# What's the point of Theory if you're not a composer?



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

And what's the point of Theory if you're a genius? What's the point of musical education if the people being educated are not destined for either a career in composition or a career in performance?

But the philosophy of teaching is: _"Genius learns only from itself; talent chiefly from others. Genius learns from nature, from its own nature; talent learns from art." _- (Arnold Schoenberg)

Stravinsky, Igor, 1882-1971; Craft, Robert. Dialogues and a diary (Kindle Location 926). Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

If that be the case, then genius creates its own theory, and for noncomposers, the point of theory is analysis, which can be a pleasure in itself.


----------



## Jaws (Jun 4, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> And what's the point of Theory if you're a genius? What's the point of musical education if the people being educated are not destined for either a career in composition or a career in performance?
> 
> But the philosophy of teaching is: _"Genius learns only from itself; talent chiefly from others. Genius learns from nature, from its own nature; talent learns from art." _- (Arnold Schoenberg)
> 
> Stravinsky, Igor, 1882-1971; Craft, Robert. Dialogues and a diary (Kindle Location 926). Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday.


What is the point of studying anything?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I have several friends who are extremely talented people. Many times when I've pointed out to them what they're doing in certain places in their music, they didn't even realize that's what they're doing. 

I think it takes people like me who don't have genius but have to work with nuts and bolts to make sense of what they're doing, many times by instinct.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> And what's the point of Theory if you're a genius? What's the point of musical education if the people being educated are not destined for either a career in composition or a career in performance?
> 
> But the philosophy of teaching is: _"Genius learns only from itself; talent chiefly from others. Genius learns from nature, from its own nature; talent learns from art." _- (Arnold Schoenberg)
> 
> Stravinsky, Igor, 1882-1971; Craft, Robert. Dialogues and a diary (Kindle Location 926). Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday.


So *you*, Brianwalker, are trying to attack theory based on something *Schoenberg* said????

All good composers studied an enormous, enormous amount. Contrapuntal theory, a manual such as Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum, was written primarily for pedagogical purposes. And whether they were taught it or taught themselves, they still learned it, and it was no innate ability (as Schindler claimed for Beethoven, for example).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> And what's the point of Theory if you're a genius?


Beethoven was certainly a genius, but he studied his little behind off with Albrechtsberger and Salieri, doing endless counterpoint and harmony exercises and patiently enduring their corrections. After all, he came to Vienna for that, so he evidently felt that theory had a point!


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Beethoven was certainly a genius, but he studied his little behind off with Albrechtsberger and Salieri, doing endless counterpoint and harmony exercises and patiently enduring their corrections. After all, he came to Vienna for that, so he evidently felt that theory had a point!


Again, theory =/= studying the music, but the the establishment of doctrines and rules and _music histories written from a technical point of view. _



Ramako said:


> So *you*, Brianwalker, are trying to attack theory based on something *Schoenberg* said????
> 
> All good composers studied an enormous, enormous amount. Contrapuntal theory, a manual such as Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum, was written primarily for pedagogical purposes. And whether they were taught it or taught themselves, they still learned it, and it was no innate ability (as Schindler claimed for Beethoven, for example).


But there's a difference between a compilation of works and a theory of works.



Jaws said:


> What is the point of studying anything?


Understudied architects = dead people under bridges.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Again, theory =/= studying the music, but the the establishment of doctrines and rules and _music histories written from a technical point of view._


And Fux's _Gradus ad Parnassum _doesn't meet that definition? I believe that was Albrechtsberger's pet textbook.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> Again, theory =/= studying the music, but the the establishment of doctrines and rules and _music histories written from a technical point of view. _


That kind of divergence did not start existing until the 19th century. It is also worth taking seriously the belief of Schenker (I think) and others that they had discovered how composers thought. They may or may not be right, but composers are a secretive lot.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I read in a tonal harmony book once that Bach and Beethoven didn't study much theory before they started composing...I guess it was more after the fact kind of a thing.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

From my reading, there wasn't much relevant theory for Bach to study. He pored over past works, and even visited people like Buxtehude to learn more. Learning composition was considered kind of an apprenticeship in those days.

Beethoven studied plenty of theory as he was getting really serious. The main theory available was counterpoint (from the writings of Fux). He studied Italianate vocal music and accompaniment with Salieri, but that was on a more informal basis.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I'd like to point out to all those prone to the philosophic and more abstract ideas associated with the word 'theory' that the 'theory' of music, and its study, is more analogous to studying the parts of an internal combustion engine, i.e. mere mechanics, for a better understanding of 'how something works' or 'how something is made to work.'

ERGO: it behooves anyone interested in music past the most superficial empiric listener, to 'look under the hood' of what is driving the machine: it is that basic.

Talent: Cannot be given, imparted or taught, but can be mentored and guided.
Genius: 'Just Happens.'

And what is the point of study if you are a genius? A genius in what area? 
"Genius" and the fare gets you on the bus. Besides, if a genius, the genius is more than likely a 'quick study' and gets the mechanics of the theory, then makes of it what they will -- often credited as 'genius' because they take the basic discipline and do something truly next step or more creative and beyond the basic tenets of the theory, i.e. something new and fresh. 
I cannot think of one 'classical' musical genius who did not know something of theory, including the handful of 'self-taught.'

Performer? Never going to do anything but play already set composed pieces? You might want / need to know how they are working to better render a make-sense performance.

Not planning on being a performer / composer and don't need it for anything really? Drop it. You don't need 'color theory' to enjoy visual art, for example: fact is if you study color theory you are no closer to 'understanding art' but will then just know "color theory" 

Oh, and even if it is 'interesting' for actual musicians and composers, theory is -- at least secondarily if not further down the list -- helpful, informative, and .... boring.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Again, theory =/= studying the music, but the the establishment of doctrines and rules and _music histories written from a technical point of view. _


That's a different view of the definition of theory than most people have. What you actually mean is 'what is the point of following the rules'? All the great composers (geniuses included) studied music theory and used it to expand the _conventions_ of their time. I wouldn't take Schoenberg too literally.



> Understudied architects = dead people under bridges.


Architects build bridges? Architects generally know **** about engineering principles and mathematics. They are designers. Civil engineers design bridges.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> And what's the point of Theory if you're a genius? What's the point of musical education if the people being educated are not destined for either a career in composition or a career in performance?
> 
> But the philosophy of teaching is: _"Genius learns only from itself; talent chiefly from others. Genius learns from nature, from its own nature; talent learns from art." _- (Arnold Schoenberg)
> 
> Stravinsky, Igor, 1882-1971; Craft, Robert. Dialogues and a diary (Kindle Location 926). Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday.


I think Schoenberg is a good example, since he was largely self taught (apart from a few lessons here and there, principally with Zemlinsky, whom Schoenberg praised as a teacher). So too was Elgar, and to many this guy is the greatest English composer, even though he didn't have much formal musical training. & what about guys like Irving Berlin, who could not read or write music? He just employed someone to write down and arrange the tunes in his head, basically. Then you have Gershwin asking Ravel (or was it Stravinsky?) for lessons, and the more 'highbrow' European saying to the American that he should teach them, reflecting on the amount of money George earned. But Gershwin did attempt to study with Schoenberg of all people, but all that happened is Arnie going to George's place to play tennis.

I don't know what to add to this other than a music degree is useful, and since music conservatoriums (conservatoria?) emerged in the late 19th century, many composers and musicians got a degree (or even did postgraduate study, a lot of musicians we listen to, and conductors, have doctorates - Nigel Kennedy does for example, despite his trendy hairdo and designer stubble!).

But an irony is that now in the 21st century, the place of classical music is less prominent in the scheme of things - both musical and otherwise - than was the case 100 or 200 years back. So we got the irony of musicians being more skilled and trained than ever, but a smaller market for them to ply their trade, so to speak. So composers, many of them, have to teach at universities to make ends meet. That's their day job, often. Not everyone can be a Philip Glass or an Arvo Part, eg. do what composers did in the past, largely live off their music. So you got musicians teaching more musicians and then competing for jobs in a very competitve market. That's not strictly to do with this thread, but its something that is I think related in some ways.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

crmoorhead said:


> That's a different view of the definition of theory than most people have. What you actually mean is 'what is the point of following the rules'? All the great composers (geniuses included) studied music theory and used it to expand the _conventions_ of their time. *I wouldn't take Schoenberg too literally.*


(emphasis added) Pretty much this^. I mean, have you read his _Harmonielehre_? If you take it literally, then harmonic progressions have morals. :lol:


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> I have several friends who are extremely talented people. Many times when I've pointed out to them what they're doing in certain places in their music, they didn't even realize that's what they're doing.


That's because they've done it a million times and have completely internalized it


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I'd like to point out to all those prone to the philosophic and more abstract ideas associated with the word 'theory' that the 'theory' of music, and its study, is more analogous to studying the parts of an internal combustion engine, i.e. mere mechanics, for a better understanding of 'how something works' or 'how something is made to work.'


Arnold Schoenberg makes the same point well at the outset of his Harmonielehre--though his metaphor is carpentry rather than mechanics.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Theory is just a way to understand what happens naturally. It allows you to apply names and terms to what you're listening to, and therefore better understand what you're listening to. It gives you a language to discuss music with others.

Personally, an understanding of theory has made all music infinitely more enjoyable to me.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I'd like to point out to all those prone to the philosophic and more abstract ideas associated with the word 'theory' that the 'theory' of music, and its study, is more analogous to studying the parts of an internal combustion engine, i.e. mere mechanics, for a better understanding of 'how something works' or 'how something is made to work.'
> 
> ERGO: it behooves anyone interested in music past the most superficial empiric listener, to 'look under the hood' of what is driving the machine: it is that basic.
> 
> ...


I've always been hesitant to embrace the mythology of "genius" -- I think what we see as genius is at some, profound level, a strong urgency within the student to not only understand all the parts of the car, but to take it all apart and make their own custom parts, driven not by necessity but just curiosity about what could happen. Geniuses understand what's there enough to play freely with it, without fear; the talented are happy just to be able to figure it out in the first place, and stop there.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

We use theory to help us understand what composers are doing. But the process of composition actually goes deeper than theory, into the realm of artistic intuition which cannot be achieved simply through analysis. Decisions are often made instinctively, rather than by following a pre-existing template or pursuing mathematical justifications. Composers don't "know" what they are doing because the laws of their own musical rhetoric are so deeply ingrained and they usually don't have to think about it in that way.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Even genius -- or, to put it another way, someone with a strong inborn ability to do something really well in a way that works -- can (and does) learn from other examples how to do something different or even better. You can't name one composer who didn't pick up something from other composers and use it in his own way to make better music. 

I'm not a physicist, but I like to know enough about quantum theory and relativity to understand (as best I can) how the universe works.

I'm also a good writer -- but not so good that I can't appreciate or pick up things from reading other good writing.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

There is music that can be _exhaustively_ appreciated by a listener innocent of any theory at all - no idea of what a chord or a measure is.

There is music that can be appreciated by such a listener but can be appreciated even more by a more well-informed listener.

There may even be music that can only be appreciated by a well-informed listener - I believe at least some music aspires to that, at any rate. (It's a plausible if ultimately inadequate definition of "modernism" in any of the arts. _Finnegan's Wake_ and _The Waste Land_ are not supposed to be for everyone.)

(Rounding out the implied quadrants, there may also be music that can only be appreciated by a poorly-informed listener. Even if I could be sure of that, it wouldn't be polite to say anything about it. But if David Lanz stumbles on this idea and finds it unpleasantly chilly, I won't choke on my soup.)

So as a listener, the primary value of information to me depends on how much I value greater appreciation of the music that I might appreciate better with that information.

A secondary value is the ability to communicate. Where one person might have to say to his friend, "That sounds different and interesting," a person with a bit more knowledge might be able to say to her friend, "It sounds a little different than a normal work for solo cello in part because the lower strings are tuned to F# and B rather than G and C." If you want to participate in the latter sort of conversation rather than the former, you'll have to find out what things like "tuned to F#" mean.

But it only goes so far. No amount of information is going to compensate for simply listening attentively and thoughtfully. And of course there is talent and there is genius, and the difference between the two has probably never been just a matter of knowing what a plagal mode is.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I know only a limited amount of theory, but I enjoy listening to the music with the theory going through my head. It's fun and exciting to understand what is happening when in the music as you go along with it.

But, I have noticed that the best and most memorable listening experiences I have had were when I did not look at theory, but only let the music communicate to me, telling me what the composer wanted to tell me through his composition, which are things told through theory, but have actually very little to do with theory. It's almost like this -- you almost certainly do not think of the pigments and the binders when you get the most intimate experience out of looking at a Monet or van Gogh painting.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I think that theory is a very important aspect in music. And, of course, fundamental in composition.
Now, I think people often confuses the role of theory in science with the role of theory in music. 
In my experience as, both, physicist and amateur composer, I can tell you that their role is not the same.
In science, theory has a much more prominent and important role. The formulation of a theory is the ultimate goal of the scientist.
The ultimate goal of the artist is to create a work of art. Certain theoretical constructions can help to achieve this goal... but there's much, so much more than theoretical constructions in a work of art...
In a scientific theory, I find satisfaction when I can see its coherent logical structure. In art, I can find satisfaction simply because I like the sound of a particular chord, or a color, or a texture, etc. Of course, you can also find satisfaction in the logical structure of the composition... but to me, that's a very lean and modest satisfaction when compared to the other, subjective, satisfaction.
To be honest, even the most complex theoretical structure in music does not impress me very much. I have seen how the theory of a curved manifold can describe gravity; I have seen how a Lie group has an associated Lie algebra; I have seen how a particle with the properties of the electron emerges from the theory of a quantized spinor field; I have seen how that same theory predicts the existence of a similar particle but with positive charge (the positron, which is the "antimatter" of the electron); and there are a lot more of "I have seen how..."...
So, if you are looking for intellectual stimulation, in the abstract and analytic way, art is not the most interesting choice... I would recommend you to study mathematics or mathematical physics instead.
On the other hand, none of those "I have seen how..." reproduce the feelings I have when I hear, say, Ravel's _Sad Birds_, or Ligeti's _Lontano_, or ...
It really baffles me that somebody can listen to music just for the intellectual stimulation of its structure. I can tell you then that you are missing the most interesting aspects of art!. Aspects which only art has!.
I know all I need to know about music theory, but when I'm listening to a piece of music, I leave aside all that and I simply enjoy the piece, focusing on the mysterious aspects of it rather than in the rational part.
If you are just a music listener, leave the theory to the composers and just enjoy the music. Learn only the very basic about theory so that you can speak about music with an articulated vocabulary, but that's all.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

aleazk said:


> It really baffles me that somebody can listen to music just for the intellectual stimulation of its structure. I can tell you then that you are missing the most interesting aspects of art!. Aspects which only art has!.
> I know all I need to know about music theory, but when I'm listening to a piece of music, I leave aside all that and I simply enjoy the piece, focusing on the mysterious aspects of it rather than in the rational part.
> If you are just a music listener, leave the theory to the composers and just enjoy the music. Learn only the very basic about theory so that you can speak about music with an articulated vocabulary, but that's all.


I will always listen to music first for its gross effect -- often many times. But if, later, I'm curious about why some of it works -- then I turn to analysis.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2013)

I listen to music in order to understand theory.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

Any of the sensuous arts - music, painting, dance, sculpture, cooking - have some connection to the body, and the experience of the body in movement, in relation to what is around it, so at that level, the abstractions of theory fail to touch that intuited motion and flow, the consonance of which provides a sense of wholeness and continuity with the rest of the universe.

What those not involved closely with theory don't realize, is that the same is true of the dance of thought in words, forms, mathematics, physics, for those with sufficient mastery of these abstract arts to sense in them, too, a continuity with the dance of the universe.

Reaction against theory is thus, again, hostility to the unfamiliar, and a closing-off of the opportunity to become familiar with a range of experience previously unknown, unsought, and literally unimaginable.

The best thing is when you can dance in both worlds simultaneously, without the wrong perception that there is some sort of gap between them, or an intrinsic either/or choice to be made between them.

So yes, you're missing out if you either just like theory or just like music. . Theory should not deny the body, nor should the body deny theory. Such denials are at the root of what is wrong with civilization. As Neil de Grasse Tyson has said, we are all starstuff.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Theory has taught me to look past the "sonic surface" of the music and appreciate the more subtle actions within a work. It has also made me more perceptive to devices that I had never before noticed.

Theory is not a prerequisite to enjoying music. For some people, it enhances enjoyment.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ramako said:


> That kind of divergence did not start existing until the 19th century. It is also worth taking seriously the belief of Schenker (I think) and others that they had discovered how composers thought. They may or may not be right, but composers are a secretive lot.


It has panned out more like Schenker discovered how Schenker thought: i.e. he "discovered" his projection of what he thought other composers thought, and not much else


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The thread premise seems to point to the view that music is something to simply lay back and soak in, like a hot bubble bath. This might be true on a certain purely visceral level, but we do have those bothersome brains attached to our senses, and it wants its due.

Even the most conservative tonal music adheres to harmonic function over time, and to apprehend this "goal-oriented" dimension, one must be cognitively alert. Of course, I'm sure there are listeners who can only revel in the immediate moment, with very minimal cognitive investment. This is just fine, but it puts them on no higher cognitive level than the sensual, dancing users of beat-oriented dance music, which offers no substantial harmonic challenge, but only the beat, that incessant beat...surrender tio your senses, it seems to impel its users.
But we, of this "classical" variety, want more out of our experience...don't we? I can attest that reading about what's going on in the music, especially more modern music, has greatly aided me & increased my enjoyment of music. Two prime examples are Elliott Carter, and Messiaen, both of whom I've read about recently. This will help "educated" listeners as well. For example, knowing that there is no harmonic function in Messiaen helped me immensely, as I realize the pure, radical, harmonic nature of his music now, without constantly wondering what he's trying to accomplish, or ignorantly questioning it.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

Actually, not to waylay with a long digression, but it's better to think about the composers of electronic dance music rather than the seeming cognitive state of its listeners, which again, is probably far more variegated than you attribute to it.

While there isn't complexity of harmonic progression, there _is_ substantial subtlety in the composition, focused primarily not on large-scale tonal changes, but on extremely sophisticated manipulation -- on a level you can't do without electronic instrumentation and editing capability -- of frequency spectrum over time.

The interweaving of build and decay of a variety of intertwining sonic textures over time is complex, and interesting to the brain as well as the ear; mix that with a careful estimate of the relationship between sustained, unchanging drone and sustained, relentless rhythm, and the point where that sustenance becomes overload or overwhelming and creates tension and expectation for transformation, and you have a pretty interesting musical construct. 

It is as much a satisfying journey in the brain lying in bed, consciously listening for hours as it is drugged out on whatever the latest club-scene craze might be and dancing into a near-whirling-dervish-trance-frenzy, where the musical/experiential goal is the same pursued by many religions, a state of ecstatic fulfillment and intensity of vision (unfortunately, only a small minority of the crowd in these clubs think of it consciously in those terms, their loss, not the music's).

And, I would warrant, it is a new innovation in the concept of what music is -- new, in the sense of being there since about the 1980's, and inspired by music prior to that period, but a distillation from the late '80's onwards into the forms it has taken currently.

The innovation there, as with any period of musical development, has slowed in the past few years, some would say decade; but that doesn't mean there aren't experimenters out there going further with it.

Okay sorry, /off rant again.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Because it translates into aesthetic awareness of what's going on a piece. You will hear a dominant tonic cadence if you don't know theory, but it would be hard without theory to see how it fits structually. The only reason to learn theory (if you're not a composer or a performer) is to listen better.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Being a genius doesn't give you the ability to skip the hard work of translating a musical idea into something that actually sounds the way you want it to. I've never composed any music, but I imagine that's where theory is valuable.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

There's an exhaustive BBC series entitled How Music Works. It covers the nuts and bolts of harmony, melody, rhythm, and bass. It's up on YouTube.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

crmoorhead said:


> I wouldn't take Schoenberg too literally.


Never take commments of composers too literally. They are composers and not primarily music historians/theorists.


----------



## hannoying (Nov 25, 2013)

first you should learn the rules, then you may break them


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Theory is really just having a nomenclature, and understanding how music works in specific ways. This can be known intuitively as well, but you won't be able to communicate it, except in the most general, idiosyncratic ways. This comes under the general heading of "Ways humans have developed to communicate very specific information in precise ways."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Theory in musical composition is hindsight. It doesn't exist. There are compositions from which it is deduced. Or, if this isn't quite true, it has a by-product existence that is powerless to create or even justify. Nevertheless, composition involves a deep intuition for theory. ~ Igor Stravinsky


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I can't fully embrace Stravinsky's view that theory is always "after a fact". After all, the division of the octave into twelve pitches is entirely arbitrary, based on Pythyagoras' mistaken assumption that after 12 cycles of fifths that the cycle "ended" on twelve (it was actually a few cents sharp). If we were accurate, the octave would never be divided in such a way that it is "preserved" as an octave, because an octave is a 2:1 or 1:2 relationship; the cycle of any division of it will never "coincide," because 1 is a prime number, divisible only by itself.
So, in another sense, we could say that "everything is theory".


----------

