# Those who have done any sort of study of theory -- what is its value to you?



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Those who have done any sort of study of theory -- what is its value to you?

I think the most fundamental element, the creative originality, is not at all explained by theory, nor can theory be used to evaluate 'greatness,' nor, if deployed in certain ways as a premise unto itself, do I think it can 'generate' any really great work. My take, my opinion.

The value to me is having gone through and learned 'modes of thought' about how music works, to better understand what a composer has done (essential for performers) and for those making new music, how better to solve the problems they have set for themselves in writing a piece.

What music theory fails to explain, other than the guts of 'what some composer did,' is the fundamental 'artistry' of writing anything of interest or worth, or if you will, the....


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Theory is a means to understanding the methods of the past. It cannot create the art of the future. Theory without music is of mathematical, but not musical, interest.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Studying compositions is what composers do to improve their craft, not sure how much listeners need to do it. But for the curious it would give another perspective.


----------



## Kazaman (Apr 13, 2013)

As a performer, my theoretical knowledge helps me to absorb new music quickly and to understand it more readily. I think that too many musicians (instrumentals, but I'm sorry to say especially vocalists), neglect analysis as a tool for interpretation. Analysis is also something I find very pleasurable and fulfilling in itself ... it's fun.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

As a composer, theory enables you to do efficiently what you already do innately. It does not add anything.

In other words, rather than having to brute force what you will already inevitably do innately, it gives you a head start and allows you to focus solely on developing in the areas that can't be taught as craft. It makes the process smoother, easier, and more pleasurable.

As a listener, I imagine it's not too dissimilar. An understanding of form or harmony will allow you put a name to things which you are already perceiving subconsciously. It's a springboard which allows you to reach higher levels of understanding which would take a lifetime without theoretical knowledge.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I think that a clear and firm knowledge of the core of music theory is fundamental for every composer. But I don't think that being an erudite in music theory will help, _by itself_, anybody to be a good composer. That should be obvious. This is not even the case in the "hard sciences", like physics and mathematics, I can assure you.
In my modest experience as an amateur composer, I found some of my, pretty standard, knowledge of music theory as an invaluable tool for understanding the working of the pieces of my favorite composers. And also for applying all those things to my own compositions. But, in my personal case, even considering that some of my compositions are very heavily "theoretically driven", I felt that the most important part was the imagination. Even when I had all sort of theoretical elucubrations about what I wanted to "use", when confronted with the blank page, _imagination_, and no other thing, is what you need.
This also work for mathematics. The demonstration of a theorem or a proposition is almost like an art. Imaginative people often produce very elegant demonstrations. 
But, as the last investigations in neuroscience suggest, _imagination_ is the capability of an individual's brain to use all of his baggage in order to produce new ideas and thoughts. So, a more well-read brain will have more possibilities, since it has more baggage and in that way it can produce more combinations and then more new ideas. So, the lesson of neuroscience is: read a lot, but also let your brain free, if you tie your brain to a certain system, rules, way of thinking, probably you will be killing some possible new ideas.
But new ideas are not all, some of these ideas will be bad and others good. In mathematics, it's easy to decide, since bad ideas will not help you to reach the desired result. But in music and art, it's more complicated, since there's not an objective criteria for the "truth", like in mathematics. Taste may be involved. Of course, there may be some ideas that clearly do not work, but a trained composer will identify them very quikly. In my experience, the process of keeping or discarding an idea is fundamental, and it's related to your taste and ear. Everybody can have ideas, but some talent is needed in order to identify the best ones.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

I find theory essential as a composer. Essentially this is because I think, if I may create a dichotomy between the sound itself and the systems used to organise it, as a composer one is often actually more interested in manipulating the latter than the former. When we listen to music we are usually listening rather to the systematic organisation of it rather than the sound itself. Of course, this is not exclusively the case, and is not even much the case for certain sorts of music. Nevertheless, without theory one does not understand these systems of organisation. If one doesn't know the system, then it is much harder to be creative with it.

In my view, analysis at its best seeks to identify and understand the forces underlying music. An understanding of these forces is again incredibly important for composition. Usually the theory that I think about most when composing is the theory I don't really understand yet.

As Haydn said of Mozart: "he has taste, and, _furthermore, the most profound knowledge of composition_". This shows the value he assigned to knowledge in composition.

I find analysis an immensely interesting subject in its own right too. To the extent that I am interested in pursuing it further and more seriously. I have a background in mathematics, and I think analysis satisfies the part of my brain which cries out for systems to try and identify and understand.

That said, I find theory books as theory books immensely dull. I have never been able to read a harmony book in my life. The moment I think of them as useful for my own analysis or composition - i.e. in a serious way for my own system of understanding for music - however, I can get absorbed.

As a listener I am not too bothered by theory. I am much more interested in _what_ the music is doing than _how_ it is doing it unless I am listening to it with a specific ear to learn.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

My greatest payback from learning theory is being able to understand posts by Millionrainbows.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

As a buddhist might say, "discipline is freeing." I imagine that once I jump through the hoops of tonal music theory more thoroughly, (like Bruckner did, or like Bach did in his less academic and more original way of copying and experimenting) I'll write far better music. Bruckner said "now throw it out the window" to his students. Well, I think its good to be able to wean off, but its also great to "work within the system," which is a very effective system(common practice tonality and whatever loosely adheres to it) with theoretically many more possibilities to explore, in my opinion. 

Theory is maybe like a good pair of training wheels, to reference when confused or something. For some minds(like mine sometimes). Certainly not some others.

I sort of wonder about this group of composers in relation to theory study(hopefully this seems interesting and relevant enough):

Taneyev was a brilliant craftsman(and more) of a composer and music theorist and music teacher, playing a role in fathering many solid Russian composers. He had a very complicated counterpoint book that he taught his students. Nikolai Medtner figured out brilliant counterpoint(from what I've read) on his own and Taneyev remarked that it was like he was born with a good sense of sonata form and voice leading, and Taneyev was surprised that one could do it that well without learning from his supposedly byzantine but probably very comprehensive textbook. 

Taneyev also worked with Scriabin. A lot of teachers hated Scriabin, but Taneyev said, something to the effect of Scriabin having been a genius and that we shouldn't discourage that. I sort of doubt Scriabin even had to be remotely academic about how he learned to compose. But he certainly had his own theories that he stuck to and that evolved over the course of his strange life and thought world.

Probably a host of other students when through Taneyev's program(and probably worked more at being standardly good students than Medtner(pretty sure Medtner worked really really hard though) or certainly Scriabin) and aren't known nearly as well as these two. I don't know what Rachmaninoff did with that, or if he had much connection to Taneyev. 




Anyway, I really have yet to determine what its value to me is, but to be more concrete, I love how it has brought about a more structured consciousness of good voice leading. It freed me up to add some filling texture that I previously was not certain about putting in, in my pieces. I think that its very useful to know how to do that and not have fear in applying it in your works.

I often use theory in hindsight to polish an idea. Sometimes a bit too much. Sometimes I use my knowledge of it to look back one what I've written. A little focusing lense is how it would ideally work.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I think the most fundamental element, the creative originality, is not at all explained by theory, nor can theory be used to evaluate 'greatness,' nor, if deployed in certain ways as a premise unto itself, do I think it can 'generate' any really great work.


Agree! That said, I suspect few composers can write "great" music without an exposure to theory, and some exposure can help listeners appreciate works more easily and deeply. As for greatness -- theory is possibly necessary, but by no means sufficient! The Haydn quote is apropos.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> My greatest payback from learning theory is being able to understand posts by Millionrainbows.


Hmmm, I'm not quite there yet... on some terminology. But I do think his posts are fascinating.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I had a year of music theory, about two decades ago, so I won't claim great insight into much (especially because I don't have good ears and haven't taken an ear training course). 

But it is nice to know what "in the key of C minor" means, or "modulate," or "relative minor," and so on.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

To understand the inner workings of just about everything (except biological organisms--I don't care so much for them at the moment, but I might in the future) is of the utmost importance to me. Consequently, it's very important to me that I know such-and-such notes form such-and-such chord progression, which has such-and-such function in such-and-such context.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Tool*

As a performer for me music theory is a tool. It helps me understand the music so I could do a better job of performing it. I also think it helps me a understand music a little better when I listen to it.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Music theory is maybe like learning algebra and arithmetic. I've known some math teachers who have said, "there are no short cuts". But it does depend on what you are trying to do.

And yes I agree it is a good tool. 

Pleasure could just be the law though, as Debussy said. That's another probably pretty okay way.

To use funny and not necessarily current psychology, maybe theory informed composing is more left brained informed(but not uncreative of course), pure intuitive composing is more purely right brained?

I think that "flow" and intuition in music is best when it is tempered by logical structures that seem to only exist if one knows about theory or has their own theories. But I do enjoy it when music is "loosened up" too.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Simple analogy - a study of (English) grammar will not make you a great novelist (or other sort of writer). On the other hand, if you don't know the rules of language, you may not be able to express yourself fluently or easily. Alexander Pope summed this up:

True ease in writing comes from art, not chance, 
As those move easiest who have learned to dance. 
'Tis not enough no harshness gives offense, 
The sound must seem an echo to the sense.

The same also applies to music.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Intellectually interesting.

Practically! When I'm listening. 
Of no use at all. 
I listen with my ears and my heart.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

MagneticGhost said:


> Intellectually interesting.
> 
> Practically! When I'm listening.
> Of no use at all.
> I listen with my ears and my heart.


Some of us who learn theory find it hard to rediscover that(I've been lost in mental trappings about music for a long time), but I think if you do ultimately, you'll be better off. But yes, both ears and heart are probably the most important things. The heart part has been missing in my listening for a while I must admit, in trying to understand many different kinds of music, and certain kinds really well, perhaps trying too hard at it.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

I can't say I've ever experienced an incompatibility between "theoretical" listening and "intuitive" listening. It's a false dichotomy, in my opinion.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Taggart said:


> Simple analogy - a study of (English) grammar will not make you a great novelist (or other sort of writer). On the other hand, if you don't know the rules of language, you may not be able to express yourself fluently or easily. Alexander Pope summed this up:
> 
> True ease in writing comes from art, not chance,
> As those move easiest who have learned to dance.
> ...


I love this. Why can't more TC discussions be like this?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Okay, so a question for those who are technically knowledgeable (and I wish I was one of you):

When you listen to music, are you listening _in technical terms _("oh, that was atonal, now he moved from A to its relative minor, oh, the dotted notes on that!"  )?

Or is it less clinical than that?

What I imagine is that a knowledge of what's happening in the music can only enhance the pleasure, since you get to see the building blocks and supporting walls as well as the fancy frontispiece, which is all I can hear...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Eschbeg said:


> I can't say I've ever experienced an incompatibility between "theoretical" listening and "intuitive" listening. It's a false dichotomy, in my opinion.


Yeah, I don't know why they need to be separate necessarily, but I had an art teacher in high school who encouraged us to turn off the left side of the brain sometimes. Sometimes you need a clean slate in your mind for hearing things freshly. I'm pretty sure some musical kids know how to hear music ear and heart better than anyone.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Can cooking be a good analogy? I don't know anything about cooking. Is is possible that I enjoy my food less than I might if I had more awareness of what the chef was thinking?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Eschbeg said:


> I can't say I've ever experienced an incompatibility between "theoretical" listening and "intuitive" listening. It's a false dichotomy, in my opinion.


Ah okay, sorry, it's been answered perfectly - just as I asked - by Eschbeg. Thank you!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> I love this. Why can't more TC discussions be like this?


Too reasonable, rational, _and downright sane!_

The absence of mama-drama and hyperbole was found, in a demographic survey, to not have much general appeal.

_*Ha, Haa, Haaaaa, Haaaaaaa Haaaaaaaa...*_


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Kieran said:


> When you listen to music, are you listening _in technical terms _("oh, that was atonal, now he moved from A to its relative minor, oh, the dotted notes on that!"  )?
> 
> Or is it less clinical than that?


Sometimes I do one, sometimes the other. It totally depends on my mood, coupled with the piece I happen to be listening to. Sometimes it is more rewarding to do one, other times the other. Sometimes they are equally rewarding, and there's nothing stopping anyone from doing both at the same time.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I really value theory because it has helped me alot as a composer. It allows me to better understand what other composers are doing (composers of any kind of music), and better understand the sorts of things I am doing myself. Instead of feeling around blindly, I can make thoughtful decisions about what to do in a piece. It has also inspired me alot. There are things I have learnt through this better understanding that have opened my eyes to new possibilities I hadn't considered before. I think learning theory is not bad for any music lover. It will only help you to better understand things in music, and it will allow you to notice things you might not have noticed before. It also makes talking about whats going on in a piece of music a hell of alot easier.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

science said:


> Can cooking be a good analogy? I don't know anything about cooking. Is is possible that I enjoy my food less than I might if I had more awareness of what the chef was thinking?


Possible that a new foundation for enjoying a piece or composer can be discovered by reading up on his/her life. Or if its a character piece or a description is written to it, pay attention to that. If you don't like the description but like the piece maybe take the piece and if its reverse maybe try to see the description.

Or course, listening with imagination can be essential with some composers. Like Schumann sometimes, or Medtner's skazki in my opinion. A purely aural perspective is probably important to get a hold of too. As a teen not too long ago(sorry if I am being pompous talking that way), Eric Satie, Mozart, Vivaldi, Scott Joplin, Chabrier's 10 lovely piano pieces, Beethoven Bagatelles, old Lute music, and even Clementi Sonatinas were of most interest to my uncluttered aural perceptions. I thought CPE Bach's Solfeggieto was a perfect little piece, nothing off in it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Taggart said:


> Simple analogy - a study of (English) grammar will not make you a great novelist (or other sort of writer). On the other hand, if you don't know the rules of language, you may not be able to express yourself fluently or easily. Alexander Pope summed this up:
> 
> True ease in writing comes from art, not chance,
> As those move easiest who have learned to dance.
> ...


Back to the premise of theory as mere tool kit, I feel exactly like that about it. After a lot of training, it usually operates on a subconscious, i.e. intuitive level.

While listening or composing, the music is the thing: the ear rules, not the theory.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

It seems to me that music theory is of limited use if it is not accompanied by training the aural imagination. There is little point to recognizing various chords and progressions if you cannot simultaneously hear them in your imagination (I would think.)

But the latter skill seems to me to take so much time that I will never master it. Thus I couldn't make head or tails of music theory, so now I am a more or less entirely intuitive listener. (Due to lack of time, my days of playing instruments or trying to compose are also at least temporarily over).


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Eschbeg said:


> I can't say I've ever experienced an incompatibility between "theoretical" listening and "intuitive" listening. It's a false dichotomy, in my opinion.


I have only learned a small amount of theory, but my daughter has learned quite a bit. It's interesting when we listen together. I agree that she has no problem integrating the theoretical and intuitive parts. She will often comment on a nice or interesting modulation, or she'll get excited about a particular musical technique used. I, of course, will be completely unaware of those aspects of the theory.

The real question that we sometimes ask is whether she hears more or just associates what she hears with specific music theory concepts. I will hear a change in the music during a modulation, but I may not know the music has modulated. She will smile and remark on a deceptive cadence while I'll wonder, "Where was that?" Even though our ears hear the same sounds, I think she has been trained to "hear" much more than I do, and I also believe she gets more from the music. We may both find a piece beautiful, but she can find it esthetically _and_ intellectually beautiful while I can just find it esthetically beautiful.


----------



## Kazaman (Apr 13, 2013)

brianvds said:


> It seems to me that music theory is of limited use if it is not accompanied by training the aural imagination. There is little point to recognizing various chords and progressions if you cannot simultaneously hear them in your imagination (I would think.)
> 
> But the latter skill seems to me to take so much time that I will never master it. Thus I couldn't make head or tails of music theory, so now I am a more or less entirely intuitive listener. (Due to lack of time, my days of playing instruments or trying to compose are also at least temporarily over).


When you do get the time, pick up Hindemith's _Elementary Training for Musicians_, and I think you'll notice a huge improvement aurally.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I have only learned a small amount of theory, but my daughter has learned quite a bit. It's interesting when we listen together. I agree that she has no problem integrating the theoretical and intuitive parts. She will often comment on a nice or interesting modulation, or she'll get excited about a particular musical technique used. I, of course, will be completely unaware of those aspects of the theory.
> 
> The real question that we sometimes ask is whether she hears more or just associates what she hears with specific music theory concepts. I will hear a change in the music during a modulation, but I may not know the music has modulated. She will smile and remark on a deceptive cadence while I'll wonder, "Where was that?" Even though our ears hear the same sounds, I think she has been trained to "hear" much more than I do, and I also believe she gets more from the music. We may both find a piece beautiful, but she can find it esthetically _and_ intellectually beautiful while I can just find it esthetically beautiful.


I think she just has more awareness. Even after learning music theory, music still sounds the same (though I have a little more attention to detail now). It's just that I can now put a name to all those "effects" I'm hearing. "Deceptive cadence" is a good example: previously, I'd just say that the way the composer didn't resolve that tension right away had a nice effect (which could really mean anything).


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Kazaman said:


> When you do get the time, pick up Hindemith's _Elementary Training for Musicians_, and I think you'll notice a huge improvement aurally.


Never heard of this before, but trust Hindemith to write a piece of gebrauchs-theory. 

Is it even still in print?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

science said:


> Can cooking be a good analogy? I don't know anything about cooking. Is is possible that I enjoy my food less than I might if I had more awareness of what the chef was thinking?


Given the things we've been finding in our (horse)burgers I think that might very well be true!


----------



## Kazaman (Apr 13, 2013)

brianvds said:


> Never heard of this before, but trust Hindemith to write a piece of gebrauchs-theory.
> 
> Is it even still in print?


It is ... by the original, publisher, even: http://www.amazon.ca/Elementary-Training-Musicians-Paul-Hindemith/dp/0901938165

It's also available online for free via PDF.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

I agree with what other members have already mentioned about how music theory helps them understand how the composer composes, what's happening in the music, and how to compose for themselves. 

Even when I'm just listening without a conscious effort towards analysis, music theory helps me sort out the musical material in my head by allowing me to recognize and give names to the chords and techniques. Before I learned music theory, I would get frustrated due to my lack of ability to describe what I heard and what I liked. ("I like that sad sounding chord..no, THAT one...yeah that one." or "I like it when that happens, it sounds nice. I don't know what happened but it keeps happening in those symphonies.") To be able to consciously hear, identify, and have a name for the things that had always been "known" to the listener takes listening to another level, imo.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

science said:


> Can cooking be a good analogy? I don't know anything about cooking. Is is possible that I enjoy my food less than I might if I had more awareness of what the chef was thinking?


Speaking as one who is a duffer at music theory, I think I would appreciate music a lot more if I knew more. One analogy that springs to mind is the English language. Anyone who speaks it appreciates it, sure, but I did Latin & French at school, then as part of my degree learned Old English (Anglo-Saxon) & Middle English (Chaucer et al); then 18 years ago, I learned some Greek. Most of the constituents of English, barring the odd borrowing from Hindi, Gaelic et al. And I did find that my appreciation grew with each step, as I understood more of the root words. Knowledge is a powerful enhancer.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianvds said:


> It seems to me that music theory is of limited use if it is not accompanied by training the aural imagination. There is little point to recognizing various chords and progressions if you cannot simultaneously hear them in your imagination (I would think.)
> 
> But the latter skill seems to me to take so much time that I will never master it. Thus I couldn't make head or tails of music theory, so now I am a more or less entirely intuitive listener. (Due to lack of time, my days of playing instruments or trying to compose are also at least temporarily over).


In music departments, ear-training (solfege) parallels theory training, and there are just as many semesters required of each. You are more than correct, without the ear, 'it's just theory.'


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Theory is really helpful in playing instruments. If you can keep track of the harmony that is going by, it's a lot easier to make difficult fast passages more autonomous and it helps with memory too.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

For performers, it can help in familiarizing with and memorizing a piece of music too. Knowing music theory can allow you to memorize music the way you'd memorize a poem in a language you speak, whereas memorizing music without knowing music theory is somewhat similar to memorizing a poem in a foreign language, which you'd have to go through syllable by syllable.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

It's also helpful if you play the piano and you're dealing with lots of chords. It's a whooollleee lot easier to look at a chord and see Oh it's a g minor 7 chord rather than trying to look at what every note in the chord is. And then if it is fairly conservative music that generally resolves as it should, and you know the theory behind how chords usually resolve, then it is even easier.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I still maintain its pretty essential as a composer. But as an automatic thing. Some genius's don't need it I guess. Not everyone gets to be that kind of a genius, in my opinion.

This is of course for writing a certain kind of rule abiding music. Which I believe is made up of good rules that are designed to make good sounding sounds, that people are more or less attuned to here, learned or instinctively, its a debate. And this is not to say that music that doesn't seem to follow obvious patterns and was made without theory, does not have a theory that will one day be codified by theorists. But I think that older pieces can be written, and be original and sincere, or just made with good craft, using basic theory.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

violadude said:


> It's also helpful if you play the piano and you're dealing with lots of chords. It's a whooollleee lot easier to look at a chord and see Oh it's a g minor 7 chord rather than trying to look at what every note in the chord is. And then if it is fairly conservative music that generally resolves as it should, and you know the theory behind how chords usually resolve, then it is even easier.


It even helps if you are accompanying modal / folk tunes. The principles are similar to the standard three chord trick - just a different set of 3 chords - and you need to be aware of how "modal" the piece actually is. I know you *could* do it by ear but theory don't half help!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

My wife is a violinist and generally played the melodic line in works; whereas, my daughter is a cellist and generally plays the root in chords or other "supporting" notes. My wife never felt that theory was particularly useful in playing symphonic works, but my daughter feels theory is quite useful for her in understanding how to play her part.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ingenue said:


> Speaking as one who is a duffer at music theory, I think I would appreciate music a lot more if I knew more. One analogy that springs to mind is the English language. Anyone who speaks it appreciates it, sure, but I did Latin & French at school, then as part of my degree learned Old English (Anglo-Saxon) & Middle English (Chaucer et al); then 18 years ago, I learned some Greek. Most of the constituents of English, barring the odd borrowing from Hindi, Gaelic et al. And I did find that my appreciation grew with each step, as I understood more of the root words. Knowledge is a powerful enhancer.


One of my hypothetical markers of artistic "quality" is how much analysis a work can bear.

For example, if we take _Lord of the Flies_, we can look at it a heck of a lot of different ways and just find brilliance everywhere. But if we consider whether it's physically plausible, it falters shamefully. So that's how much analysis it can bear.

If we take _1984_, we can look at that a heck of a lot of different ways too and find brilliance everywhere. But if we pay attention to the dialogue or plot structure, it turns out to be rather pedestrian in those areas. So that's how much analysis it can bear.

If we take _The Great Gatsby_, I am unaware of any way to analyze it without finding brilliance. It's just that darned good. It's so good, it's dangerous - a lot of things you'd think, after reading it once, might be weaknesses, turn out upon closer inspection to be strengths, something intentionally crafted into the work.

On the other hand, one of my wife's friends self-published a book. I cannot think of a single good thing to say about it. Any attention to language or narrative or literary technique finds only faults--the author typed away blissfully oblivious to any such issues. It can bear no analysis at all.

I don't mean to propose this as the only criteria of artistic excellence, but I think it may be one.

I don't know how to analyze music that closely, but I think something like that could hold. Brahms' works are evidently remarkable from certain points of views, and particularly in terms of formal development. But we're fond of harmony here at talkclassical, and for all I know it may be that true (as claimed) that Brahms' works are harmonically disappointing. If so, that's how much analysis his works can bear.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> My wife is a violinist and generally played the melodic line in works; whereas, my daughter is a cellist and generally plays the root in chords or other "supporting" notes. My wife never felt that theory was particularly useful in playing symphonic works, but my daughter feels theory is quite useful for her in understanding how to play her part.


I've read that something like that is true in modern jazz, where it can be very hard or impossible to know what the root of the chord is (it may be intentionally ambiguous, for example), so the bass players need a special talent to figure out what to play, and not everyone can do it. Well, that's what I hear anyway.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

science said:


> I don't know how to analyze music that closely, but I think something like that could hold. Brahms' works are evidently remarkable from certain points of views, and particularly in terms of formal development. But we're fond of harmony here at talkclassical, and for all I know it may be that true (as claimed) that Brahms' works are harmonically disappointing. If so, that's how much analysis his works can bear.


In classical music, harmony and structure are, for the most part, two sides of the same coin, and harmonic events on the micro-level should be related to those on the macro-level. Brahms' works are generally not as harmonically adventurous as those of some of his contemporaries, but they are integrated into his works to a degree that one could not simply retain the overarching form while changing the successions of chords underneath.

In 20th century Neoclassical music, the relationship between harmony and function is strained, and thus likewise the relationship between harmony and form. The serialists continued to relate the two very closely, at least at first, and the form of a piece is generally a working out of whatever materials (such as a tone row) were chosen.


----------

