I sense this is what you are saying, but I'm not sure.

Edited January 3, 2014 by M57

[tomcollins]

Holy crap batman! A lot of talk about what? To me it comes down to the love of music! Like making love We all do it ( I would hope ) yea We all have our own styles and thoughts of HOW it should be done. Bottom line We make love cause it feels good , for the pure joy!

I never learned to read music till not long ago , does it limit you , would be a fool to say it don't. But also seen the fool that knows every twist and turn of this and fall flat on his face on the stage! As with any trade or craft the more you know the more your worth, bottom line,

I never gave a crap about it, I could hear something and play it, gifted or curse? Both. So as far as I can see know theory help a brother or sister out in laymans terms from the love of what you proclaim to know, cause We are ALL here for the same thing! The love of music, no? Damn lol

Rock on

[M57]

Holy crap batman! A lot of talk about what? To me it comes down to the love of music! Like making love We all do it ( I would hope ) yea We all have our own styles and thoughts of HOW it should be done. Bottom line We make love cause it feels good , for the pure joy!

I never learned to read music till not long ago , does it limit you , would be a fool to say it don't. But also seen the fool that knows every twist and turn of this and fall flat on his face on the stage! As with any trade or craft the more you know the more your worth, bottom line,

I never gave a crap about it, I could hear something and play it, gifted or curse? Both. So as far as I can see know theory help a brother or sister out in laymans terms from the love of what you proclaim to know, cause We are ALL here for the same thing! The love of music, no? Damn lol

Rock on

 

So, are you suggesting that technical knowledge, or even discussion of the value of technical knowledge regarding a craft (that one loves) has little importance on a site where people post looking to hone their craft through the processes of both subjective and objective criticism as well as constructive comments?

[tomcollins]

Really? That's what you Got from that?

[M57]

Really? That's what you Got from that?

 

Yes, though I'm not entirely sure - that's why I'm asking..  What was your intent when you wrote the line "A lot of talk about what?" On the one hand, this makes it sound like you're not interested in the discussion, yet you're posting to a thread that is explicitly about the value of theory - so my next thought was that you find that theoretical knowledge brings little value.

 

Again, on one hand you say that "the more you know, the more you're worth", but then you state that you don't give a crap about it, followed by the claim that you just "hear something and play it." "Worth" implies value, so to say that you personally don't give a crap about something that you think has value just doesn't make sense - I think it's reasonable to assume that you don't consider your writing to be worthless. So honestly, I'm confused about what your point is.  Yes, we all love music; and I take your statements regarding love of music to mean that we all love writing music, regardless of the level of our knowledge of theory. But that doesn't make the discussion any less valid.

 

I took your post (on the heels of mine) to be a direct response to my post.  If this was not the case, then I apologize in advance; you never did reference my post.  But considered as a response, you can see why I might understand it in an adversarial light.

Edited January 3, 2014 by M57

[M57]

Summarizing part one.. Theoretical knowledge merely provides an artificial way of understanding and communicating the organization of sounds we call music, which is otherwise an entirely subjective art form. Theoretical knowledge is synthesized, that is, in some cases it is built upon its own scaffolding. Theory does not make the art.  As tomcollins pointed out, even a musician who has a vast knowledge of theory "can fall flat on his face on the stage." 

 

Part two..

 

More over, there are many examples of great musicians right up to the present day who have little to no academically based theoretical knowledge, yet are able to not only make a living as musicians, but are celebrated by their supposedly "knowledgeable" peers.  Bottom line, one does not need anywhere near an abundance of theoretical knowledge to create lasting music that survives the test of time. I say "anywhere near" because it should seem evident that knowledge, and even theoretical knowledge lies on a continuum. Knowledge is relative. A piano player who discovers a chord by skipping every other key on the instrument, and then moves that shape around to find similar sounding chords is developing a theoretical understanding - same for the guitarist that learns a pentatonic scale and the tries it in various positions even thought the key hasn't changed.

 

An argument can even be made for someone having too much knowledge. Consider the extreme example of a serial composer, or a composer who relies on twelve-tone rows for melodic content.  While some could argue that serial music is the cabernet sauvignon of music because it is not harmonically constrained, most people find it unlistenable, or even horrible and distasteful.

 

There's a running joke in one of the rock bands that I once played in that the best way to work with a keyboard player who studied at <insert name of institution here>, is to cut off a couple of their fingers.  They'll play less notes and their chords won't be as jazzy.

 

Now I'm not saying that knowledge ruins a musician, but I will posit that theoretical knowledge is an enabler ..and I have chosen that word carefully.

 

 

Part Three.. (Hmm, I said there would only be two parts).

 

Yet, very few would deny that theoretical knowledge has 'value.'  I'll start with a pair of analogies..

• Wealth (has value and) is an enabler, and very few of us don't covet it, but does it guarantee happiness? ..worse, isn't it capable of ruining a person's life, or even the lives of many?
   
• I'm a stargazer; I have a pair of binoculars and a few telescopes.  I have a decent knowledge of the way the optics of the various telescopes work, and I know a number of somewhat arcane facts about a number of celestial objects that I hunt down, but I'm not an astronomer.  My understanding of physics is high-school level, and though I wish I could understand the subtleties of the problems that modern day astronomers grapple with, like dark matter and dark energy, I'm quite happy ..well, gazing at stars, planets, nebula, etc.  Truth be told, many astronomers have no time to actually look at stars, and one even wonders if they even care to - but they get to play with some seriously jacked-up toys.

With both of the examples above, we can see that the prize, be it knowledge or money or whatever, offers us 'enhanced' opportunities. But what we do with those opportunities is the key to gauging their actual value.  Teach a musician an 'altered' scale and then show them its modal relationship to a lydian b7 scale, and there's no guarantee that they will make either of them sound good.  A poorly voiced set of jazz changes is no more or less musical than a poorly written pop tune. I'd rather listen to well-performed rap or country music (to pick two that are not my favorites), than listen to a mediocre rendition of a Bach Cello Suite or Autumn Leaves.  Musicianship trumps everything.  Yet we all know what our favorites are, and if we are serious about our craft as song-writers, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to suggest that we should do whatever it takes to achieve the best musical results in those genres.

 

Now this is where I kind of expect to receive some stuffer-flack.  While this concept may not apply to the 'feel' of an particular style or genre, I believe there is a hierarchy of harmonic theory that is loosely tied to various genres of music. There are exceptions but by and large, rock, folk, pop, country, and basically most music that is consumed by the mainstream public is based on three and four note chords.  To further simplify the options available to the composer (and I'm making an educated guess here), more than 90% of the chords you hear in these tunes are voiced in 'root position.' That is to say the bass note is also part of the name of the chord.

 

I'm not attempting to belittle these genres - the number of combinations and ways of playing these chords is infinite - there is no less room for mediocrity in writing for triads and tetrads.  Yet, because certain chords are related by virtue of having the same notes it doesn't take long for a good musician to figure out that C F and G and maybe Am and Em all go together, and that slipping in a D chord or a Bb chord has a cool sound ..all with brute force experimentation, or perhaps by noticing that a number of songs seem to use these combinations successfully. Extend that knowledge to 5 or 6 keys that sit well on your instrument, and chance upon a handful of chords that you can't really explain why they work but they sound really cool, and you can write a number of good if not great and successful tunes.  Additionally, a talented musician can get a pretty good handle on how to play most inversions of these three and four note chords, as well as a smattering of jazz chords that add tensions (five and six+ note chords), but beyond this point the bar raises on what works and what doesn't.

 

Some, but not a lot of mainstream music uses jazz harmonies, and if this is where your ear takes you as a composer I maintain that the 'value' of theoretical knowledge jumps considerably.  A pretty basic understanding of theory is all that's required to gain a solid foundation of the triadic based harmony, and I believe I just made the case that it's not even all that necessary, but I change my tune when it comes to more complex harmonic forms. Short of those who are pure geniuses and can figure out the theory they need from scratch, there have been too many complex 'discoveries' about what works, and there are just too many musicians that take the time to learn about these discoveries using the advantages that a working knowledge of theory gives them.

 

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it ..at least for the moment - until someone convinces me otherwise.

Edited January 4, 2014 by M57

[TapperMike]

Music is not pedigree, it's not geaneology it's not science and it certainly isn't universal. Listen to any middle east music, indian, or south pacific traditional chinese or japanese music and you'll find completely different scale systems as well they have distinct theories on time and note relationships that are not shared with western music.

 

Music is part craft, part art. It is not a game of reductionism so that a would be theorist can sort into a specified catagory like collecting butterflies.

 

20th century music wasn't a product or byproduct of seralism. Much of what developed was built upon itenerant musicians.  People who had a crude sense of harmony and melody and were not restricted by the dogma set forth in classical music.  As the idea developed as "It sounds good to me lets us it" they eventually developed into standardized approaches.  When documenting these approaches quite often classical musicians were used for transcription and analysis.  The classicalists would try homogenize by reductionism without a full grasp of the "jazz" traditions. Scott Joplin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Joplin didn't study seralism. Neither can one attribute serialism or the study of classicalism to the works of W.C. Handy or those who followed along his path such as Robert Johnson.  One of the most proliphic writers of the 20th century could neither read nor write nor play chords and yet is considered by many to be America's greatest songwriters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Berlin

 

American popular music took the passages it did for the most part without need nor direction from the classical field. Each successive generation has been influenced but not limited to earlier generations. Everytime someone starts yammering that it all comes from classical and ends with classical I have to laugh. b5 subs didn't come from classical music.  Blues progressions did not come from classical music. ii-V modulations were not derived from classical music.

 

As I stated earlier music is not science. Along that line Music Theory is not Scientific Theory.  However If someone wishes to be held as a credible source in the realm of music theory then that person must use the scientific method.  The Scentific method does not start with an assumption and then tries to force a belief from that assumption. Instead it looks at the evidence and makes deductions based on facts.  So far the facts show that there is no direct lineage with classical theorums such as serialism based on the bodies of work by popular artists. The artists themselves do not state that they used this construct in the formation of the songs they right.  Facts don't change to fit a theory. Ergo rather then trying to force a broken theory with no concrete evidence to back it up. 

[M57]

Tapper,

 

I think we can agree that serialism is as about as far removed from the genealogy of the popular song as is possible.  I merely mentioned it as an example of a system of creating music that is theoretically based. I.e, is impossible to write without theoretical knowledge.  To my knowledge there are no serial music composers haunting these forums.

 

One of the points I believe you made is that classically trained musicians in their attempts to understand, took it upon themselves to analyze, and I would add even subsequently arrange this 'new' music we now call jazz, and in cases where they created hybrid interpretations, which in turn became part of the canon of jazz, this made them complicit in the early development of the genre themselves.  Moreover, the earliest jazz performances did not find their way to the first decade+ of recordings; partly because early recording enthusiasts didn't find value in it; but also because some early musicians avoided being recorded because they feared other musicians would steal their riffs; all making the work and contributions of these 'trained' musicians even more important and influential. Regardless, classically trained musicians became responsible for forming the basis for contemporary analysis techniques, and so it should come as no surprise that many of the early and famous pioneers of jazz could read music so well they could 'play the fly if it landed on the music'.  My point here is that it didn't take long before the pioneering musicians themselves started to be able to analyze their own music and the music of their contemporaries.

 

ii-Vs are not uncommonly heard in classical music - Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and a host of other musicians used them, though they would not necessarily have thought of them in those terms ..or regarded them as commonly reoccurring structures, and therefore might have discounted them as being foundational.  However, the pleasant sound and convenient voice-leading qualities of using root motion in 4ths and 2nds (used in the blues for example), has been well-recognized and capitalized on by musicians for centuries (exclusively in Pachelbel's Canon for instance).  While the standard 12-bar Blues progression is likely not to be found in any classical music, no doubt similar progressions were extant before jazz came on the scene, and I'm talking even well before the music born of slavery, which was so foundational for jazz.  Certainly, much music utilizing what we now call the I IV and V chords was written long before blues musicians started to use them exclusively.

 

So I would say that while there is some truth to your statement that these structures were not 'derived' from classical music, it would be incorrect to say that evolution of the modern western ear and subsequent use of these structures was not built upon the sensibilities and foundations provided by classical music. And I would vehemently disagree with your statement that "American popular music took the passages it did for the most part without need nor direction from the classical field."  From Joplin to Ellington, from Gershwin to Bernstein, in-between and beyond, there has been is a stalwart tradition of the intermingling of classical elements in American music. Don't think for a moment that their music was not influenced by the likes of their classical contemporaries, such as Rachmaninoff, Debussy, and Stravinsky, who were in turn influenced by the swirl of jazz and other contemporary folk music that they heard all around them. American popular music was not born in a vacuum, nor could it have evolved to its present state without the existence of a western classically based music that had evolved to its state at the time, and the proof is in the pudding - contemporary popular music is rife with examples of music lifted note for note from classical traditions, and on the whole is still quite easily analyzed using techniques not dissimilar from those that we use to analyze the classics. Indeed, the styles are so commonly intermarried today as to make distinction regarding classification impossible in many cases.

 

The music most of us compose on this site is still decidedly western. There are still only 12 notes in an octave, and 'the music of the people' has been and continues to be diatonically organized (based on a major scale) and uses harmonies that are triadic in nature.  Sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same; whereas non-classically trained guitarists today typically read chords and tablature, 500 years ago lutenists read figured bass and tablature, and the guitar is tuned almost identically to the most common lute tunings of the Renaissance.

 

From a theoretical point of view, the harmonic lexicon of three note chords still used today (including all inversions) is quite finite. Understanding the theory behind them does not require the intellectual abilities needed solve a calculus problem - it's more like learning math facts such as your multiplication tables and then setting up and solving simple proportions.  We're talking pre-algebra here.

 

You say that facts don't change to fit a theory, and while I would not disagree, I would say theory evolves to fit the facts, and for the most part the more you put the music in the rear window, the more concise the theory becomes.  Many modern theorists analyze the music of the Bach quite differently than theorists of just a century ago, but that hasn't changed the way it sounds.

Edited January 5, 2014 by M57

[TapperMike]

Quite franly, with the exception of advanced jazz theory in dark corners I don't see theory advancing.  Rather I see the exact opposite from educators.

 

Let;s revisit the 1-4-5 for a minute.  I was taught in both intro to music theory and by some very short term jazz teachers that all rock was based on I-IV-V and that to figure out a song all I need do was identify which chord was the tonic.  Trying to develop my ears and reading ability I tested it on several rock standards.  It didn't take long to figure out someone was either lying to me or didn't have the correct information.  I'm not the only one who has been taught these things.  Gene Simmons of Kiss once remarked that he had only the crudest sense of harmony in the early days of kiss and as his career advanced he began to study theory which had a negative impact on later songs because they became to homogenized specifically because he was trying to write songs that fit the theory models regarding "How to play rock" as taught by non-rockers in colleges  across the land as part of the curriculum. Earstwhile non accredited schools such as Berklee or MI seem to get somethings right. I "hang" at a local coffee shop that has a clientele of mostly college students.  And being a musician I'm always curoius to what is being taught in music studies programs.  The music theory classes have not changed in 40+ years as far as I can tell and I've read the text books as well looked at the lab assignments for the students.  Quite frankly I find the school is doing a diss service to the students with the information they provide as the material is less then a reflection of real life type composition studies.

 

I've tried to keep an open mind to things through the years and have a vast collection of songbooks and instructional music material however. What is taught in many book for formalized study is a far cry from the reality of what is recorded by "popular artists"   Eventually I gave up on there being a unified music theory and am still trying to rid myself of the methodology expressed by theory. I've actually found it more advantageous to study music and do my own analysis from actual artists as a method to form theories or launching pads for my own musical ideas. While it's more demanding then simply accepting institutionalized belief systems, it's also more personally rewarding.

[M57]

I will concede that for the most part, harmonic theory has been explored to the point that current and and even recent advances are pretty irrelevant where Pop is concerned - much like theories and discoveries on the cutting edge of mathematics have little no impact on the way math is used, not only in everyday life, but even in most technical of fields. Solving Goldbach's conjecture, or indeed most of the unsolved math problems of our age will no doubt have little effect on the way math is used or practiced in the commercial realm.  Given that the average consumer of Pop music is relatively uneducated when it comes to music theory, and if we assume that any harmonically oriented theoretical advancements are not likely to add to our understanding or use of the triadic and even much more complex harmonies using tensions, stacked chords, etc, then yes, you are right.

 

But music theory is more dimensional than this. It's not just vertical structures and their relationships.  There's also, instrumentation, technology, arranging, and other aspects of musical creation that work in conjunction with these harmonies, and these are often tested/developed in academic settings.  These may very well be part of the current theoretical advancements that are affecting the direction of Pop.  It is very hard for us to make the types of arguments we make through the lens of the present - even looking back only 50 years makes it much easier, and that is what I have been basing my argument on for the most part.

 

This has been a good conversation for me.  Thank you for your diligence Tapper..

[Kayleigh1998]

To be honest I don't pay attention to theory because I'm dyslexic and it just gets me extremely flustered. I prefer to do my own thing.

[quiqueguitar]

I studied theory and harmony with a great teacher for a time. Became obsessed with it to the point music became like maths for me: scales, substitutions, alterations ... I realised I wasn't paying much attention to the music itself. I dropped it there and then. I got very valuable knowledge though from theory.

[Rudi]

Theory is like a map. It will only show you well trodden paths.

 

It cant show you anything else.

[M57]

Theory is like a map. It will only show you well trodden paths.

 

It cant show you anything else.

 

I like the map analogy, but that's kind of a glass half empty way of looking at things.  How do you know if a "path" is unique if you are lacking the theoretical knowledge to understand what makes it a less trodden path?  Yes, you can hack your way through a jungle blindly and stumble upon a gem here and there, but how do you know where you are when you get there?  On the other hand if you have a map with reference points, you are in a much better position to plot a course, envision a destination, stay true to your plan, understand the context and uniqueness of your journey, and enjoy a much higher likelihood of success ..all with less running into dead ends ..and a lot less work.

Edited March 27, 2014 by M57

[Rudi]

I like the map analogy, but that's kind of a glass half empty way of looking at things.  How do you know if a "path" is unique if you are lacking the theoretical knowledge to understand what makes it a less trodden path?  Yes, you can hack your way through a jungle blindly and stumble upon a gem here and there, but how do you know where you are when you get there?  On the other hand if you have a map with reference points, you are in a much better position to plot a course, envision a destination, stay true to your plan, understand the context and uniqueness of your journey, and enjoy a much higher likelihood of success ..all with less running into dead ends ..and a lot less work.

 

I wasnt trying to place a value on the either way of doing things. I made my point about this early in the discussion.

 

I think you always know where you are when you hit upon understanding things. I mean harmonic relation of scales or relative minors etc. In fact when you discover these things instead of being introduced to them you understand them more thoroughly in my experience. 

 

However, doing without instruction makes for very slow progress. Its better to have some instruction really.

 

The only confusion concerns a few technical details I think. Its possible to discover shortcuts and imagine that you are the first to do so!

[TheSluggard]

Artists have created beautiful music without a knowledge of theory. 

 

However, it's very useful to know things like which chords are in a given key, how to modulate smoothly from one key to another, which tones you can add to a basic triad, etc.  Basically, theory gives you options that might not otherwise occur to you.  You are then free to use them or not, depending on which direction you want to go.

Edited March 28, 2014 by TheSluggard

[tinam]

im sure theory helps a lot but i dont realy know hardly any ...& thats what i love about music you can be good at it without being clever

i didnt do well at school i wasnt clever...but when it comes to music people respect me ....  i dont know what this smiley is but i love it!

[M57]

Artists have created beautiful music without a knowledge of theory. 

 

@TheSluggard, This has no doubt been true since even before recorded civilization, when people used ochre and charcoal and other materials to create beautiful paintings on the insides of caves.  

 

What follows is not at all directed at you TS, but your comment got me to thinking ..and further rambling..

 

Since then "Art" has evolved, and though it is still true that you don't need to study art to create art, avoiding what has already been done is harder and harder to achieve in the vacuum of ignorance.   Moreover, the language of music has evolved along a number of genre specific lines such that for instance you will not be invited to play with good jazz musicians if you can't solo over changes, and you will not be invited to play in a world class symphony orchestra unless you can read the spots off the page and have developed a the range of tones and specific technical abilities on your instrument.  In both of the above cases, a significant knowledge of theory and familiarity with standard repertoire is expected.

 

To use yet another analogy, you may be a brilliant debater, logistician and public speaker, but you will get thrown out of a court of law, if not charged with contempt of court, if you aren't familiar with courtroom procedure and quite knowledgeable about the law of the land.

 

Cut to the chase - I'm proud and honored, and consider myself lucky to have played with a number of wonderful musicians whose theoretical knowledge was lacking, but they were acutely aware of what their knowledge and skills were ..and were not.  We were not proud of what we didn't know; actually, just the opposite was true.  We all recognized each others' strengths and weaknesses, including areas where I lacked knowledge, ability and experience, and we all worked on strengthening those weaknesses in the context of the music we were trying to create.

 

There's little room in most any endeavor to wear ignorance as a badge.