# Are you all music-theory experts?



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

Hi... I'm not sure if this is the right place for this thread. I've been listening to classical music since I was a kid. I also like progressive rock and other genres that here probably aren't too appreciated. My biggest love is classical music. I know more than pretty much 99% of the people, but I know far less than the rest, the ones with actual deep music theory knowledge (which I barely grasp). I understand forms and harmony and all of that but I don't go beyond that. I'm an aficionado, probably. I have never studied music nor am I a composer or play any instrument. I've read about music, but I'm not what you would call a musician or even a music expert (I may be for all the rest of the people I know, though ). 

The question is, are you all musicians or very knowledgeable in music theory? Or, I'll make it clearer: is it a requisite to fully enjoy classical music (and to participate on this forum) to know all about music theory? 

I'm sure it would expand how I listen to a piece of music. But from Hildegard to Part and all in between, I can say I enjoy it so much. Am I alone here? Anybody else who IS NOT a composer or plays any instrument? (I play drums, self-taught, but that doesn't count... )


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

tgtr0660 said:


> The question is, are you all musicians or very knowledgeable in music theory? Or, I'll make it clearer: is it a requisite to fully enjoy classical music (and to participate on this forum) to know all about music theory?
> )


No, it definitely isn't a requisite for this site. A lot of the time, we'll simply give our opinions on this or that composer or this or that piece without getting too much into form, rhythmic device, tonal language, folk influences, etc. I doubt you'll find it difficult to participate here.


----------



## nefigah (Aug 23, 2008)

We definitely aren't all theory experts, nor is that a prerequisite to enjoying music (as you have seen for yourself). However, that's not to say there aren't some experts among us, and in fact there's a thread kicking around with some collected knowledge and lessons on theory where you could ask questions about it if you have any.

Welcome!


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

no certainly not everyone here is and it most definitely is not a requirement. Although theoretical training and analysis are possibly the easiest way into the contemporary repertoire, they will only serve to enhance you admiration for classical/romantic music. 

i do not consider myself expert. i am learning conducting and composition from various people, with graduate level theory/analysis and play several instruments.

Just some background


----------



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

Agree with all the above


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2010)

I played alto and baritone saxophone in band from age 10 to age 15. That is the only formal music training I have had. Otherwise I just listen to a lot of music and try to read up, but must of the theory goes in one ear and out the other. I can't offer technical discussions, but I can tell you what I like.


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

And if you're looking for help with theory, there are those that will provide it (like me )


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

but listen to classical music surely need some music theory background to get the whole idea is it? if not it is just like listen to a random notes.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

jurianbai said:


> but listen to classical music surely need some music theory background to get the whole idea is it? if not it is just like listen to a random notes.


No. It doesn't matter if you don't understand why the composer used that note choice, rhythm, harmony etc, as long as the composer knew what he was doing. And what's wrong with random notes. Many avant garde composers have tried 'musical experiments' involving random chance.(Aleatoric music).

Do you need to know how to perform a magic trick to enjoy it? Do you need to understand science to appreciate the world around you?

I think gaining more of an understanding of theory has helped me get into more of the less accessible musical styles like free jazz and atonal music, and pieces with super long solo's but even now I still think the vast majority of the more 'experimental' stuff is more of an intellectual challenge than a purely musical experience.

But really theory is not necessary for the listener at all.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2010)

Engineers do not design structures to only be used and enjoyed by other engineers. Doctors do not practice only on other doctors. Scientists don't research purely to show other scientists (well, maybe some do). 

The point is that most people in the world probably don't have any particular training in music. Are we to assume that most composers wrote music only for others skilled and trained in music? I seriously doubt it. While there may be some, I doubt that most would feel their music could only be appreciated by trained musicians. 

Now, I won't argue against the idea that one with training, or knowledge of music theory, might come away with a greater understanding, or appreciation for the various techniques, etc., employed by the conductor, but it really doesn't take a trained ear to appreciate beautiful music. It might take a trained ear, though, to appreciate atonal music, or some of the avant garde works. I really don't think, though, that names like Beethoven, Bach, or Mozart would be as widely recognized if only those trained in music theory could appreciate what they left the world.


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

DrMike said:


> The point is that most people in the world probably don't have any particular training in music. Are we to assume that most composers wrote music only for others skilled and trained in music? I seriously doubt it. While there may be some, I doubt that most would feel their music could only be appreciated by trained musicians.


Well...I think the later we get into atonality and serialism...and eventually into conceptual music, I think that it got to a point where trained musicians were making up the vast majority of those who appreciated those music (and still, I'd say it's a small segment of the general trained musician mass). Once minimalism started and neo-classical/romantic music, then the focus shifted back to the listener. I don't think Gesang der Jünglinge by Stockhausen was really meant to be a mass appeal piece 



> Now, I won't argue against the idea that one with training, or knowledge of music theory, might come away with a greater understanding, or appreciation for the various techniques, etc., employed by the conductor, but it really doesn't take a trained ear to appreciate beautiful music. It might take a trained ear, though, to appreciate atonal music, or some of the avant garde works. I really don't think, though, that names like Beethoven, Bach, or Mozart would be as widely recognized if only those trained in music theory could appreciate what they left the world.


While I don't think that it is necessary for a person to know theory to appreciate beautiful music, I think the more you get into the theory of it, the more you appreciate it. While Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach aren't necessarily my favorite composers (not really in my top 10), the theoretical work I've done with them just makes me absolutely appreciate the geniuses that they were. But anyone can appreciate music at face-value.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

tgtr0660 said:


> I understand forms and harmony and all of that but I don't go beyond that....I have never studied music


Hmmm. I wonder what "forms and harmony" mean if you haven't studied music? Best not go there, I think.



> The question is, are you all musicians or very knowledgeable in music theory? Or, I'll make it clearer: is it a requisite to fully enjoy classical music (and to participate on this forum) to know all about music theory?


Same as the others - no, you don't have to be an expert or musician to enjoy it. A little knowledge may add to your enjoyment. But it's not compulsory.
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

GraemeG said:


> Hmmm. I wonder what "forms and harmony" mean if you haven't studied music? Best not go there, I think.
> 
> Graeme


Thanks for the encouragement. When I say I know a little about that, I'm talking about compositional forms, including sonata form. I know and recognize themes, their development, and all structural parts, especially in my favorite type of work, the symphony (not only classical symphony but all kinds, from Haydn -and even CPE Bach- till Shostakovich. I'm starting to study more about composers like Part, Sessions and other 20-21th century ones). But it's more difficult for me to recognize series in atonal music, for example. Much more difficult. The same with harmony: I know the basics, about tonal center, about dominant and all interval relations, and I recognize in a piece of music when there has been a change in key, but I'd be hard pressed to say "when he switches from A to C minor here.." or, even less, to say "when he introduces this chord I don't like it" and more specific analysis of music.

I can say I know more than 99% of the general population, and FAR less than the remaining 1% (assuming, very generously, that it is 1%) who _really_ know about music. And it seems that here, unlike in other forums that I go to (mostly, one about progressive rock) ALL members I've read so far belong in this percentage...

... Which is good for me. Again, I'll do more reading than talking...


----------



## Bgroovy2 (Mar 27, 2009)

tgtr0660 said:


> Hi... I'm not sure if this is the right place for this thread. I've been listening to classical music since I was a kid. I also like progressive rock and other genres that here probably aren't too appreciated. My biggest love is classical music. I know more than pretty much 99% of the people, but I know far less than the rest, the ones with actual deep music theory knowledge (which I barely grasp). I understand forms and harmony and all of that but I don't go beyond that. I'm an aficionado, probably. I have never studied music nor am I a composer or play any instrument. I've read about music, but I'm not what you would call a musician or even a music expert (I may be for all the rest of the people I know, though ).
> 
> The question is, are you all musicians or very knowledgeable in music theory? Or, I'll make it clearer: is it a requisite to fully enjoy classical music (and to participate on this forum) to know all about music theory?
> 
> I'm sure it would expand how I listen to a piece of music. But from Hildegard to Part and all in between, I can say I enjoy it so much. Am I alone here? Anybody else who IS NOT a composer or plays any instrument? (I play drums, self-taught, but that doesn't count... )


Never admit on this site that you listen to the 1812 Overture and actually enjoy it....lol


----------



## Mozartgirl92 (Dec 13, 2009)

I don´t have a single clue about music and how it works at all, and I´m still able to enjoy a lot of different composers from many different periods, in fact I love it; so I don´t think you have to be trained in music to enjoy the beauty of Mozart and Stravinskys pieces among others; but I´m nowhere near an expert on classical.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

> The question is, are you all musicians or very knowledgeable in music theory? Or, I'll make it clearer: is it a requisite to fully enjoy classical music (and to participate on this forum) to know all about music theory?


Sure we all are. Would you like us to expound on the difference between a crotchet and a quaver? 

Classical music does have conditions for its appreciation; head knowledge isn't one of them: this is a danger. Thus, when only dodecaphonic neo-constructivist telelogically suspending tonal nihilistic anti-thetical permutations according to the formula given by 5x10^99 is demanded as a minimal entry requirement, the rest of the world don't 'get' the naked emperor, who lauds himself, as well as being lauded by the esoteric theoreticians, as being a 'genius'.

Apart from being seen as a theoretical endeavour (or torture), of course, this kind of theoretical knowledge as a condition, could be seen as a great marketing device for the weak minded and susceptible, who want to impress on others that they know more, or are more cultured and so on.

Not having a clue about music, but being able to 'pick it out' by hearing it by ear, is a fantastic way to enjoy music. Keep doing it


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2010)

Head_case said:


> Sure we all are. Would you like us to expound on the difference between a crotchet and a quaver?
> 
> Classical music does have conditions for its appreciation; head knowledge isn't one of them: this is a danger. Thus, when only dodecaphonic neo-constructivist telelogically suspending tonal nihilistic anti-thetical permutations according to the formula given by 5x10^99 is demanded as a minimal entry requirement, the rest of the world don't 'get' the naked emperor, who lauds himself, as well as being lauded by the esoteric theoreticians, as being a 'genius'.
> 
> ...


My thoughts exactly.

I see music and art in the same vein. They have two aspects - the beautiful and the theoretical. The beautiful aspects of both are enjoyed by most, and rely on their ability to convey their beauty to a broad range of people. Then there is the theoretical that rarely enjoys a fan base outside those with specialized instruction in the theory behind them. For that reason, Beethoven will always attract more fans than Schoenberg. It is also why more people appreciate the works of Degas and Manet than Pollock.

Music/art is fairly unique in this way. You don't have such divergence in other professions. In most other professions, what works is the way that prevails. When building a large tower, the aesthetic or theoretical brilliance of a design is irrelevant if the structure won't stand. There is less of the objective in art, and more of the subjective. More of the theoretically brilliant, as opposed to the broadly admired, music, I suspect, has arisen as society has become more affluent, and more disposable income has become available to subsidize music that otherwise would not be marketable. Musicians of the past, while no doubt trying to write what they liked, also had to go after a much smaller pool of money to finance their work. For them, less popular = less money = less food in their mouths.

There was somewhat of a similar situation in the movie industry as it evolved. In the "golden age" of Hollywood, actors would sign contracts with studios and do the movies they were told to make. As such, they would star sometimes in multiple movies out at any given time. Over time, you started to see the emergence of free agents, and now that is pretty much how it works. They pick and choose the movies they act in, and you get a lot more "art" movies that are meant to impress people who are interested in movies more as an artistic expression than a form of entertainment (i.e. movies that only get shown at Sundance and you and I will never hear of until it wins multiple Academy Awards).

Does that mean that movies today are better than before when the actors had less artistic freedom? Not necessarily. You certainly have more prima donnas. But some of the greatest movies ever made are from those contract years. You still get great movies and great acting today, but a lot more "art for art's sake" movies for those "in the know" to pat themselves on the back over. Meanwhile, the rest of us spend our money on what we actually enjoy, and wait for the rest to come out on cable, or else we don't bother. Same with music.

Personally, since much of music is subjective, I don't think it can live in a vacuum. I don't mind music that requires a little extra mental exertion to fully appreciate it, but some stuff just needs to be denounced for the chicanery that it is. Ultimately, though, it will be time that sifts the wheat from the chaff. The self-indulgent drivel will fall to the wayside. Works that are under-appreciated despite having some deeper value will be recognized in time. That is one of the nice things about classical music - much has been around long enough to have sifted it out from the lesser works.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

That's very well put Mike 



> Hmmm. I wonder what "forms and harmony" mean if you haven't studied music? Best not go there, I think.


Harmony is what the United Nations strove for, but ended up with the Beatles, imagining what the world might be like with all the people. Form is what Kate Moss strove for, until a physician corrected her and called it anorexia


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

In addition to the obvious point that lack of music theory knowledge and performing acumen isn't an obstacle to the enjoyment of art-music, I'd like to also add to the point that most, if not virtually all of the great compositional masters would probably be horrified by the thought that lack of such knowledge is a bar to appreciation.

My 'co-favorite' composer, *Beethoven*, once said of one of his masterworks "it came from the heart, may it go straight to the heart." My other 'co-favorite' composer, *Wagner*, spoke of understanding his and certain other great pieces as a process of "knowing through feeling."

So, if you're feelin' it, you're knowin' it, AND (which is more) you could well be 
"knowin' it" _precisely_ in the spirit its creator meant it to be known!

That said, I _do_ appreciate the contributions to structural understanding that are the primary province of those who have an excellent grasp of music theory (for instance, the person I married can be counted among that group). So, thanks for the past and future help given and offered by 'PostMinimalist', 'Lukecash12,' 'Romantic Geek,' and a few others who have stopped by over the course of time.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

That may be true Chi_ town but for those of us who seek a greater understanding of the methods used so that we may produce our own masterpieces or so that we may properly interpret the work for a performance..

... we need theory.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

DrMike said:


> Then there is the theoretical that rarely enjoys a fan base outside those with specialized instruction in the theory behind them.


A stupid question: If knowledge of the theory that's behind it is so important to appreciate a lot of modern music, doesn't that mean that it actually looks better on paper than it sounds?


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

Isn't it completely obvious that not all members of this forum are music-theory experts?


----------



## Iveforgottenmyoldpassword (Jan 29, 2010)

not a music theory expert... just a violinist whose parents and grandparents on one side have music degrees. i grew up listening to classical music, but am FAR from understanding theory, i can barely read music.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> A stupid question: If knowledge of the theory that's behind it is so important to appreciate a lot of modern music, doesn't that mean that it actually looks better on paper than it sounds?


Same could be said about any form of notated music. Anything can be better than anything in subjective matters. However, sheet music is better to the deaf man than it is to the blind man.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I know enough theory to get by, but I am no means an expert! I'm much less interested, anyway, in the technical aspect of music versus the more esoteric "emotional" aspect of music. of course, being able to read a few notes on the page is more helpful in appreciating the artistry of it all, but the popularity of music proves you needn't know how it works in order to appreciate it or love it.


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

I am a total and complete hack. I know virtually nothing about music theory. A musical (and perhaps linguistic) nincompoop of the highest order, thankyouverymuch.

*and* ...I listen to tons of music. Great towering quivering stacks of it - in both active and passive listening modes. Give me a chance and I will go on and on (and on) about some of it.

I suppose I must admit, I have learned a thing or 2 about music in general over the years - simply through osmosis.


----------

