How important is a knowledge of music theory?

Submitted by simon_ishtar on Wed, 2004-09-01 23:39

I got into a conversation the other day that has had me thinking quite a bit on his subject. This is the thing I started playing guitar at age 10 and found that although I picked up some theory, my technical ability is far superior to my knowledge of what I'm doing. I have mostly acquired technique and knowledge of what works, not been taught it.

Let me see if I can explain it another way.

The statement 'If I pass the test tomorrow I will go surfing Saturday'
is in the first conditional. You all know that if a sentence has a present verb (Pass) and an 'I will' it represents something which could possibly happen. Compare to
'If I was president of America I would go surfing as much as Bush plays golf'
Second conditional. past tense verbs (was, Would...) mean it is something highly unlikely or impossible. Makes sense but you've never really thought about it?
We unconsciously use language all the time and, for the most part use it correctly for the given context but who the hell really knows the rules? We don't need to as we have already acquired them by being surrounded by them from the moment we breathe. They are understood but not known.
Can music be the same? Is this you or have you had to do the hard yards through the books?

[ http://www.ishtar.co.nz ]

Comments

Submitted by rope on Wed, 2004-09-01 23:51.

i think it depends to a large degree on what you wnat to use music for, just as what you want to learn language for...having said that, the rules/theory are only ever a reflection of a general consensus reached on the current aspects so far understood and documented,
i have an aunty; grade seven theory, practical musical ability next to none,
so i'm pretty sure i'd go with practical ability any day.

Submitted by Hun on Thu, 2004-09-02 02:17.

I don't think one negates the other. Surely creativity & feel are the most important aspects of playing, theory doesn’t take away from that, & can only help.

I’ve played with both musicians who were dead set against “learning” (because they thought it would influence their own style) & musicians who have studied (mainly jazz) - the taught musicians were always easier to play with, better at expressing ideas & usually more creative. Generally they’re able to ‘just play’ without having to think about the technical aspects.

I’m not meaning to be down on self taught players (I’m largely one myself) - I just think it’s sad when a musician limits their ability because of a belief that being taught & theory is simply learning the “correct” way of playing, and would therefore encroach on their creativity. In my experience with taught players this hasn’t be true.

Submitted by foal30 on Thu, 2004-09-02 04:42.

I like your reply Hun.
Mr Ishtar, given the choice of paying a doctor with the formal training, or paying someone who calls themselves a doctor but has no formal training, who is the one you are most likely to hire?
It is possible to look at music in strictly artistic terms, even those who elect this path are surely suffering from some brain abnormality by rejecting the written form of their chosen language.
Would you choose to not read English?
Personal experience, I like Miles Davis, I decide i'd like to be a musician, eventually I write some songs, a recurring theme is stacked4ths, I do not know this is what Miles heavily used, a while later my "theory" catches up to my "writing". Would it have been a good idea to have known of this parrell years earlier?
Any one who suggests that study of theory will stifle an individuals original, creative voice probably has a original, creative voice that very few others speak, or understand. I tend to compare this with naysayers of technique, they generally have little of their own.
If you want to earn, read. This is not cynical, its a fact. I do not hire non-readers, they take up to much time, cannot follow conversation [invaribly structure/arrangment issues], and to make a genreliastion here, are "one dimensional" in their sound/ approach. This is not to say that is nessacarily a bad thing, however flexibility can be as much an asset to good Musicianship as a set of good Ears.
Everyone's free to play from the Heart, your also free to sound like shit, Theory is surely a safeguard, stepping stone to providing part of the tool bag that a well-rounded, creative, and dare i say it Original Musician needs.
As an exercise try listing all the jobs available to readers vs. non-readers.
Use Hun's post about interaction with the two "school o' thoughts". It really shouldnt take too long to find out that if a clear distinction between read vs. non-read can be made, then 1 is going to provide more support, questions, challanges,and communication than the other.
Hopefully they are some of the reasons we make music.
To try and abort this overblown and pompous ramble, Do you want to be a Diverse Musician?
If so, then open the book, I have never, ever, met a schooled Musician claim, "I wish i never learnt to read Music". How many mofo's say the opposite? James Hendrix is possibly a good example...

Submitted by rope on Thu, 2004-09-02 05:29.

//Personal experience, I like Miles Davis, I decide i'd like to be a musician, eventually I write some songs, a recurring theme is stacked4ths, I do not know this is what Miles heavily used, a while later my "theory" catches up to my "writing". Would it have been a good idea to have known of this parrell years earlier?

it's hard to know if it would have necessarily been a good or bad idea, because i think ultimately in music the ears will also hold the foremost position, but it's always fun to discover that these techniques and situations do have a name etc and this definitely help in exploration of variations etc,
although at times i have happened upon some composers who will use these rules rather than their ears as a basis and even a JUSTIFICATION for their works, and this has been a most sickening experience.
ie; UOC SOM

//Any one who suggests that study of theory will stifle an individuals original, creative voice probably has a original, creative voice that very few others speak, or understand. I tend to compare this with naysayers of technique, they generally have little of their own.

generally, although john lennon stands out as an anomoly there, but he had a george martin to sort out the 'finer details'

//If you want to earn, read. This is not cynical, its a fact. I do not hire non-readers, they take up to much time, cannot follow conversation [invaribly structure/arrangment issues], and to make a genreliastion here, are "one dimensional" in their sound/ approach. This is not to say that is nessacarily a bad thing, however flexibility can be as much an asset to good Musicianship as a set of good Ears,

yeah, i strongly agree, this is a great point, it's all very well being able to play like the devil himself but if you can't communicate these ideas to fellow musicians it's a horrible waste, so the topic heading is quite relevant in that not only is music a language of sorts but the theory is a language to aid in the communication.

But there is the distinction between knowing these theories in a concentual language [necessary for communication] and in one's 'own' language [suitable for simpler situations], because ultimately we 'all' know this 'grammar' to some extent, and we don't necesarrily have to think about it to use it.
So if one can communicate musical ideas without recourse to standard labels then ultimately that is the most important thing,
just as in you don't always need words to communicate your meaning.

Submitted by simon_ishtar on Thu, 2004-09-02 05:03.

Interesting point. I don't disagree at all. for the sake of playing devils advocate (and thus keeping this going a little longer) I'm going to redefine the question. read the following.

The crown is no longer relevant to modern society, Politicians, who are liars, should be shot and lazy beurocrats should all be hung!

We can all read for understanding, interact with it and respond to it in the same way that many (myself included) can read music.
Now find the following
Defining relative caluse, Mynogamy, an adjectival, a negative, a conjunction.
Is there a point where theory becomes pedantry?

Submitted by rope on Thu, 2004-09-02 05:39.

yes most definitely!!!!!!!!!!!!!![in certain circumstances], therefore, what is a mynogomy?
but to isolate and label these syntatic elements, is not essential for communication,
pedantic perhaps, but i think the more we classify and categorise things, the better we as a spieces can understand the nature of our existance, and ultimately that must be a good thing?
maybe it's not necessary to know all of this 'jargon' to communicate clearly and concisely,
but there are some essential more basic elements which we must know ,and which we have been taught when we were young ones,
degrees of understanding.

Submitted by rope on Thu, 2004-09-02 05:41.

mynogamy...

Submitted by simon_ishtar on Thu, 2004-09-02 22:51.

Mynogamy is when you refer to something by a name other than its own yet everyone understands what you mean. The given example was referring to the British royal family as the crown. We all understand what it means (although crown is sometimes used to mean government). It can also apply to names ie everyone knows who I am talking about when I say Jonah was one hell of a rugby player. No surname is needed. This is different to 'elipsis' though, which would be to say the full name first time and then onwards use Lomu, He/him etc, as it had been established earlier who I was talking bout.

Also for the record (I know no-one has asked yet) I do sight read and have quite a bit of thoery under my belt, however it can be a little patchy in some areas and tends to have come from a perspective of having known how to do it first then filled in the gaps later.

[ http://www.ishtar.co.nz ]

Submitted by rope on Thu, 2004-09-02 22:53.

thanks, a wealth of information

Submitted by simon_ishtar on Thu, 2004-09-02 23:16.

no problems

Submitted by foal30 on Fri, 2004-09-03 16:52.

I always thought Mynogomy was when you married yourself.
Thanks for clearing that up for me Mr Ishtar.
Theirs a Chomsky book which starts with the premisis of unneccasary language, in that we dont use the words we need as the parties to the conversation already have a common "agreement". When he spells it out in full detail its hilarious, well worth a read.

Submitted by simon_ishtar on Sat, 2004-09-04 20:11.

sounds an interesting read. Thanks Foal

Submitted by Disasteradio on Thu, 2004-09-02 05:41.

I've met plenty of musicians who don't know much in the way of theory but they know music. And I've met plenty of theoreticians who know nothing about music. ("too obvious", ross harris wrote about one of my assignments, pfh)

me, I half-know theory, and that's all I'll need for now, aside from technical stuff I'd love to know like orchestration and uh, the fancier points of harmony.

Submitted by iluvtheclean on Thu, 2004-09-02 15:42.

theory might be a way of collecting together a bunch of things that have happened to music in the past. theory might be the history of music. so it's one way of getting a basis behind you.

but i think, since theory is the history of music, it doesn't make up for actual experience, as the experience of trying out something new came first, and then the talking/thinking/analysis of it came second, as theory.

Mozart and Haydn went and did stuff, and then people took notice and discussed it after the fact.

i tend to steer away from theory because i don't often understand how it relates to what i actually want to do musically. i'd rather live in the experience of doing something and be completely ignorant of how it fits into theory somewhere, or be guided by theory as to what might fit next after that key change etc.

but then again, i'm a Romantic and feel very uncomfortable with anything that isn't organic feeling. at this point in time.

but i love watching documentaries about music - i guess that's as far as my interest as theory goes - only as an audience member going "yeah, that sounds great!" and letting it settle down in my subconscious somewhere; if the particular technical details want to come out and play around in a song, then well they can do that, but for some strange Romantic reason i don't particularly want to interfere. i'd rather remain a kind of audience member, steering them to suit my tastes as an audience member.

my brain really hurts now. but that might be because we had quite a bit of mulled wine last night. cool topic.

Submitted by Big_Stu on Thu, 2004-09-02 16:06.

//since theory is the history of music,//

I don't think so ... the history of music and music theory are not the same thing at all. My understanding of music theory is that it is a description of the way that music is put together. What the notes are, how long a note is, chords, keys etc ...

Music history on the other hand describes what has happened in music over the years. Sort of a chronological account of things. Not to say that music history and theory are not related. History might record that someone discovered a certain musical "fact" that became part of the theory.

//i tend to steer away from theory because i don't often understand how it relates to what i actually want to do musically. //

Surely this is whole point of music theory ... it helps you to understand what it is you want to do. Instead of fiddling around trying to find the right note to fit in a certain part of you song a knowledge of theory (how music goes together) could guide you much more quickly to where you want to be.

Submitted by iluvtheclean on Thu, 2004-09-02 16:21.

i guess in saying history, what i was trying to say was some sort of lineage that collects decisions together, and because of that lineage, music evolves, genres emerge, things cross-over etc. i'm talking about a history where theory is a result of people following their instincts, and when it seems right, those decisions enter into theory, and others learn from that and benefit without having to go the hard yards (like shorthand as you describe below).

yeah, not history in a big set of sociopolitical chronological decisions, like Mozart eating bad eggs one day put him in a blue funk and he had to go write the Jupiter symphony to feel better or anything. but a lineage that represents a few instinctive breakthroughs where some people have found some/made some conventions.

i mean western musical theory has absolutely nothing to do with a heap of eastern music. like (indonesian) gamelan music has bugger all to do with how western music works. but both sound good, though at times the theory both use are at complete opposites. combinations of notes and tones that will never work in western classical music seem suitable in gamelan music.

i agree with you in that theory can be a good leg-up over some hurdles, but my trouble is in understanding or trusting theory a lot of the time, and besides i'm a beligerant person and would rather spend my whole life tripping over hurdles than reading a book about them and knowing the physics behind the lift required to get over them. i guess i'm obsessed with the process ...

Submitted by schmash on Thu, 2004-09-02 18:43.

//i tend to steer away from theory because i don't often understand how it relates to what i actually want to do musically. i'd rather live in the experience of doing something and be completely ignorant of how it fits into theory somewhere, or be guided by theory as to what might fit next after that key change.//

Totally into that.
I liek to ahve a knowledge of what i'm doing at times, but otherwise, i much more prefer the mystery.

Submitted by lena o on Thu, 2004-09-02 15:48.

not very

Submitted by Big_Stu on Thu, 2004-09-02 15:55.

I think the importance of an understanding of music theory is that it gives you a way of understanding what you are doing. I doubt if there are really many good musicians who don't have some idea of what "works" and what doesn't. This theory stuff need not be acquired formally ... which I guess is where you are coming from, Simon. Over the years you have been playing you have more than likely picked up a great deal of knowledge about playing the guitar and are now in a position of knowing which notes belong with other notes ... which make the best sound together, or sound good when played in succession ... whatever. But if you had received some formal theory training during the early years you may have got to this stage quicker.

I don't think that any amount of theory is going to turn a talentless hack such as myself into a superior musician bit I believe that it will enable someone with an innate talent to progress more quickly.

A little analogy: I trained as a technician many years ago. In my early training there was a certain amount of simple maths involved ... not much more than basic arithmetic really. And obviously a lot of my early training was classroom work, with plenty of practical thrown in as well I might add. The theory I had was sufficient for me to become a competent repair man I guess but I still felt that I had no real idea of what was actually going on in the equipment I was fixing. Luckily I was selected to attend an advanced technical/engineering course in the UK. This involved a huge amount of maths, particularly calculus ... yuck! This was all in the early part of the course (whihc was 2 years long) and at the time seemed way over the top. As the course progressed it became obvious that all this theory was in fact a huge help in actually understanding what was happening; the nasty maths became a shorthand way of describing very complex interactions in a succinct and easily understood fashion.

In the same way I think that music theory can help a musician to understand and describe to others what should be happening in a song. An understanding of time and key signatures, chord structures etc that is shared by members of the group can surely make the creation of music less fraught. If everyone understands what the composer is saying because they share a common language then musical life is much simpler.

Once again, simply having the knowledge will not turn you into a musician, but combined with technical ability (the physical side) and feel (the spiritual side, if you will) a decent helping of theory (the mental? side) will surely make you a better musician.

Submitted by lena o on Thu, 2004-09-02 16:22.

then youre equating theory with learning formulae & rules- but western european music theory is diff to indonesian- japanese- hell- when bartok decided to tour small towns in romania &c- to record on manuscript the folk songs he feared would disappear in the blooming new age- he encountered

- village singers- without a shred of music theory- with 10,000+ pieces of music learnt by ear & memorized
- intervals which were impossible to record in western notation
- time signatures which were the same
- harmonies which according to western music should sound like shit- but dont
- &c &c

the experience totally blew him away

Submitted by Big_Stu on Thu, 2004-09-02 16:41.

//but western european music theory is diff to indonesian- japanese-//

Granted ... but I'm not saying that there is only one theory of music. Only that a knowledge of musical theory is of value in understanding and communicating musical ideas. Just as there are many different unrelated languages in the world today there are many different ways of expressing musical ideas. These may or may not be written down. There may be no formal notation such as that found in "classical" western music theory but there is a tacit understanding of what works and what doesn't for a particular musical style.

//then youre equating theory with learning formulae & rules//

To a degree, yes. But the rules are certainly not immutable ... they are there to be broken, and in doing so something new and exciting might happen. The rules give you a fixed starting point ... from there your journey can take you wherever you so chose.

Submitted by iluvtheclean on Thu, 2004-09-02 17:01.

//a fixed starting point

i was wondering where i could bring this in - the difference between instinct and theory. theory can give musicians a starting point, but so can instinct. trouble is that it's hard to distinguish between the two - cos instinct can be a result of your experiences as well as an inbuilt feels-good-o-meter. and theory rears its head in conventions throughout music, filtering through into experience and what might sound good and get buried down to come out through a feeling of instinct.

that's interesting to me because the way i write songs is to just let them come along, and then i kinda follow along behind them with a stick - the stick's either theory or instinct - if the song doesn't please me then i prod it a bit until it does or else i forget it or integrate it into something else. but that 'pleasing me' bit is the issue - is it pleasing what i think it should sound like in terms of convention and theory, or is it pleasing my instinct ... argh.

actually i don't think it matters as you as you enjoy it and are pleased by the results.

Submitted by lena o on Thu, 2004-09-02 19:04.

the problem is you all know how some people get over rules & conventions- every famous composer i can think of has broken them- & petty assholes have tried to make them suffer- cos they disturbed their perfect lil world- where no tritones are allowed

Submitted by foal30 on Thu, 2004-09-02 20:49.

Every famous composer has broke the rules.
Possibly because they studied the rules , they were able to put their voice into what has become part of all our vocab.
Im surprized you mention critics, I dont believe "their" opinions would effect/tamper with your vision/idea Lena. Want tritones? Call Anthony Jackson.
I like mentor/role models analogy of his appr tech days, the paralel is obviously, none arrive as per the Phoniex, failure to be open to predecessing ideas/beliefs is clearly a guarantee of retardation and buffonery.
The end of the line is obviously individuals will play what they like, i just struggle to believe that people only listen to one type of music and that they would limit their own Musicial experience to one genre. If you want to branch out then theory is compulsory....
I think this is the best thread in ages.

Submitted by simon_ishtar on Fri, 2004-09-03 01:56.

I like your point Stu. I did start with three years of classical guitar lessons, which gave me a good grounding, but beyond that I haven't had a formal lesson. (although read lots of magazines etc but would usually just do the exercises and skip the commentary)In some ways I'm glad as it has meant I have found it easier to challenge stupid conventional things. One example is that I hold a pick between my thumb and middle finger as I find it allows me to pick a lot quicker, just straight up and down, it allows a greater dynamic range from a pick, an easy transition to two handed tapping, hybrid picking, ease of sweep picking and if I need to go hard I hold the pick between thumb, forefinger and middle finger. It seemed to me that if the pick had to travel less it would allow me to play faster so I did it, no tutor to tell me it was wrong.
That is not to say I couldn't talk for hours about pitch axis theory, modes, my favourite chord progressions, the pythagorean slip or synchrosonic formulae, it is just that I would be light on jargon at times.

Submitted by punkman on Fri, 2004-09-03 15:55.

tried your pick technique. i like it dude. I think most meople who get formal training start of with classical. usually at school. thats all good cos u get the hang of basic picking, strumming techniques. I first learnt bout theory before i ever picked up an instrument. I think this helped because i didnt have the limitations of an instrument hindering what i was tring to learn. Just one point - most people dont go play clasiical guitar after school rite?? so why dont they have formal rock or blues leasons at school??

Submitted by simon_ishtar on Sat, 2004-09-04 20:10.

I'd like to think they offer that kind of thing in some schools but to be honest I really don't know which schools offer what. I had all the music rooms priviledges at school despite only taking 3rd form music (parents made me take economics as I wasn't finding any challenge in it. No high school music hence some notable gaps in theory). But that was 10 years ago.

Submitted by punkman on Thu, 2004-09-02 18:06.

I think theory enhances your enjoyment of music. I negelted theory for the best part of my early guitar days, just entent of playing guitar tabs forever. But then when it came to play with others who were using scales and runs to jam, i was out of my depth. You dont have to get hard out crazy bout theory. AT first i just learnt a few scales, some blues scales, from there my ability to express myself expanded dramaticly.

Submitted by Mo on Thu, 2004-09-02 23:53.

I love what I'm reading in this thread. Some very intelligent opinions here...I don't know if I have anything new to add but procrastination is fun.

I wouldn't say that a lack of theoretical knowledge hinders someone's musicality. Lennon, for example, wrote songs based on Aeolian cadences not even knowing what they were - he just wrote what sounded good, and only found out that there was a name to the cadences he used once people started analysing his songs. Then again, we're talking about someone with enormous innate ability and an instinctive approach to music here. If that talent had been 'properly' nurtured with theory lessons would he have advanced further musically? Who knows.

Maybe it's the lack of knowledge that sometimes leads one to write more pure, raw songs. Not being aware of the rules of harmony may free someone from trying to follow conventions and stick to their instincts. But then again, Debussy broke all rules of harmony and HE went to the Conservatory in Paris.

I suppose the difference lies in the fact that if you're unaware of theory, you don't know if you're breaking the rules, whereas if you know theory then you do. And if one had the theoretical knowledge, it'd be easier to find that sound they're trying to achieve - "oh, a sus4 would sound good here!" etc. That said, a natural musician would find that sound anyhow.

In conclusion, I'm really confused now.

Submitted by n1cked on Wed, 2005-12-07 14:18.

Check out KIWITABS

NZ Guitar, bass, drum TAB collection.
Its a big one and building.

http://www.kiwitabs.derail.co.nz

Already has 300 tabs of kiwi music, please submit any if you have them.

[ http://www.kiwitabs.derail.co.nz ]