# How much theory do you have?



## Barnaby (Jan 10, 2015)

I wonder how many of us are well versed in music theory? 

I struggled through to about Grade 5 theory when I was younger but I'm hardly fluent. When I listen to professional musicians discussing music I always feel I'm missing al lot without guidance and although I can understand much of what they are describing, I don't pick it up on my own until it's explained to me.

My feeling is that theory certainly adds another layer to understanding why we enjoy certain works and it's fascinating to hear an expert expounding on it but I'm still happy enough with my initial "intuitive" response to music. I have a feeling most listeners appreciate it on that level but I know there are many on this forum much better educated in this than me.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Although I come from a musical family, I have no understanding or knowledge of music theory. I think it helps me to relate to music in some ways.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

I have my B.M./M.A./Ph.D. all in composition so I have a high level of knowledge of theory.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Two semesters and to be honest I have forgotten more than I care to admit.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

I am not aquainted with conservatory exams or grades, but if you give me a page of orchestral music and tell me to continue it in the same style, I will probably be able to.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I was offered further studies at my Alma Mater, but I had already secured work as a composer in my last year and didn't take up the offer. By then I had studied most things theoretical including some more niche things like 16thC counterpoint.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

I have a good general knowledge but it stops at a certain point. I couldn't perform a serious analysis of a score.

Let's put it this way: I know enough theory to write a string quartet and make it sound good, but that does NOT mean it would actually _be_ good.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Only superficial knowledge. I didn't have access to music education at an early age (my small city didn't even have a school of music until some years ago) and at the moment know only the basics of music theory, that I learned by myself using books and the internet. I can read a score, and I understand some technical terms, but I'm far from being fluent in it.

This said, I believe that knowing theory is key to appreciate good music, and I do my best to try to understand new terms or concepts in music when they appear.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

Barnaby said:


> I wonder how many of us are well versed in music theory?


All I have is a license in solfege taken ages ago. So I am at a basic level. But I am trying to expand my knowledge.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I took Harmony I, II, III, IV with the concurrent Ear Training course. Then onto Form & Analysis, Counterpoint, Orchestration I & II. Not bad for a math major, I suppose. Over the 40+ years since, I admit to having forgotten a lot of the theory, but I keep Goldman's book on Western Harmony around just in case!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

OT: none

..........


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Barnaby said:


> I wonder how many of us are well versed in music theory?
> 
> I struggled through to about Grade 5 theory when I was younger but I'm hardly fluent. When I listen to professional musicians discussing music I always feel I'm missing al lot without guidance and although I can understand much of what they are describing, I don't pick it up on my own until it's explained to me.
> 
> My feeling is that theory certainly adds another layer to understanding why we enjoy certain works and it's fascinating to hear an expert expounding on it but I'm still happy enough with my initial "intuitive" response to music. I have a feeling most listeners appreciate it on that level but I know there are many on this forum much better educated in this than me.


Music theory is a body of knowledge that was developed over centuries to study western classical music. It is only really useful for music which shares the same primary elements as western classical music. But there is a world of music that western music theory cannot describe.

So while I have an advanced degree in music theory I do not consider that body of knowledge very important for experiencing enjoying, or understanding music. It also puts an abstract system between you and the direct experience of the music itself.

However, if you are interested there are a number of websites devoted to learning basic music theory - *here's one*.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> .........
> ......... It also puts an abstract system between you and the direct experience of the music itself.
> 
> .


.....it doesn't for me, does it for you? My experience of music is pretty direct, full on in fact and the 'system' enhances it rather than hamper or obscure it in any way. That goes for all musics.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

mikeh375 said:


> .....it doesn't for me, does it for you? My experience of music is pretty direct, full on in fact and the 'system' enhances it rather than hamper or obscure it in any way. That goes for all musics.


For someone who is just learning music theory they may be prone to be trying to analyze it instead of listen to it. For more experienced folks whose knowledge of music theory is longstanding and has reached an intuitive level, than I agree with you.


----------



## jkl (May 4, 2021)

Music theory provides an excellent framework to students. I did a major in composition. Students can then specialize into non-traditional music based on such.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> ....
> Let's put it this way: I know enough theory to write a string quartet and make it sound good, but that does NOT mean it would actually _be_ good.


I could re-open a can of worms if I asked what the difference is. But I won't. :lol:


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

consuono said:


> I could re-open a can of worms if I asked what the difference is. But I won't. :lol:


Maybe like the difference between Tchaikovsky and Bach? :devil:


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Except Tchaikovsky wrote three string quartets that are well-known, widely played and recorded. Bach did not write any string quartets.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

How much does music theory matter for your enjoyment? (May-02-2021)


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

fundamentals: moderate. 
instrument playing: moderate.
counterpoint: little.
harmony: basic.
musical forms: basic.
orchestration: basic.
history of music: basic.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

What does theory mean? If it is a way to describe aspects of music then it is helpful, but all too often its treated as some sort of science, which it is not. The theory 101 we get taught in music school - roman numerals and campfire chords - would be nearly unrecognizable to 18th or 19th century composers who were trained contrapuntally. Believing this to be a full description can invite a musical Dunning-Kruger. Theory for the casual listener ideally should teach them a bit of what they dont know, then can better appreciate and understand how music gets created


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Zero. I just listen and enjoy what I hear (or not).


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

consuono said:


> I could re-open a can of worms if I asked what the difference is. But I won't. :lol:


LMAO. You sure could. I actually don't know what thread you're referring to but I don't doubt that is a Pandora's box waiting to be unleashed.

Sidestepping that debate, here's what I was getting at: I can compose this string quartet by stringing together chords that fit well together and have the voice leading be mostly correct, and put a passably decent melody in there, do a couple modulations with pivot chords and stuff, but it would be lacking in legitimate compositional craft. I don't have that special finesse to truly make something with merit. I also wouldn't know if it would actually sound good in real life or just in the MIDI.

I want to expand my knowledge of theory further, but only so I can appreciate the works of others more deeply, more than to composer my own music. The latter I don't really care about. I prefer to admire the finished products of actually skilled composers than waste my time writing my own mediocre music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I'm remembering the old battles we used to have about Schubert. They became quite heated. In general they often seemed to be a battle between people using music theory to demonstrate that Schubert was a poor composer vs. people who talked about the experience of listening to Schubert's music. There have been other similar battles but it does seem that often music theory is used to criticise or even to rubbish a composer's music and that those who want to praise a composer talk (necessarily more vaguely) about their experience and enjoyment of the music. It has seemed to me that a knowledge of theory can deafen one to the strengths and wonders of some of the greatest classical music.


----------



## jkl (May 4, 2021)

Well, that can be applied both ways. You can apply theory to try to show a composition is weak or strong. Unless there is a premise to which the theory can be applied, and even so it is only for that premise, you can enjoy or dislike the music independently. The complexities of a Baroque fugue can be compared between compositions by Bach and other composers. Even Bach wrote simple fugues, and depending on the purpose if there was one, fugal development can be assessed.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> I'm remembering the old battles we used to have about Schubert. They became quite heated. In general they often seemed to be a battle between people using music theory to demonstrate that Schubert was a poor composer vs. people who talked about the experience of listening to Schubert's music.


Yeah, I remember eugeneonagain was the most outspoken spokesperson on the anti-Schubert side. I sort of jumped into the same bandwagon as him, but what I didn't like was, not the composer or his music, but the fact that several members at the time who favored Schubert frequently expressed views like:


Jacck said:


> there is also the sheep mentality effect. Everyone says that Mozart is great, and so must be great. Many people are unable to form their own opinion, and take over opinions of their surroundings. You cannot really study any music conservatory and hold the opinion that Mozart is not great, otherwise you would be ostracized or even expelled from the school. Many people will deny that they are sheep and that the vast majority of their opinions are not their own, but taken over from society (being it political or musical opinions), but they just lack self-awareness.





NLAdriaan said:


> To me, the music that I can do without is, frankly, a lot of Mozart (except Zauberflote, Don Giovanni and a few Symfonies and pianoconcertos) and operette and plain indifferent amusement music that doesn't want to capture you, but merely keep you occupied. The kind of elevator music. I know that Mozart is God for many, also here. So, no offense! But I truly can't get it and we live in a free world


But deep down, I have thought Schubert was a fine composer with a unique voice.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

jkl said:


> Well, that can be applied both ways. You can apply theory to try to show a composition is weak or strong. Unless there is a premise to which the theory can be applied, and even so it is only for that premise, you can enjoy or dislike the music independently. The complexities of a Baroque fugue can be compared between compositions by Bach and other composers. Even Bach wrote simple fugues, and depending on the purpose if there was one, fugal development can be assessed.


That was part of my point. I was saying that using theory to find weaknesses in a piece of music can involve being led astray by the theory rather than the work in question. They may be misusing their theory knowledge or their theory knowledge may be misusing them (closing their ears to beautiful and effective music). Introducing ideas of complexity and simplicity is not helpful in this.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> I'm remembering the old battles we used to have about Schubert. They became quite heated. In general they often seemed to be a battle between people using music theory to demonstrate that Schubert was a poor composer vs. people who talked about the experience of listening to Schubert's music. There have been other similar battles but it does seem that often music theory is used to criticise or even to rubbish a composer's music and that those who want to praise a composer talk (necessarily more vaguely) about their experience and enjoyment of the music. It has seemed to me that a knowledge of theory can deafen one to the strengths and wonders of some of the greatest classical music.


I also remember this; (I agree with the part in bold, but I'm not quite sure about the others, because I think that being able to write music that moves a lot of people is a sign of genius)


chu42 said:


> In my experience, the Chopin fanbase is, among all the great composers, one the least musically literate groups of classical music enthusiasts. Someone like Stravinsky, Mahler, Schumann, even Mozart requires a certain understanding of what's what in order to appreciate it. But young people flock to Chopin because of how ridiculously accessible his music is-and it turns out they get sucked into the Romantic machine until they can't stand anything not idiomatic to Chopin. *The most common ideas you will see floating around Chopin echo-chambers is that Mozart is the most overrated composer*; Rachmaninov is the 2nd greatest composer behind Chopin; and a split opinion on Liszt where he's either all amazing or all banal finger gymnastics-neither of which are valid.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I have a Ph.D. in musicology and a masters in theory. I've published articles in music theory and aesthetics and have taught an analysis course. I compose and keep honing skills in counterpoint.


----------



## Barnaby (Jan 10, 2015)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I know enough theory to write a string quartet and make it sound good, but that does NOT mean it would actually _be_ good[/B][/U].


I don't want to make this an official can of worms opening but, this for me is I suppose some of my musings leading to my question. It's sort of the old thing about "Wagner being better than he sounds". I don't really feel that way at all. If something sounds good to me it is good.

I'm not keen on *having to* approach music like an accountant calculates VAT returns or a Rubik's cube that needs to be solved. Does this make me a naive listener? Possibly but I'm happy with it.

I find it interesting other people approach it in a different way but each to their own.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Barnaby said:


> I don't want to make this an official can of worms opening but, this for me is I suppose some of my musings leading to my question. It's sort of the old thing about "Wagner being better than he sounds". I don't really feel that way at all. If something sounds good to me it is good.
> 
> I'm not keen on *having to* approach music like an accountant calculates VAT returns or a Rubik's cube that needs to be solved. Does this make me a naive listener? Possibly but I'm happy with it.
> 
> I find it interesting other people approach it in a different way but each to their own.


It is not unusual for some people to claim that good music exhibits a high degree of skill and craft. This is undoubtedly true, but it is similar to the statement "all kittens are cats but not all cats are kittens." Not all music that exhibits a high degree is skill is good music; more often than not, music that "follows the rules" will be mediocre, lacking creativity in lieu of being "correct".

It takes more than skill and craft to write good music (no matter the genre) - skill and craft identify the floor, not the ceiling, of what goes into creating good music.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*How much theory do you have?*

I have a theory that those who have theories tend to be theoretical, theoretically speaking.
On a more practical level, I know how to work a record player. 
Thus, the theorem: I prefer practical music to theoretical music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

My formal instruction in theory didn't go beyond a year of it in college. I like to know what musical things are called and find naming an aid to further understanding, but don't confuse theoretical thinking with musical comprehension. The experience of music needn't involve verbal identifications unless we want it to, so I don't see much possibility of theoretical knowledge endangering anyone's pleasure unless they're anxious about being quizzed the next day. Far from being an obstacle to enjoyment, theory can help us to hear things we hadn't noticed before. But I do understand how some may prefer to think of the moon as a goddess rather than a chunk of rock.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

The history of music theory dates to Pythagoras and with that history came the dichotomy of music which can be described by music theory and that which cannot, with the latter being misunderstood, mischaracterized, and suffering by comparison. Prior to Pythagoras music was ritualistic, magical and mysterious; Pythagoras wished to make it scientific and rational, not what he saw as superstitious.

Here's a quote from an interesting new history of music:



> "African music, when transplanted to the United States, defied the attempts of even the most highly trained listeners to analyze it. Musicologist Henry Edward Krehbiel was so dumbfounded by his encounter with African drummers in the Dahomey Village at the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago that he enlisted another scholar, a specialist in Native American music, to help him notate their polyrhythms-but both gave up in dismay, realizing that these songs could not be assimilated by their schemas and systems. But fast-forward to our own times, and see how this has changed. Countless academic books on African music promise a codification of this previously elusive art, and the subject is taught dispassionately as a rule-based (or algorithmic) discipline in classrooms alongside the fugue and sonata. The music that broke the rules is now reduced to rules.
> 
> By the same token, the blues emerged in the early twentieth century as a way of defying scales and standard intonation. You simply couldn't write this music down on paper. But today hundreds of method books offer to teach you the blues scale and phrasing, and are filled with musical notation to clarify each step in the process. Even stranger, the people who write these textbooks often seem unaware of how much this process of assimilation distorts the very traditions they are attempting to propagate. Even if I shudder at some of the results of this mainstreaming of non-Western music (and try to correct its excesses in the pages ahead), I must respect it. To some extent, all of us in music today are Pythagoreans."
> 
> - Music: A Subversive History by Ted Gioia


IMO one of the most corrosive outgrowths of the application of music theory has been the idea of "high art" and "low art."


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Nothing beyond the basic components of music including keys, time signatures, rhythms, scales, modes, and chords. Anybody who spends time studying a musical instrument learns this stuff.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> ... But I do understand how some may prefer to think of the moon as a goddess rather than a chunk of rock.


Her name is Luna,









and she "rocks".


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> The history of music theory dates to Pythagoras and with that history came the dichotomy of music which can be described by music theory and that which cannot, with the latter being misunderstood, mischaracterized, and suffering by comparison. Prior to Pythagoras music was ritualistic, magical and mysterious; Pythagoras wished to make it scientific and rational, not what he saw as superstitious.
> 
> Here's a quote from an interesting new history of music:
> 
> IMO one of the most corrosive outgrowths of the application of music theory has been the idea of "high art" and "low art."


Yes, so while flexing your racial wokeness on others here you perpetuate the myth that African music is naiive and instinctual, as if the percussionists dont train to count the clave and other aspects of the rhythmic cycles inherent in African polyrhythms or have the ability to use terminology to describe their music

And pythagoras was more a mystic than a rationalist, he makes a poor straw man to blame 'western' rationality vs. 'nonwestern' mysticism


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

Barnaby said:


> I don't want to make this an official can of worms opening but, this for me is I suppose some of my musings leading to my question. It's sort of the old thing about "Wagner being better than he sounds". I don't really feel that way at all. If something sounds good to me it is good.
> 
> I'm not keen on *having to* approach music like an accountant calculates VAT returns or a Rubik's cube that needs to be solved. Does this make me a naive listener? Possibly but I'm happy with it.
> 
> I find it interesting other people approach it in a different way but each to their own.


Well here's the thing, I don't intellectualize music either. Even if I wanted to, I don't have the capacity. So what you said about the Rubix cube may apply to other people, but not to me. Going of what SanAntone said, a lot of my favorite music is written by less than stellar musicians.

But the example of me writing a string quartet is different. Sure it'll sound good, but I don't believe I deserve a participation trophy just because it sounds good, which should be the bare minumum of expectation. Doing so diminishes the acconplishments of Shostakovich and Schubert. There IS still something to be said about craft if you ask me.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Knowing more about theory than in the past, I now know WHY I like both classical and prog rock. That's not to say I liked either any less back in the day. I just didn't know why I liked them.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Yes, so while flexing your racial wokeness on others here you perpetuate the myth that African music is naiive and instinctual, as if the percussionists dont train to count the clave and other aspects of the rhythmic cycles inherent in African polyrhythms or have the ability to use terminology to describe their music
> 
> And pythagoras was more a mystic than a rationalist, he makes a poor straw man to blame 'western' rationality vs. 'nonwestern' mysticism


I'm glad to see you are now admitting sophistication in non-Western music, I have never said otherwise. In fact, I've made the argument again and again (to you and others) that African music, among other non-Western genres, is complex, of high artistic quality and requires skill and training to learn and perform. IMO, on a par with European classical music.

This is not "racial wokeness" it is just a basic fact anyone would know who's spent time with a variety of non-classical musics.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Very minor level of theory knowledge. 

I often listen to music with a good friend of mine, who has massive theory knowledge, being a grad of Berklee College of Music. 

Sometimes I do feel like I am missing a level of enjoyment, not understanding too much. Especially since we both have very similar musical tastes: avant-garde, late 20th century and contemporary classical, various forms of progressive jazz, and avant-garde prog rock, but he has a deep understanding of what is going on. While I am left to just enjoy the music itself.


----------



## Barnaby (Jan 10, 2015)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Well here's the thing, I don't intellectualize music either. Even if I wanted to, I don't have the capacity. So what you said about the Rubix cube may apply to other people, but not to me. Going of what SanAntone said, a lot of my favorite music is written by less than stellar musicians.
> 
> But the example of me writing a string quartet is different. Sure it'll sound good, but I don't believe I deserve a participation trophy just because it sounds good, which should be the bare minumum of expectation. Doing so diminishes the acconplishments of Shostakovich and Schubert. There IS still something to be said about craft if you ask me.


Hi you make an interesting point and I also want to clarify that my comment on the cube etc wasn't aimed at you.

I am interested though, re your point about your quartet, in whether you, feel that there comes a point when what people who agree with you in judging a piece are not actually judging the music itself, but how well that piece of music measures up to the application of a set of prescribed rules. This question would apply equally to any particular tradition. I wonder if the tribesmen of Africa or blues players referred to above or indeed audiences of all cultural groups actually critique their music in terms of their rules of composition or not. Obviously they will be accustomed to certain traditions and sounds and basic structures due to exposure rather than formal training but other than that.

For me music is one of life's pleasures. It's like food, or fragrance or colour. I perceive it in a sensual way not an intellectual one. As I said above I might be considered by some as naive, but for me the rest is something other than the way I receive it.


----------



## Barnaby (Jan 10, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> Very minor level of theory knowledge.
> 
> he has a deep understanding of what is going on. While I am left to just enjoy the music itself.


That's kind of how I feel in my post above this one.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

i have a good ear, but can't read a score to save my life. So what I know and have read about theory has to be functionally useless, although it helps my listening somewhat.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Barnaby said:


> It's sort of the old thing about "Wagner being better than he sounds". I don't really feel that way at all. If something sounds good to me it is good.


When you see patterns such as this (7th chords built on F);

5:31





7:26





isn't it amazing a person could write music so full of fantasy while respecting older practices.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Many of the posts have missed the point to some degree. Music theory is essential if one wishes to become a fine musician or at least a casual performer of music. Theory like any discipline, exists for good reasons. There is nothing more practical than good theory. Unless one is born a genius like the great composers and theory can be partly dispensed with but I'm afraid most people don't belong in that genius category. As for casual listening to classical music, which is the vast majority of people and members here (I presume), theory is not needed.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> isn't it amazing a person could write music so full of fantasy while respecting older practices.


Isn't it what many do though? I'm afraid I belong to those who don't get "Wagner's genius" and I don't like his music no matter how much I try. I like Stravinsky, I like Shostakovich, even some
Schoenberg, I like dissonance, but no Wagner. Yet, Howard Shore's Lord of The Rings has been my favourite soundtrack for 16 years. I don't know. Anyway:


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Amadea said:


> Isn't it what many do though? I'm afraid I belong to those who don't get "Wagner's genius" and I don't like his music no matter how much I try. I like Stravinsky, I like Shostakovich, even some
> Schoenberg, I like dissonance, but no Wagner. Yet, Howard Shore's Lord of The Rings has been my favourite soundtrack for 16 years. I don't know.


Even this?


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

Fabulin said:


> Even this?


Yes, even that. Wagner to me has some good moments. Speaking of Overtures as example, I like the first minutes of the Parsifal. What happens next is the problem. To me, Wagner's music in general feels just excessive and "rude"? I don't want to offend anybody who likes Wagner, it is just not my cup of tea. De gustibus. I don't get it, I guess. The same way some don't like Mozart or others. Maybe it has something to do with the fact I absolutely love Tchaikovsky and he was my first introduction to classical music. In Tchaikovsky there is tragedy and great feelings, but there is also balance, clarity, at least to my ears. So maybe, being used to him, I don't like Wagner. Anyway, didn't want to go off topic, just to add things to what hammeredklavier said.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Amadea said:


> Yes, even that. Wagner to me has some good moments. Speaking of Overtures as example, I like the first minutes of the Parsifal. What happens next is the problem. To me, Wagner's music in general feels just excessive and "rude"? I don't want to offend anybody who likes Wagner, it is just not my cup of tea. De gustibus. I don't get it, I guess. The same way some don't like Mozart or others. Maybe it has something to do with the fact I absolutely love Tchaikovsky and he was my first introduction to classical music. In Tchaikovsky there is tragedy and great feelings, but there is also balance, clarity, at least to my ears. So maybe, being used to him, I don't like Wagner. Anyway, didn't want to go off topic, just to add things to what hammeredklavier said.


I think Tchaikovsky is a red herring here, as he is my favourite composer too, _and _he was inspired by Wagner's music (Romeo and Juliet, Swan Lake, Symphony No. 5...)


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

Fabulin said:


> I think Tchaikovsky is a red herring here, as he is my favourite composer too, _and _he was inspired by Wagner's music (Romeo and Juliet, Swan Lake, Symphony No. 5...)


Yeah I know, even if I've read he didn't like wagnerism. My point was: I feel like Tchaikovsky doses while Wagner doesn't. I guess I "like Wagner" when he's "digested" by others. As I said, I love Howard Shore. Maybe we can continue this discussion in "Why do you Not like Wagner?" thread.


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2021)

I teach harmony and counterpoint to 2nd and 3rd-year undergraduates. I also teach basic music theory to 1st-year students who need a quick refresher course.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"Slow fan-fare tune~! D min-or gloom~!"


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> When you see patterns such as this (7th chords built on F);
> 
> 5:31
> 
> ...


Lol, the connection there seems a little tenuous.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Lol, the connection there seems a little tenuous.


Think of the upward steps and download leaps this way:
match the parts in blue in the Wagner with the parts in blue in the Mozart,
and the parts in red in the Wagner with the parts in red in the Mozart.
There are some differences in rhythm and scale degrees, but the gestural similarities are undeniable.
And then the part in green (consisting of downward arpeggios; a half-diminished seventh built on F) in the Wagner with the part in green (a dominant seventh built on F) in the Mozart,
and then the part in yellow (consisting of reprises of the original material) in the Wagner 
with the part in yellow in the Mozart.




 ( 7:00 ~ 7:30 )




























 ( 5:05 ~ 5:35 )


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> There are some differences in rhythm and scale degrees, but the gestural similarities are undeniable.


Music is loaded with similar "gestural similarities" that could be coincidental.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Music is loaded with similar "gestural similarities" that could be coincidental.


""Wagner, according to Cosima, considered Mozart a "grosser Chromatiker""
< The Aesthetic State: A Quest in Modern German Thought / Josef Chytry / P. 291 >


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> ""Wagner, according to Cosima, considered Mozart a "grosser Chromatiker""
> < The Aesthetic State: A Quest in Modern German Thought / Josef Chytry / P. 291 >


Yeah, so you've said many times. So?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Rapide said:


> Many of the posts have missed the point to some degree. Music theory is essential if one wishes to become a fine musician or at least a casual performer of music. Theory like any discipline, exists for good reasons. There is nothing more practical than good theory. Unless one is born a genius like the great composers and theory can be partly dispensed with but I'm afraid most people don't belong in that genius category. As for casual listening to classical music, which is the vast majority of people and members here (I presume), theory is not needed.


I think the OP posed the question from the perspective of a listener, not performer. Of course theory is more important for musicians but not equally for all genres. That is, traditional written theory. Much theory is assimilated subconsciously by musicians receiving and transmitting music through an oral tradition, e.g. blues, folk, any vernacular music.

As listeners we each can choose how best to experience music: some enjoy letting the sound "wash" over them, others prefer a more cerebral approach, i.e. following scores, learning theory, etc., or an infinite combination. None of these approaches are invalid, everyone finds what works for them.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

SanAntone said:


> I think the OP posed the question from the perspective of a listener, not performer. Of course theory is more important for musicians but not equally for all genres. That is, traditional written theory. Much theory is assimilated subconsciously by musicians receiving and transmitting music through an oral tradition, e.g. blues, folk, any vernacular music.
> 
> As listeners we each can choose how best to experience music: some enjoy letting the sound "wash" over them, others prefer a more cerebral approach, i.e. following scores, learning theory, etc., or an infinite combination. None of these approaches are invalid, everyone finds what works for them.


I was clarifying the confusion I saw in many posts whereby listening pleasure or lack of seems to be mushed up in a soup about music theory. Classical music theory is the prerequisite for good music making and understanding of music. As for music enjoyment, that's for the individual. The two are separate.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Rapide said:


> I was clarifying the confusion I saw in many posts whereby listening pleasure or lack of seems to be mushed up in a soup about music theory. Classical music theory is the prerequisite for good music making and understanding of music. As for music enjoyment, that's for the individual. The two are separate.


Classical music theory is nothing more than a reductive collection of material designed to elevate certain music over other music. The music which cannot be described by classical music theory is actually more interesting than that which can be described by it.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Classical music theory is nothing more than a reductive collection of material designed to elevate certain music over other music. The music which cannot be described by classical music theory is actually more interesting than that which can be described by it.


What music can't be described by theory? I've had teachers dissect songs by the Rolling Stones using "classical" theory. Where on earth did you get your music degree?


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

SanAntone said:


> Classical music theory is nothing more than a reductive collection of material designed to elevate certain music over other music. The music which cannot be described by classical music theory is actually more interesting than that which can be described by it.


:lol: Obviously I have been misled and got my education wrong....


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Classical music theory is nothing more than a reductive collection of material designed to elevate certain music over other music. The music which cannot be described by classical music theory is actually more interesting than that which can be described by it.


This is ridiculous. Classical theory is a discipline designed to explain how classical music works. (Duh) User beware of attempts to apply it to other music - obviously.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> This is ridiculous. Classical theory is a discipline designed to explain how classical music works. (Duh) User beware of attempts to apply it to other music - obviously.


Apparently, this is not obvious in USA, where a jazz musician trained at Berklee studies even basso continuo, things he'll never use, Schenkerian analysis and stuff which basically reinforce the convinction that classical music is superior to others.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Amadea said:


> Apparently, this is not obvious in USA, where a jazz musician trained at Berklee studies even basso continuo, things he'll never use, Schenkerian analysis and stuff which basically reinforce the convinction that classical music is superior to others.


If you study jazz and Baroque music theory, then you will see the fundamental similarities between them. Good jazz uses the "basso continuo" approach as the harmonic bassline. Study a Baroque trio sonata and a good jazz composition, they are harmonically the same. Unless of course you believe that the trio sonata is an indication something socially sinister that had to do with the suppression of human liberties, then you might disagree with music theory altogether.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

In answer to the OP. Enough for a talented amateur, way too little for an untalented professional. :tiphat:


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

Rapide said:


> If you study jazz and Baroque music theory, then you will see the fundamental similarities between them. Good jazz uses the "basso continuo" approach as the harmonic bassline. Study a Baroque trio sonata and a good jazz composition, they are harmonically the same. Unless of course you believe that the trio sonata is an indication something socially sinister that had to do with the suppression of human liberties, then you might disagree with music theory altogether.


I knew nothing of this, not knowing jazz. So I guess Adam Neely is wrong (he made a video expressing what I said, Music Theory and White Supremacy I think it's called). Thanks for letting me know.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Amadea said:


> I knew nothing of this, not knowing jazz. So I guess Adam Neely is wrong (he made a video expressing what I said, Music Theory and White Supremacy I think it's called). Thanks for letting me know.


Yes, read up and get well educated thanks to music theory on jazz and Baroque. I guarantee it will not turn you into a misguided person believing that the some kind of human suppression existed in its motivation. :lol:

What amazes me is that the two genres (musically speaking) developed in different points in time with no or very little common heritage (i.e. African-American in New Orleans and European tradition). But both are founded upon a harmonic bassline and (put simply) a treble line melody that is either improvised (largely the case with jazz) and or written down (often the case with Baroque but improvisation was the means of every Baroque composer).






A typical Baroque trio sonata. This is more sophisticated in many ways, owing to the figured bass and elaboration of the lines. Of course, you can enjoy both the jazz and the Baroque in their respective beauty (it has nothing to do with misguided beliefs in human suppression, which I am still laughing hard at),


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

Amadea said:


> I knew nothing of this, not knowing jazz. So I guess Adam Neely is wrong (he made a video expressing what I said, Music Theory and White Supremacy I think it's called). Thanks for letting me know.


I think people just make videos like that because they're provocative and will get a lot of views, and also because it elevates his own self-image onto a moral high ground. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I doubt his level of sincerity about the actual issue

Does western theory work as a one-size fits all system? No, but I'm not sure what should be reccomended in its stead.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Rapide said:


> Yes, read up and get well educated thanks to music theory on jazz and Baroque. I guarantee it will not turn you into a misguided person believing that the some kind of human suppression existed in its motivation. :lol:
> 
> What amazes me is that the two genres (musically speaking) developed in different points in time with no or very little common heritage (i.e. African-American in New Orleans and European tradition). But both are founded upon a harmonic bassline and (put simply) a treble line melody that is either improvised (largely the case with jazz) and or written down (often the case with Baroque but improvisation was the means of every Baroque composer).


I think the relation of jazz and Baroque music lies in a general attitude and the practical solutions by which it was manifested. Composers of both didn't always feel a need or desire to specify every detail of how the harmony and accompaniment were realized, and they left plenty of room for individual freedom and expression to the players. More fun for the players, less tedium and more chance for surprise and interest for the composers in hearing diverse realizations of their work. Mozart had some of this attitude too. He would say he had completed the composition of a work before he had realized the inner parts, which was often like busy work for him. He called this kind of work "writing," as opposed to composing.

If one is looking for music that actually deeply influenced the language of jazz, I'd look to France, including its Russian emigré community. Isn't that where the extended tertian harmony comes from? And perhaps some taste for whole tone and octatonic patterns? Cross-fertilization in Paris concert halls and jazz clubs?


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I think people just make videos like that because they're provocative and will get a lot of views, and also because it elevates his own self-image onto a moral high ground. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I doubt his level of sincerity about the actual issue
> 
> Does western theory work as a one-size fits all system? No, but I'm not sure what should be reccomended in its stead.


My bad. I trusted the guy because he seemed to know what he was talking about and went to Berklee. I trusted who I thought was "an expert". I guess a title doesn't mean much these days. It doesn't mean your intentions are sincere.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> This is ridiculous. Classical theory is a discipline designed to explain how classical music works. (Duh) User beware of attempts to apply it to other music - obviously.


Yeah, I don't know why I posted that - it must have been an overflow from another frustrating discussion.

Speaking of, in another thread there is a discussion of Susan McClary's (I think that's her name) description of the recapitulation in Beethoven's 9th as a musical depiction of rape.

Is the latest thing in music theory politically charged metaphorical psuedo-analyses?


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

Amadea said:


> My bad. I trusted the guy because he seemed to know what he was talking about and went to Berklee. I trusted who I thought was "an expert". I guess a title doesn't mean much these days. It doesn't mean your intentions are sincere.


Eh, I don't think it's anything to be contrite about. I'm not going to watch the video (hard pass) but I'm sure there's some valid points he brings up. I think there's a way for one to do it without being sanctimonious though


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Yeah, I don't know why I posted that - it must have been an overflow from another *frustrating discussion.*
> 
> Speaking of, in another thread there is a discussion of Susan McClary's (I think that's her name) description of the recapitulation in Beethoven's 9th as a musical depiction of rape.
> 
> *Is the latest thing in music theory politically charged metaphorical psuedo-analyses?*


Frustrating discussions on TC? Hard to imagine that happening. 

I don't know if it's the latest thing, but a thing it is. Paula Higgins did a nice contextualization of McClary in an article whose title begins with "Guerilla Musicology." She concluded it was all politics.


----------



## Barnaby (Jan 10, 2015)

Well! This thread hasn't turned out as I expected, however it has been absolutely fascinating for me to read the back-and-forth arguments about this matter. I'm no expert and I had to google some of the terms you used, but it's been an education so thanks to everyone for the helpful and friendly input


----------



## Barnaby (Jan 10, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Yeah, I don't know why I posted that - it must have been an overflow from another frustrating discussion.
> 
> Speaking of, in another thread there is a discussion of Susan McClary's (I think that's her name) description of the recapitulation in Beethoven's 9th as a musical depiction of rape.
> 
> Is the latest thing in music theory politically charged metaphorical psuedo-analyses?


Doh! I searched for this thread and posted on it before realising it was about 6weeks old :lol:


----------

