# Theory absolute or possible guidelines ?



## chihwahli

Learning Music theory and someone said something like: "to compose we have to forget theory.."

There are many rules like ending at Tonic. Why? Is this Tonic not bashed into our brain after many many years and we just get used to it so much that it sounds off / strange if it does not end at Tonic?

Is it actually possible to compose music without any theory, just by ear? but by doing so , a composer might find the wrath of theory purists not?

So, what's your thoughts about theory strictly or by ear? or an combination of both?


----------



## amfortas

Many have composed music without any formal training in theory. But I would imagine the more complex and ambitious you aspire to make your creation, the harder it is to achieve without theoretical grounding.


----------



## Bwv 1080

No one writes quality music without theory and training. It may be explicit notation-based theory or it may simply be learned and internalized from being part of some tradition.


----------



## mikeh375

...the main point about theory imv is that it gives you experience in how to handle notes whilst at the same time inculcating one's own musicality as one practices and learns. You need experience like this in order to find your artistic/creative preferences and develop your way of doing things. 

I define theory here pretty much like Bwv1080 above and believe that if one does not study and practice, no matter the source of knowledge, they might not reach their fullest potential.


----------



## mbhaub

There are composers who had/have little music theory; but to make their music work they needed the assistance of trained musicians: Irving Berlin, Richard Rodgers. There have been pop musicians who can't read music - Bobby Goldsboro, Clay Walker, Glen Campbell. Even Paul McCartney. He didn't really write the Liverpool Oratorio; Carl Davis did all the work. At some point, to get anything done the lack of theory background bites you in the butt. You can play by ear all you want, but what a handicap!

Rimsky-Korsakov realized early his own deficiencies and took matters into his own hands and learned theory; he even admitted that he was only ahead of his students by a day or so.


----------



## BachIsBest

I would imagine it's like most things; the more knowledge you have, the more likely you are to do something great and there is some base level of knowledge required to have a non-minuscule chance of creating something decent. I have never composed, so take this with a large grain of salt.

On your question on tonality, the whole "must end on the tonic note" is only partly arbitrary. Just like our sight picks up on some visual patterns more easily and some visual aspects are near-universally pleasing, e.g. symmetry, there are some sound patterns that the human ear picks up on more easily. Tonality (in a broad sense; not just the specific European tonal system), which pervades virtually all traditional music, is quite possibly the pattern of sound that is best recognised, intuitively, by humans. In fact, for a large portion of history one could argue most human cultures associated their term for "music" with "tonal sounds". So in this sense tonality is something humans have a biological predisposition for and thus is not arbitrary. However, using the specific tonal system the 18th century Europeans came up with, rather than making music more in the style of India or even Renaissance era modality, is probably to some extent arbitrary.

I don't want this to go off-topic into yet another atonal-tonal debate so I just want to explicitly note that none of this means that there aren't other non-tonality based ways of making sounds that people may classify as music and enjoy.


----------



## mikeh375

BachIsBest said:


> I would imagine it's like most things; the more knowledge you have, the more likely you are to do something great and there is some base level of knowledge required to have a non-minuscule chance of creating something decent. I have never composed, so take this with a large grain of salt.


Good observation. More knowledge equates to more technical options being available to explore creatively and will offer multiple solutions to problems that arise during the course of writing.


----------



## Enthalpy

JSBach had not learned composition.
Eugène Ysaÿe neither.


----------



## BachIsBest

Enthalpy said:


> JSBach had not learned composition.
> Eugène Ysaÿe neither.


This is complete hogwash.



Wikipedia said:


> Johann Sebastian Bach[n 1] was born in Eisenach, the capital of the duchy of Saxe-Eisenach, in present-day Germany, on 21 March 1685 O.S. (31 March 1685 N.S.). He was the son of Johann Ambrosius Bach, the director of the town musicians, and Maria Elisabeth Lämmerhirt.[6] He was the eighth and youngest child of Johann Ambrosius,[7] who likely taught him violin and basic music theory.[8] His uncles were all professional musicians, whose posts included church organists, court chamber musicians, and composers.[9] One uncle, Johann Christoph Bach (1645-1693), introduced him to the organ,[10] and an older second cousin, Johann Ludwig Bach (1677-1731), was a well-known composer and violinist.[9][n 2]
> 
> Bach's mother died in 1694, and his father died eight months later.[11] The 10-year-old Bach moved in with his eldest brother, Johann Christoph Bach (1671-1721), the organist at St. Michael's Church in Ohrdruf, Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg.[12] There he studied, performed, and copied music, including his own brother's, despite being forbidden to do so because scores were so valuable and private, and blank ledger paper of that type was costly.[13][14] He received valuable teaching from his brother, who instructed him on the clavichord. J. C. Bach exposed him to the works of great composers of the day, including South German composers such as Johann Caspar Kerll, Johann Jakob Froberger and Johann Pachelbel (under whom Johann Christoph had studied); North German composers;[15] Frenchmen, such as Jean-Baptiste Lully, Louis Marchand, and Marin Marais;[16] and the Italian clavierist Girolamo Frescobaldi.[17] Also during this time, he was taught primarily theology, Latin and Greek at the local gymnasium.[18]
> 
> By 3 April 1700, Bach and his schoolfriend Georg Erdmann-who was two years Bach's elder-were enrolled in the prestigious St. Michael's School in Lüneburg, some two weeks' travel north of Ohrdruf.[19][20] Their journey was probably undertaken mostly on foot.[20] His two years there were critical in exposing Bach to a wider range of European culture. In addition to singing in the choir, he played the school's three-manual organ and harpsichords.[21] He came into contact with sons of aristocrats from northern Germany who had been sent to the highly selective school to prepare for careers in other disciplines.





Wikipedia said:


> Born in Liège, Ysaÿe began violin lessons at age five with his father. He would later recognize his father's teaching as the foundation of everything he knew on his instrument, even though he went on to study with highly reputed masters. At seven he entered the Conservatoire at Liège studying with Désiré Heynberg (from 1865 to 1869), although soon afterwards he was asked to leave the conservatory because of lack of progress. This was because, in order to support his family, young Eugène had to play full-time in two local orchestras, one conducted by his father.
> 
> Eugène went on playing in these ensembles, though he studied by himself and learned the repertoire of the violin. By the time he was twelve, he was playing so well that one day he was practicing in a cellar when the legendary Henri Vieuxtemps, passing in the street, was so impressed with the sound of his violin that he took an interest in the boy. He arranged for Ysaÿe to be re-admitted to the conservatory studying with Vieuxtemps's assistant, the noted Henryk Wieniawski. Ysaÿe would later also study with Vieuxtemps, and both "master and disciple", as Ysaÿe would call the roles of teacher and pupil, were very fond of each other. In his last years, Vieuxtemps asked Ysaÿe to come to the countryside just to play for him.
> 
> Studying with these teachers meant that he was part of the so-called Franco-Belgian school of violin playing, which dates back to the development of the modern violin bow by François Tourte. Qualities of this "École" included elegance, a full tone with a sense of drawing a "long" bow with no jerks, precise left hand techniques, and bowing using the whole forearm while keeping both the wrist and upper arm quiet (as opposed to Joseph Joachim's German school of wrist bowing and Leopold Auer's Russian concept of using the whole arm.)


----------



## Enthalpy

Hi BachIsBest, your two citations support my claim:
JSBach had not learned composition.
Eugène Ysaÿe neither.


----------



## amfortas

Enthalpy said:


> Hi BachIsBest, your two citations support my claim:
> JSBach had not learned composition.
> Eugène Ysaÿe neither.


What is it, then, to "learn composition"?


----------



## Luchesi

Enthalpy said:


> Hi BachIsBest, your two citations support my claim:
> JSBach had not learned composition.
> Eugène Ysaÿe neither.


Learning music theory...
There's the theory of how the intervals and resolutions affect the human brain and how those affectations came about (speculative/theoretical).

There's the music theory coming from the history of music. The sequence of the 'discovery' of fifths and fourths then major thirds and what could be done with them. And then later minor thirds and all those higher harmonies.

If you can't read music I don't see how you can study music theory. But maybe you can. But anyway it's just like any other language, it takes a few years at the minimum (to train your brain).

People who can play well by ear have a difficult time learning to read and employ music theory. Because it's so easy for them to play without it. Erroll Garner is a good example. He really wanted to learn to read music and he tried for years according to the accounts of friends. Other jazz pianists greatly admired his facility, but they could easily see what he was doing and they could tell that he didn't study theory. The problem is you can mostly only play what comes out of yourself and your own imagination, for the most part. This can be very limiting for the less 'talented'.


----------



## BachIsBest

Enthalpy said:


> Hi BachIsBest, your two citations support my claim:
> JSBach had not learned composition.
> Eugène Ysaÿe neither.


If studying music at "the prestigious St. Michael's School in Lüneburg" for two years still means you never learnt composition, pray tell, what would learning composition amount to?


----------



## Luchesi

BachIsBest said:


> If studying music at "the prestigious St. Michael's School in Lüneburg" for two years still means you never learnt composition, pray tell, what would learning composition amount to?


I guess you can teach yourself higher math on your own (wow!), but probably not weather theory (atmospheric dynamics).


----------



## Luchesi

Is learning to read music the same as learning music theory in people's minds?

Learning to read music is akin to learning to read any language, It takes a lot of time and exposure. 
And it's not at all like you thought it would be, when you finally become proficient. It's not easy to 'teach' except very indirectly (like other languages). I think this is because it's not just the brain, but the muscle movements in conjunction with the hearing of the relationships.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Composition learning usually starts with harmonisation of melodies and writing countermelodies.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

BachIsBest said:


> However, using the specific tonal system the 18th century Europeans came up with, rather than making music more in the style of India or even Renaissance era modality, is probably to some extent arbitrary.
> 
> I don't want this to go off-topic into yet another atonal-tonal debate so I just want to explicitly note that none of this means that there aren't other non-tonality based ways of making sounds that people may classify as music and enjoy.


As of now (without having learned anything to refute that notion, that is), I'm quite convinced that this is hardwired too - major and "harmonic"/melodic minor (as opposed to "natural"), due to the major-key dominant and the 7# note, sound decisive, "defined", and convey the sense of "standing firmly on the ground";

whereas natural minor and the other modes tend to sound more like they're hovering in the air, the 5-1 resolution sounds "flatter", more like a comma and less like a full-stop;

seems like that sort of hovering sound was simply not as favored between early baroque and late 19th century, and that was the reason for that "tonal paradigm"?

As for "reading music", isn't it true that it would be a lot easier with sensible notation system structured more like a keyboard? The standard notation system doesn't even acknowledge octaves, and makes learning to read it artificially difficult; the only thing that's even worse is guitar tabs. Probably would be a walk in the park otherwise (even to those already used to the standard one, if it looked sufficiently different), although I haven't tried it yet.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

chihwahli said:


> Learning Music theory and someone said something like: "to compose we have to forget theory.."
> 
> There are many rules like ending at Tonic. Why? Is this Tonic not bashed into our brain after many many years and we just get used to it so much that it sounds off / strange if it does not end at Tonic?
> 
> Is it actually possible to compose music without any theory, just by ear? but by doing so , a composer might find the wrath of theory purists not?
> 
> So, what's your thoughts about theory strictly or by ear? or an combination of both?


For starters, obviously every possible convention and then some have already been defied and broken 100+ years ago, and any such attempts at gatekeeping by "theory purists" (specifically those holding on to 19th century ideals - probably a niche even in their own field) wouldn't have any real power over you;
certainly not on the internet where you can just publish anything without going through any 3rd party at all.

It's strange how, on various "theory" related forums (or the subreddit too), there are frequently questions like this, inquiring about the constraints of (common practice, tonal) theory and what it means to "defy" those - the people asking such questions, are probably very aware of the limitless freedoms of the 20th century and especially the internet age, however probably aren't currently thinking about that while asking the question? Idk, it's strange.

Either way, 
1) I'm not aware of any findings suggesting that the way we perceive sounds and harmonies etc. aren't largely "hardwired"; for all I know, they are.

So it "ending in tonic" is naturally perceived as "affirmative", as conveying some kind of sentence with a full-stop or an exclamation mark, etc.;
if you don't end in tonic, say you just play a Dominant 7th chord and let it hover in the air, without any implication of it having to "resolve", then it's just gonna sound trippy and surreal; like typical "impressionism", which I believe was the movement that first did away with this notion that everything has to "resolve", and is known for its trippy surreal character.

In that particular case, the effect stems from the fact that the Dominant 7th (i.e. like gbd'f') is made up out of a major chord and a diminished chord - and that if it's played in the "tonal resolution" context (esp. the most basic one, in this case in C major), it sounds like a spiced up (G) major chord;
whereas if you play it without "resolution", impressionist style, then it'll start sounding like a "major colored" diminished chord.

2) I think with a sufficient computing power in your brain (incl. good aural imagination/memory), one should be able to compose anything, without the crutches of either "studying theory" or visual notation of any kind;

in practice, how achievable such a brain power is, I don't really know as of now. Probably more exception that norm?


----------



## Luchesi

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> As of now (without having learned anything to refute that notion, that is), I'm quite convinced that this is hardwired too - major and "harmonic"/melodic minor (as opposed to "natural"), due to the major-key dominant and the 7# note, sound decisive, "defined", and convey the sense of "standing firmly on the ground";
> 
> whereas natural minor and the other modes tend to sound more like they're hovering in the air, the 5-1 resolution sounds "flatter", more like a comma and less like a full-stop;
> 
> seems like that sort of hovering sound was simply not as favored between early baroque and late 19th century, and that was the reason for that "tonal paradigm"?
> 
> As for "reading music", isn't it true that it would be a lot easier with sensible notation system structured more like a keyboard? The standard notation system doesn't even acknowledge octaves, and makes learning to read it artificially difficult; the only thing that's even worse is guitar tabs. Probably would be a walk in the park otherwise (even to those already used to the standard one, if it looked sufficiently different), although I haven't tried it yet.


Look into it, but I don't think there's a better system than what kids are taught today. I used to believe that there was, and all I had to do was to find it, among the two new, well-received notational systems back then. One's visual and one's numerical. The problem is, we generally don't know how good the current system is, until we switch to something else.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Luchesi said:


> Look into it, but I don't think there's a better system than what kids are taught today. I used to believe that there was, and all I had to do was to find it, among the two new, well-received notational systems back then. One's visual and one's numerical. The problem is, we generally don't know how good the current system is, until we switch to something else.


Hm, what other system (or 2 of them?) are you referring to, is that sth one can look up?

The type I was talking about would also be "visual" and not look too different from the established one; haven't really looked into such attempts or tried anything myself though, as of now.


----------



## EdwardBast

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> It's strange how, on various "theory" related forums (or the subreddit too), there are frequently questions like this, inquiring about the constraints of (common practice, tonal) theory and what it means to "defy" those - the people asking such questions, are probably very aware of the limitless freedoms of the 20th century and especially the internet age, however probably aren't currently thinking about that while asking the question? Idk, it's strange.


The people asking those questions are usually theory dropouts or people who know or suspect they should have studied more theory but failed to do so. In either case they generally don't understand what's important to learn from studying common practice harmony and counterpoint - that is, voice-leading and the art of writing independent lines motivated by harmonic progression. Because they don't comprehend what the objective of theory study is they get worked up about constraining rules and defiance of rules. It's not about rules, it's about basic principles underlying 500 years of western art music.



YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> So it "ending in tonic" is naturally perceived as "affirmative", as conveying some kind of sentence with a full-stop or an exclamation mark, etc.;
> if you don't end in tonic, say you just play a Dominant 7th chord and let it hover in the air, without any implication of it having to "resolve", then it's just gonna sound trippy and surreal; like typical "impressionism", which I believe was the movement that first did away with this notion that everything has to "resolve", and is known for its trippy surreal character.
> 
> In that particular case, the effect stems from the fact that the Dominant 7th (i.e. like gbd'f') is made up out of a major chord and a diminished chord - and that if it's played in the "tonal resolution" context (esp. the most basic one, in this case in C major), it sounds like a spiced up (G) major chord;
> whereas if you play it without "resolution", impressionist style, then it'll start sounding like a "major colored" diminished chord.


Impressionists don't use dominant seventh chords that way. You must be thinking of the blues. 



YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> I think with a sufficient computing power in your brain (incl. good aural imagination/memory), one should be able to compose anything, without the crutches of either "studying theory" or visual notation of any kind;
> 
> in practice, how achievable such a brain power is, I don't really know as of now. Probably more exception that norm?


Crutches? Don't be silly. That's like saying a painter shouldn't need the crutch of learning how to draw or a novelist shouldn't be constrained by learning basic grammar.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

EdwardBast said:


> Impressionists don't use dominant seventh chords that way. You must be thinking of the blues.


I haven't (consciously/attentively) heard either for a while, and not that sure about either genre's borders either (and with impressionism, as I understand, there generally aren't any defined ones to begin with - the 2 composers most associated with it having rejected the label).

I was thinking of a particular passage from Ondine based around the Ab79 chord, however from memory that may have been an augmented/wholetone one instead, or a combination; and some other few things based around a 79 chord and in mixolydian mode, however I can't remember which that was, so touche I suppose lol;

Jeux d'eau begins with a major 7th chord and uses that one as the center, so that's a comparable example (just a different 7th chord - however an even more dissonant one).

As for blues, are you talking about the 135 - 146 - 157 - 146 - 135 sequence? In that case, the dom7th is kinda supposed to carry tension and resolve into the major chord(s) though, from what I understand.



> The people asking those questions are usually theory dropouts or people who know or suspect they should have studied more theory but failed to do so. In either case they generally don't understand what's important to learn from studying common practice harmony and counterpoint - that is, voice-leading and the art of writing independent lines motivated by harmonic progression. Because they don't comprehend what the objective of theory study is they get worked up about constraining rules and defiance of rules. It's not about rules, it's about basic principles underlying 500 years of western art music.


"Rules" and "principles" sound kinda synonymous; one could say it's more about the ways humans perceive sounds, and the theory laying out the discoveries about that in an organized fashion.

Either way we're just talking about posters who either think of these "principles" as prescriptive, or think not following them will get them blocked from every possible platform (and not just the local, limited ones controlled by those ominous authority figures they have in mind - probably their schools or certain academic circles they're involved in?) or something along those lines.

Did some of them drop out somewhere? I'm sure some did lol



> Crutches? Don't be silly. That's like saying a painter shouldn't need the crutch of learning how to draw or a novelist shouldn't be constrained by learning basic grammar.


Language, along with its grammar, spelling/pronunciation, and just the very meaning of the word themselves, is entirely "invented" - even though it starts feeling natural and primal when sufficiently absorbed by the brain (to such an extent that, e.g., a "wrong word order" feels wrong and awkward even though it's in fact a correct word order in some other language), it's not actually natural and primal the way music is fundamentally;

and my point was just that someone with a sufficiently high intellect can quickly figure out stuff about music, or perspective in drawing etc., that others may need to be "taught" about;
however depending on the definition of "theory", one could say that what that person is figuring out, is still that same "theory" (as long as it's something conscious and organized, that is).


----------



## Enthalpy

These aren't the same:

Learning to play music
Learning music theory
Learning composition
And I stand by what I wrote: J-S Bach and Eugène Ysaÿe had not learned composition.

==========

A problem with (European) *music theory is that it applies only to pop music*. With dominant, tonic and so on, you can write rock'n roll. This is what untrained ears expect and are happy with.

But you can't analyse more elaborate music with that theory. It fails at J-S Bach's music, 300 years old. Even the Badinerie contains modulations not foreseen in textbooks. Chromatic passages abound in the violin sonatas and partitas.

Or already John Dowland's music, a century earlier than J-S Bach.

So, no, music theory isn't absolute - it doesn't even apply often, even in baroque music, and far less in romantic and more recent music. It isn't even a very useful guideline.

And I say: good thing that the great composers didn't care. It contributed to make their music interesting.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Enthalpy said:


> These aren't the same:
> 
> Learning to play music
> Learning music theory
> Learning composition
> And I stand by what I wrote: J-S Bach and Eugène Ysaÿe had not learned composition.
> 
> ==========
> 
> A problem with (European) *music theory is that it applies only to pop music*. With dominant, tonic and so on, you can write rock'n roll. This is what untrained ears expect and are happy with.
> 
> But you can't analyse more elaborate music with that theory. It fails at J-S Bach's music, 300 years old. Even the Badinerie contains modulations not foreseen in textbooks. Chromatic passages abound in the violin sonatas and partitas.
> 
> Or already John Dowland's music, a century earlier than J-S Bach.
> 
> So, no, music theory isn't absolute - it doesn't even apply often, even in baroque music, and far less in romantic and more recent music. It isn't even a very useful guideline.
> 
> And I say: good thing that the great composers didn't care. It contributed to make their music interesting.


Makes me wonder what exactly is your conception of music theory


----------



## mikeh375

Enthalpy, I'm guessing you have not studied composition because your assessment of music theory doesn't seem to take into account what learning it can do for an aspiring composer and their development (musicians too for that matter). 

I believe your assessment is incorrect in several ways, not least because music theories' constructs have much flexibility once the initial purposes are absorbed. With imagination and lateral thinking, theory has the potential to inspire and support fantasy that goes far beyond any foundational application.

The subtle and sometimes not so subtle relationship between technique or theory (I tend to make no practical distinction between the two), and its application in actual composing is quite reasonably not often understood given its esoteric and elusive nature. Sometimes even composers don't quite understand how things managed to end up on the manuscript - there's a mystery to it as well.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Theory is an answer to what is musical purpose.


----------



## Luchesi

Yes, the more you use music theory the more you wonder how something else could replace it. For example in my case, I don't have a very good ear so most of what I do while improvising is exploring the logic behind music theory, perhaps from where I left off last time, -- in other words it's a different approach to music (and difficult to explain).


----------



## SanAntone

Music theory is fine and can be helpful, but is not necessary to be a good composer, and I say this as someone with a degree in Music Theory & Composition. It is far more important to have curiosity, imagination, and discipline, all working towards developing an individual voice. 

The difference is comparable to learning to read and learning to think critically.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Music theory is fine and can be helpful, but is not necessary to be a good composer, and I say this as someone with a degree in Music Theory & Composition. It is far more important to have curiosity, imagination, and discipline, all working towards developing an individual voice.
> 
> The difference is comparable to learning to read and learning to think critically.


Two examples of musicians who almost couldn't read music at all are Sir Paul McCartney and Luciano Pavarotti. I suspect that if either one of them absolutely had to read a musical score to do what they wanted to do, they could have figured it out. But it wasn't an integral part of their musical activities.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> Music theory is fine and can be helpful, but is not necessary to be a good composer, and I say this as someone with a degree in Music Theory & Composition. It is far more important to have curiosity, imagination, and discipline, all working towards developing an individual voice.
> 
> The difference is comparable to learning to read and learning to think critically.


What do you use in its place? Rote memory? I try to memorize clever transitions more and more, and I guess that's what self-taught explorers do (more than I do). I've never met a pianist who rigidly memorized, or played in a group totally by ear. There are some. And accompanying is different.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Two examples of musicians who almost couldn't read music at all are Sir Paul McCartney and Luciano Pavarotti. I suspect that if either one of them absolutely had to read a musical score to do what they wanted to do, they could have figured it out. But it wasn't an integral part of their musical activities.


I wonder what went through their head when they performed. Do you know? If it's not the structural concept of the piece then what? What they think about can't be encoded into the familiar graphics of notation.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Enthalpy said:


> J-S Bach had not learned composition.


Are you a music theorist, or a conspiracy theorist?


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> I wonder what went through their head when they performed. Do you know? If it's not the structural concept of the piece then what? What they think about can't be encoded into the familiar graphics of notation.


While I have played in classical orchestras, symphonic bands and chamber music groups, and sung in choruses, and worked hard at sight reading and sight singing as a student, that isn't the only way, or even the easiest or more natural way, to learn music. One day, just for fun I tried playing Schubert's string quartet no. 14, and although I've never seen the score, I could play the entire first movement exposition pretty easily, only because I've heard it so often. I've also found I can play quite a ways into the Beethoven and Brahms violin concertos (until there are too many notes and too wide a range for the flute) when I've never seen the scores for those. Many other concertos and symphonies, too. Of course, reasonably simple and familiar popular songs are no problem.

Why? Because music is easy to learn by ear if you hear it often enough. Learning how to sight read and sight sing are skills that need to be practiced and maintained through regular use. That is why Pavarotti never bothered with them. Also, he couldn't go out on stage holding sheet music.

In contrast, pro orchestra players must master a massive amount of music, a lot of which is standard repertoire that they probably could play mostly if not entirely from memory after enough years at the job, but a lot of which is not and must be learned very quickly. Sight reading skills are a must for them. And of course, a classical orchestra conductor must be a master at reading scores.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> What do you use in its place? Rote memory? I try to memorize clever transitions more and more, and I guess that's what self-taught explorers do (more than I do). I've never met a pianist who rigidly memorized, or played in a group totally by ear. There are some. And accompanying is different.


I have known and worked with many musicians who operate entirely intuitively. They have absorbed music theory by osmosis, i.e. they have listened very closely to the music around them and are able to replicate thematic development, modulations, sequences, inversions, and other common aspects of musical structure, but do this "by ear."

They don't work in the Classical music tradition.


----------



## Enthalpy

hammeredklavier said:


> Are you a music theorist, or a conspiracy theorist?


So you confirm that you have no argument.

You didn't need to be so aggressive in your previous comments, then.

As bending the words and denigrating didn't fool the readers, the bare facts remain now:
J-S Bach and Eugène Ysaÿe had not learned composition.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> I have known and worked with many musicians who operate entirely intuitively. They have absorbed music theory by osmosis, i.e. they have listened very closely to the music around them and are able to replicate thematic development, modulations, sequences, inversions, and other common aspects of musical structure, but do this "by ear."
> 
> They don't work in the Classical music tradition.


You and fluteman seem to be saying that some people can hear music many times and then play it back accurately and satisfactorily. You got me wondering how that would work in a group. The new work must be heard many times?


----------



## composingmusic

Theory is useful as a set of tools. I think this analogy is a good one – they’re good for creating structure, and for organising things. Learning things like orchestration is really useful for understanding how instruments work, and is a good starting point for thinking about one’s pieces through the perspective of the musicians one is writing for. 

I don’t think it’s useful to think of theory as something that must absolutely be followed without exception. Concepts like no parallel fifths for instance – this is useful if one is writing counterpoint and wants to keep the voices independent. However, if one is planing chords like Debussy and Messiaen, then we aren’t trying to establish independent voices in a contrapuntal way, and looking for parallel fifths may not be useful. So yes, a lot of this is very situational, and I don’t think it’s useful to think in absolutes where one must follow a set of rules, without exception.


----------



## arpeggio

I have answered this question before in other threads.

This is what my theory teacher, Dr, Luce, taught us. 

One, music theory is a tool one uses so learn how to perform a piece.

Two, all great composers were those who came up with creative ways to break the rules.


----------



## EdwardBast

arpeggio said:


> I have answered this question before in other threads.
> 
> This is what my theory teacher, Dr, Luce, taught us.
> 
> One, music theory is a tool one uses so learn how to perform a piece.
> 
> Two, all great composers were those who came up with creative ways to break the rules.


Rules?  The only people who need rules are dullards who can't assimilate principles or students who haven't yet grasped them.


----------



## composingmusic

EdwardBast said:


> Rules?  The only people who need rules are dullards who can't assimilate principles or students who haven't yet grasped them.


I don't agree with that. Rules are useful for creating structure and frameworks, and overall, for creating some kind of coherence and consistency within a piece. I've spoken to other composers about this, and a lot of them agree - they'll use limitations or rules in really varied ways, but a lot of them will use some kind of rules to help create coherence and structure in a piece. That's not to say they can't be broken, but the key is knowing when to break or bend them so it makes sense in some way.


----------



## Bwv 1080

How many examples of ‘rule breaking’ exist in Mozart or Beethoven? Maybe an unusual dissonance - but that will be treated in accordance with ‘the rules’ - you generally won’t find them violating any of the rules they were trained with - just as if you read Dickens or Melville you don’t find violations of basic grammatical rules.

Of course CP tonal standards are not the measure of all music, but for the composers who did write in that style they obeyed it’s conventions

Contrarily, you just have to listen to the awful pastiches that tend to populate the compositions submitted by posters here (or listen to, say, Andrew Lloyd Weber) to see how bad music can be when you try to emulate CP style while not grasping the rules and trying to be original


----------



## composingmusic

Bwv 1080 said:


> How many examples of 'rule breaking' exist in Mozart or Beethoven? Maybe an unusual dissonance - but that will be treated in accordance with 'the rules' - you generally won't find them violating any of the rules they were trained with - just as if you read Dickens or Melville you don't find violations of basic grammatical rules.
> 
> Of course CP tonal standards are not the measure of all music, but for the composers who did write in that style they obeyed it's conventions
> 
> Contrarily, you just have to listen to the awful pastiches that tend to populate the compositions submitted by posters here (or listen to, say, Andrew Lloyd Weber) to see how bad music can be when you try to emulate CP style while not grasping the rules and trying to be original


I can think of examples of things such as irregular phrase structures (ex. look at the Champagne Aria in Don Giovanni) or using unusual keys (look at Beethoven starting his first symphony with a cadence to IV, or having the second phrase of sonata op. 57 be in the Neapolitan) - or just look at the structure of something like Beethoven's 3rd symphony, for example. These are more bending than outright breaking, though, although listeners of the time would have found these things to be quite striking and strange. As you say, the musical grammar itself is sound, and things are written in a way that the voice leading and phrasing make sense, even if the composers are playing with the rules.


----------



## EdwardBast

composingmusic said:


> I can think of examples of things such as irregular phrase structures (ex. look at the Champagne Aria in Don Giovanni) or using unusual keys (look at Beethoven starting his first symphony with a cadence to IV, or having the second phrase of sonata op. 57 be in the Neapolitan) - or just look at the structure of something like Beethoven's 3rd symphony, for example. *These are more bending than outright breaking*, though, although listeners of the time would have found these things to be quite striking and strange. As you say, the musical grammar itself is sound, and things are written in a way that the voice leading and phrasing make sense, even if the composers are playing with the rules.


Bending what though? There were no rules against phrases of irregular length, beginning off tonic, having a passage in the Neapolitan, or creating a structure like the first movement of the Eroica. Not all instances of doing interesting or unusual things violate rules.


----------



## composingmusic

EdwardBast said:


> Bending what though? There were no rules against phrases of irregular length, beginning off tonic, having a passage in the Neapolitan, or creating a structure like the first movement of the Eroica. Not all instances of doing interesting or unusual things violate rules.


So what would constitute as rule breaking to you? Avoiding parallel fifths? Writing in the rules of 4 part counterpoint? I don't think there was so much a strict set of rules as there was a set of conventions people followed, along with general principles they would have learned from music around them, portamenti and figured bass exercises, and other similar training.


----------



## SanAntone

chihwahli said:


> Learning Music theory and someone said something like: "to compose we have to forget theory.."
> 
> There are many rules like ending at Tonic. Why? Is this Tonic not bashed into our brain after many many years and we just get used to it so much that it sounds off / strange if it does not end at Tonic?
> 
> Is it actually possible to compose music without any theory, just by ear? but by doing so , a composer might find the wrath of theory purists not?
> 
> So, what's your thoughts about theory strictly or by ear? or an combination of both?


Theory is arrived at after the fact. Composer's rely upon their training in the general sense of how to notate their ideas, basic formal concepts, developmental technique, and so on. But how they manifest these tools is, or should be, intuitively, i.e. guided by their inner ear and personal aesthetic taste, all producing an individual style for that composer.

After a collection of works have been written over a period of decades, or so, an analyst may look at them critically and attempt to formulate a theoretical description of what is going on within the music. He might observe certain kinds of things a variety of composers have done, and codify this behavior in concepts or "rules."

But it is merely descriptive, not prescriptive.


----------



## verandai

I'm still composing much more by ear and intuition than by theoretical rules. Just following rules would make it very difficult for me to do something creative which doesn't already exist.

But compared to the music I was writing at the beginning, I definetly can see the improvement during the compositional education. At the beginning I completely relied on my musical feel and trained ear (almost no knowledge of music theory).

My first pieces had little musical structure and were quite difficult to follow (more a sequence of inspirations). There may be people who also like this kind of music, but adding structure, form and some kind of "plan" to the music definetly increases the probability of listeners understanding and liking it (including myself).

For those who are interested in a comparison:


 old composition without theoretical knowledge: 




 newer piano composition (latin style):


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Nowadays I tend to begin a pece purely by intuition and then try to deduce a set of rules to expand it with consistency.


----------



## mikeh375

^^^ good approach and a route to achieving inevitability in a piece.


----------



## verandai

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Nowadays I tend to begin a pece purely by intuition and then try to deduce a set of rules to expand it with consistency.


That sounds quite similar to my approach, although you managed to explain it better ;-)


----------



## Opisthokont

Theory is as absolute as I feel like making it. I think there's lots of room for all different sorts of music. One can produce great music simply through intuition and feel - many great composers have; more controversially, one can also produce great music by finding rules and following them to the end e.g. integral serialism. 

I don't see any need to talk one or the other as if it's better or worse - the important thing seems to me to that whatever is done is done with purpose. But I make music for fun, it is perhaps different if one is required to make music professionally (most of which is "functional" music) - a very different set of constraints is necessary when one is making music for a specific purpose. But I have very little knowledge of that world.


----------



## Opisthokont

Luchesi said:


> I guess you can teach yourself higher math on your own (wow!), but probably not weather theory (atmospheric dynamics).


It's quite funny I find the language of higher mathematics much easier than the language of music, which is probably why it's my job. The language of music always felt so arbitrary and filled with historical oddities and things that are geared towards certain types of music. (I still don't really understand enharmonic non-equivalence in notation tbh). I have chronic memory problems which are slated only to get worse with time, and it honestly is intimidating how much there is to remember. On the other hand the language of mathematics requires very little to memorize in comparison, it's much more highly structured.



Luchesi said:


> Is learning to read music the same as learning music theory in people's minds?
> 
> Learning to read music is akin to learning to read any language, It takes a lot of time and exposure.
> And it's not at all like you thought it would be, when you finally become proficient. It's not easy to 'teach' except very indirectly (like other languages). I think this is because it's not just the brain, but the muscle movements in conjunction with the hearing of the relationships.


It's always been a curious thing to me - how much more music theory is concerned with learning and practice than literary theory. Literary theory seems to concerns itself much more on analysis and philosophy - I don't think anybody has ever become a greater novel writer by reading derrida. On the other hand music theory is very intricately tied with practice and it seems like even pure music theorists are expected to have musical training? It's quite odd. Perhaps this isn't entirely accurate, we do have people like barthes or nabokov...

Just guessing, this probably has something to do with the way that literary theory came out of the scholastics and heremneutic traditions whereas music theory was focused more on trying to figure out how the greek system worked and developing notation? I assume notation in particular has a lot to do with it.

That said, let's go through the newest issue of music theory online How many of these do you think would help someone become a better composer or musician? I suspect there is a big difference between music theory pedagogy and the practice of music theorists in this way. Possibly because the expectation is that most of the students in music theory classes are not going to be music theorists but rather want to be musicians? Hmm... I don't know this world well enough to really know.


----------



## EdwardBast

Opisthokont said:


> It's quite funny I find the language of higher mathematics much easier than the language of music, which is probably why it's my job. The language of music always felt so arbitrary and filled with historical oddities and things that are geared towards certain types of music. (I still don't really understand enharmonic non-equivalence in notation tbh). I have chronic memory problems which are slated only to get worse with time, and it honestly is intimidating how much there is to remember. On the other hand the language of mathematics requires very little to memorize in comparison, it's much more highly structured.
> 
> It's always been a curious thing to me - how much more music theory is concerned with learning and practice than literary theory. Literary theory seems to concerns itself much more on analysis and philosophy - I don't think anybody has ever become a greater novel writer by reading derrida. On the other hand music theory is very intricately tied with practice and it seems like even pure music theorists are expected to have musical training? It's quite odd. Perhaps this isn't entirely accurate, we do have people like barthes or nabokov...
> 
> Just guessing, this probably has something to do with the way that literary theory came out of the scholastics and heremneutic traditions whereas music theory was focused more on trying to figure out how the greek system worked and developing notation? I assume notation in particular has a lot to do with it.
> 
> That said, let's go through the newest issue of music theory online How many of these do you think would help someone become a better composer or musician? I suspect there is a big difference between music theory pedagogy and the practice of music theorists in this way. Possibly because the expectation is that most of the students in music theory classes are not going to be music theorists but rather want to be musicians? Hmm... I don't know this world well enough to really know.


As i see it, the two biggest differences between the scope and purview of music theory versus that of literary theory have to do with basic literacy in the respective areas and the role of semantics. It can be assumed that everyone seeking to study literary theory has already mastered the fundamentals of vocabulary, grammar, syntax, structuring a coherent argument, and so on, because these verbal skills are basic to survival and functioning in a modern human society, let alone getting into a college literature program. By contrast, it's possible for humans to thrive over a lifetime without ever writing a coherent musical phrase or chord progression. And the arbiter of verbal literacy is the ability to effectively convey meaning to ones fellow humans, whereas music theoretical literacy has no obvious connection to semantics or the communication of objective meaning.

So the verbal equivalent of basic music theory training takes place in every social and educational experience a person has from the moment they speak their first word. Everyone has to learn verbal skills. No one has to learn basic music theory, so pedagogues must teach the fundamentals to aspiring musicians. Music theory at the level of music theory online, however, is quite like literary theory in its scope and purview.

A few random responses to other things you wrote:

Reading Derrida might not make one a better novelist, but there's a good chance that reading and understanding Bakhtin might.

Enharmonic non-equivalence is related to the function of pitches within a tonal system or key. E# is not the same as F because E# is the leading tone to F# whereas F isn't.


----------



## Opisthokont

EdwardBast said:


> It can be assumed that everyone seeking to study literary theory has already mastered the fundamentals of vocabulary, grammar, syntax, structuring a coherent argument, and so on, because these verbal skills are basic to survival and functioning in a modern human society, let alone getting into a college literature program. By contrast, it's possible for humans to thrive over a lifetime without ever writing a coherent musical phrase or chord progression.


That's true, although writing fiction seems way harder than writing in general. For example, writing a believable dialogue is actually quite difficult. But it's true the language of writing is the language we're used to, unlike music which has a language separate from what we all grow up on. I do think that laypeople can pick up an instrument and practice and learn to make music without being able to read it - but why would they? That's just shooting yourself in the foot right?

I'm also curious in this sense, because it seems like nowdays with popular music that production is king: I wonder if production knowledge will enter the vocabulary for teaching musicians at the same level as reading music itself (if it already hasn't).

It's interesting, I think you're on the money with how fundamental language is: literary theorists still read aristotle after all, whereas I'm not sure if greek music theory is ever taught. Rhetoric is still a relevant text to literary theory, but do music theorists ever read aristotle's writings on music?



EdwardBast said:


> And the arbiter of verbal literacy is the ability to effectively convey meaning to ones fellow humans, whereas music theoretical literacy has no obvious connection to semantics or the communication of objective meaning.


I completely agree with you when it comes to classical music and to some extent, jazz. I'm not sure about in general though. It seems like if I want to make music highly popular music, the sort of stuff that gets played on radios, there are pretty strict conventions depending on genre that have to be activated to communicate meaning, supported by lyrical content. It seems to me at least a highly cultural (and somewhat odd) phenomena of classical music that it specifically does not prize clear communication, abstraction tends not be popular.



EdwardBast said:


> Reading Derrida might not make one a better novelist, but there's a good chance that reading and understanding Bakhtin might.
> 
> Enharmonic non-equivalence is related to the function of pitches within a tonal system or key. E# is not the same as F because E# is the leading tone to F# whereas F isn't.


Ha! That's certainly true. And I was a bit unclear, I do understand the _idea_ of enharmony it's more that I have trouble often times looking at a score and having the distance between notes not correspond to the distance between pitches as I hear them. I have to constantly remind myself of that fact.


----------



## Luchesi

Opisthokont said:


> It's quite funny I find the language of higher mathematics much easier than the language of music, which is probably why it's my job. The language of music always felt so arbitrary and filled with historical oddities and things that are geared towards certain types of music. (I still don't really understand enharmonic non-equivalence in notation tbh). I have chronic memory problems which are slated only to get worse with time, and it honestly is intimidating how much there is to remember. On the other hand the language of mathematics requires very little to memorize in comparison, it's much more highly structured.
> 
> It's always been a curious thing to me - how much more music theory is concerned with learning and practice than literary theory. Literary theory seems to concerns itself much more on analysis and philosophy - I don't think anybody has ever become a greater novel writer by reading derrida. On the other hand music theory is very intricately tied with practice and it seems like even pure music theorists are expected to have musical training? It's quite odd. Perhaps this isn't entirely accurate, we do have people like barthes or nabokov...
> 
> Just guessing, this probably has something to do with the way that literary theory came out of the scholastics and heremneutic traditions whereas music theory was focused more on trying to figure out how the greek system worked and developing notation? I assume notation in particular has a lot to do with it.
> 
> That said, let's go through the newest issue of music theory online How many of these do you think would help someone become a better composer or musician? I suspect there is a big difference between music theory pedagogy and the practice of music theorists in this way. Possibly because the expectation is that most of the students in music theory classes are not going to be music theorists but rather want to be musicians? Hmm... I don't know this world well enough to really know.


When I was young I wanted to know how music works. Now I find it endlessly fascinating. The natural history fact that men's voices and women's/children's voices are naturally an octave apart, which is a doubling of the men's frequency, is the foundation of interval derivation. To derive the next interval you triple the frequency and then quadruple it (the same fundamental tone each time), and so on. All intervals of harmony come from that tripling, quadrupling, quintupling and sextupling of a fundamental tone.  

In our long natural development, we've acquired the curious ability to differentiate between the doubling, tripling, quadrupling and quintupling of a fundamental tone (THE low note which gives the derived scale its name). But when we multiply the fundamental by 6 we get the tragic or sad sounding minor third which is the material for all unsettling 'minor mode' music. The effect it has on us is generally understood as the brain's attempt to perceive the difference between the factor of 5 or the factor of 6, which is at the limit of human capability!  

Amazingly we find pleasure in the arithmetic resolutions of these resulting intervals. It must have had some survival advantage, or maybe it's just a requirement for strategic sound signaling, and ultimately -- spoken language. We can recognize intervals because it was somewhat important for our survival. We seek out integer patterns everywhere (both sights and sounds) in nature because they point to important and reliable info in the natural world. Whole numbers command a primal affinity in all of us -- especially in all the various arts from music to dance and architecture.  

What a feat it is for us to be able to recognize that sextupling! We have to begin to pick it up at a fairly early age in nursery rhymes etc. But the point is, the uncertainty that the hearing brain experiences trying to distinguish the factor of 5 or the factor of 6 results in the emotionally charged, unsettled feelings from minor keys and their minor thirds, sadness, despair, tragic or depressed thoughts. This cutoff for identifying higher and higher frequency relationships should be unique to our species. Animals probably have a lower cutoff (and some intelligent alien species can discriminate better than us? lol).  

And likewise, when I was young I wanted to know how weather works. When I found that barometers and anemometers were no longer how forecasts are made, I was hooked on the grand big picture theory of planetary waves. I suspected that I couldn't make a good living in music so I became a research meteorologist.


----------



## Opisthokont

Luchesi said:


> And likewise, when I was young I wanted to know how weather works. When I found that barometers and anemometers were no longer how forecasts are made, I was hooked on the grand big picture theory of planetary waves. I suspected that I couldn't make a good living in music so I became a research meteorologist.


The thing that fascinated me since a child was the way that we use these abstract ideas, mathematical symbols, to make such strong descriptions of how the world the works.

Music is so fascinating to me,because it remains as both one of the most mathematical but also one of the most culturally influenced activities we partake in every single day. There is something deeply mathematical about how music works, but every culture has looked at that mathematical landscape and decided something completely different about what they value in it: whether that's buddhist drone that prizes the discordant beating of high frequency ratios; the complex rhythmic ideas in the mensural music of church of polyphony; the highly developed tonal system of common-practice period; the indian ragas where choice of scale contains its own set of rules - each one designed to evoke a certain mood; or even the post-tonal set theory which prizes the interval above all else - associating the liberation of music with the study of pure relation. All of it is deeply mathematical, but most peoples were unaware of the mathematics, the deep structures at hand. Music is made by people but they don't make it as they choose - this is the most fascinating part to me: the wide variety of musical expression that all comes from the same fundamental landscape.



Luchesi said:


> Animals probably have a lower cutoff (and some intelligent alien species can discriminate better than us? lol).


It's interesting, most animal studies show that they can hear pitches, and some birds can actually distinguish absolute pitch much better than humans can. Humans though seem to be fairly unique in hearing relative pitch intervals and octave equivalency. It's worth noting that there are some anthropological studies that show that lots of these musical facets are not culturally universal - even octave equivalency. This is not to say that not everyone _hears_ octave equivalency - we all hear the same things for the most part, simply that some cultures don't think of it as something as important as it is in western music. Even in western music, the important of octave equivalency varies - think about how chord inversion is treated so differently in classical vs jazz for example, or about how about how enharmonic and octave equivalency is built so deeply into atonal music (to the point where people like elliott carter associated each interval vector with its own chord) even more than common-practice music. The fact that humans hear intervals, and hear less complex intervals much differently than more complex ones seems very deeply built in. What we do with those differences is more open? The classic example here are various types of drone music where the highly dissonant (or discordant) frequency ratios are the harmonious ones.


----------



## Luchesi

Opisthokont said:


> The thing that fascinated me since a child was the way that we use these abstract ideas, mathematical symbols, to make such strong descriptions of how the world the works.
> 
> Music is so fascinating to me,because it remains as both one of the most mathematical but also one of the most culturally influenced activities we partake in every single day. There is something deeply mathematical about how music works, but every culture has looked at that mathematical landscape and decided something completely different about what they value in it: whether that's buddhist drone that prizes the discordant beating of high frequency ratios; the complex rhythmic ideas in the mensural music of church of polyphony; the highly developed tonal system of common-practice period; the indian ragas where choice of scale contains its own set of rules - each one designed to evoke a certain mood; or even the post-tonal set theory which prizes the interval above all else - associating the liberation of music with the study of pure relation. All of it is deeply mathematical, but most peoples were unaware of the mathematics, the deep structures at hand. Music is made by people but they don't make it as they choose - this is the most fascinating part to me: the wide variety of musical expression that all comes from the same fundamental landscape.
> 
> It's interesting, most animal studies show that they can hear pitches, and some birds can actually distinguish absolute pitch much better than humans can. Humans though seem to be fairly unique in hearing relative pitch intervals and octave equivalency. It's worth noting that there are some anthropological studies that show that lots of these musical facets are not culturally universal - even octave equivalency. This is not to say that not everyone _hears_ octave equivalency - we all hear the same things for the most part, simply that some cultures don't think of it as something as important as it is in western music. Even in western music, the important of octave equivalency varies - think about how chord inversion is treated so differently in classical vs jazz for example, or about how about how enharmonic and octave equivalency is built so deeply into atonal music (to the point where people like elliott carter associated each interval vector with its own chord) even more than common-practice music. The fact that humans hear intervals, and hear less complex intervals much differently than more complex ones seems very deeply built in. What we do with those differences is more open? The classic example here are various types of drone music where the highly dissonant (or discordant) frequency ratios are the harmonious ones.


Yes, I suspect that the 2 problems, Dark Matter and a comprehensive explanation of gravity, will continue to be such unsolved conundrums because of our maths. I mean, for both, 11 dimensions of string theory would need to explored for the relevant Calabi Yau shapes and their vibrational states etc. in 9 spacial dimensions. Wow.


----------



## music-lover

chihwahli said:


> Learning Music theory and someone said something like: "to compose we have to forget theory.."
> 
> There are many rules like ending at Tonic. Why? Is this Tonic not bashed into our brain after many many years and we just get used to it so much that it sounds off / strange if it does not end at Tonic?
> 
> Is it actually possible to compose music without any theory, just by ear? but by doing so , a composer might find the wrath of theory purists not?
> 
> So, what's your thoughts about theory strictly or by ear? or an combination of both?


i'm going to answer this in two different ways as a musician as like you ask. First of, you can use your ear (talent) of course, and if you already have it you automatically use it. But as in any profession, it is very important to know the information of the work we do. So my second answer is.. of course use theory strictly! Using the knowledge of music will also make your job very comfortable. Thus you will continue your work by being sure of something. Long story short use conbination of both! These are my thoughts and observations. İ hope i was helpful 
"Btw since i just saw your question, i replied very late, but anyways better late than never."


----------



## Nate Miller

Theory is pretty simple, really. All theory does is give you some options that might not be obvious. Basically, music moves in time between consonant and stable harmonies to less stable dissonant ones and then back. Understanding form is part of theory, too, so good luck composing with no knowledge of musical forms.

it is very easy to get caught up in the "Magical Musical Mystery Tour" when talking music theory, too. Theory needs to inform your playing, so intellectually "knowing" doesn't do anything. You have to KNOW it, as in the idea is manifest in your playing. To do that takes hundreds of hours of physical practice. So my advice is to look to simplify, not complicate, with your endeavor to learn music theory


----------



## Luchesi

Nate Miller said:


> Theory is pretty simple, really. All theory does is give you some options that might not be obvious. Basically, music moves in time between consonant and stable harmonies to less stable dissonant ones and then back. Understanding form is part of theory, too, so good luck composing with no knowledge of musical forms.
> 
> it is very easy to get caught up in the "Magical Musical Mystery Tour" when talking music theory, too. Theory needs to inform your playing, so intellectually "knowing" doesn't do anything. You have to KNOW it, as in the idea is manifest in your playing. To do that takes hundreds of hours of physical practice. So my advice is to look to simplify, not complicate, with your endeavor to learn music theory


So true. I was surprised when I first learned that so much has to be memorized by rote. 

I wonder if just learning music theory is as beneficial to our brains as learning another language (whatever age is young enough).


----------



## dko22

I've never studied music theory, nor have ever had any real interest in it. Originally I leaned to compose my symphonies and quartets by listening to the works of those who I thought had a done a good job of it and gradually improved by listening to and studying my own works and realising that certain things simply didn't hang together or could have been done much better. The only thing you do really need to know to some degree is the technical side of what instruments can do. Of course this can largely be done by ear -- hearing in concerts what they play and how -- but that's not the whole story as I've realised on occasion when writing things which are simply technically near enough impossible. 

If you want to compose music which impresses those who have studied theory, then you do need to study theory. But I personally usually find such works uninteresting. Music for me is primarily an emotional art which tells a story. This doesn't rule out doing technically interesting things but you don't need to study rules for that -- you can make your own for the requirements of the work in question.


----------



## Luchesi

dko22 said:


> I've never studied music theory, nor have ever had any real interest in it. Originally I leaned to compose my symphonies and quartets by listening to the works of those who I thought had a done a good job of it and gradually improved by listening to and studying my own works and realising that certain things simply didn't hang together or could have been done much better. The only thing you do really need to know to some degree is the technical side of what instruments can do. Of course this can largely be done by ear -- hearing in concerts what they play and how -- but that's not the whole story as I've realised on occasion when writing things which are simply technically near enough impossible.
> 
> If you want to compose music which impresses those who have studied theory, then you do need to study theory. But I personally usually find such works uninteresting. Music for me is primarily an emotional art which tells a story. This doesn't rule out doing technically interesting things but you don't need to study rules for that -- you can make your own for the requirements of the work in question.


Interesting. I wonder if people here in TC believe that Beethoven used the music theory of his time to compose his sequential sonatas, symphonies, quartets? Did he just retain a huge amount of hearing and experience from his youth into his middle and last works?

Did Chopin stretch the music theory of his time to break the consensus 'rules' of harmony so exquisitely?


----------



## Nate Miller

dko22 said:


> I've never studied music theory, nor have ever had any real interest in it. Originally I leaned to compose my symphonies and quartets by listening to the works of those who I thought had a done a good job of it and gradually improved by listening to and studying my own works and realising that certain things simply didn't hang together or could have been done much better. The only thing you do really need to know to some degree is the technical side of what instruments can do. Of course this can largely be done by ear -- hearing in concerts what they play and how -- but that's not the whole story as I've realised on occasion when writing things which are simply technically near enough impossible.
> 
> If you want to compose music which impresses those who have studied theory, then you do need to study theory. But I personally usually find such works uninteresting. Music for me is primarily an emotional art which tells a story. This doesn't rule out doing technically interesting things but you don't need to study rules for that -- you can make your own for the requirements of the work in question.


That is all very reasonable and every artist has a right to go thier own way, for sure. But the thing is that "theory" isn't a bunch of rules or anything like that. It is simply an understanding of how harmony behaves. Without studying theory per se, you are actually engaged in the study of "theory" if you are working with music and sorting the good stuff out from the junk. The difference is that you are discovering what is already commonly known.

There are good arguments for composers not worrying about music theory, and I get that. I'm that way about some of the endeavors I get up to outside of music. I'm happy to find the truth myself.

But the basis of functional harmony is so simple and straightforward, purposefully ignoring it while engaged in the poetics of music is kinda silly. In the end you might save yourself 10 or 20 years, and let's face it...we don't live long enough to fully explore the vast ocean we call music, so save yourself some years while you still can


----------



## dko22

Nate Miller said:


> Without studying theory per se, you are actually engaged in the study of "theory" if you are working with music and sorting the good stuff out from the junk


agree entirely


Nate Miller said:


> But the basis of functional harmony is so simple and straightforward


it probably is but you will need to define it because there is a lot of disagreement, especially if you move away from Western musical culture (which I don't myself)


----------



## Nate Miller

dko22 said:


> it probably is but you will need to define it because there is a lot of disagreement, especially if you move away from Western musical culture (which I don't myself)


I think the first thing to address is that "functional harmony" IS entirely a construction of western culture. It isn't like physics where the speed of light is the same no matter where you are or what you believe. Music theory is entirely a man made construct, which is why it is simple and easy. Much easier than a mathematical Fourier series analysis of the frequencies at time "t" anyway.

Being a man made construct is also what makes it simple. There are 7 tones in a scale, chords are built of 3rds from that scale, there are only 3 functions of harmony: tonic, subdominant and dominant, so there you go...western harmony in 25 words or less, really.

but you are right, it is simple to me. I started playing jazz gigs downtown in the big city when I was only 16 years old, so 7th chord harmony, chord substiution, polytonality...all that has been on my "automatic pilot" for over 40 years, so I don't have to really think that hard about it. That is why I say it is best to use theory to simplify the task at hand. No need to get bogged down with Neopolitan Sixths, its just a tritone sub for the dominant so get on with it. That sort of thing.


----------



## Nate Miller

I had a thought regarding your thread title. Music theory is not absolute. 

I dont believe so, anyway. I think a mistake many students make is to think of music theory like it is like science or maybe mathematical axioms. It really isn't. Anytime I speak about functional harmony, I have to talk as if chords, scales, keys and all that are absolutes, but they aren't. Most theoretical treatises start with the overtone series and the derivation of the major scale. If you read close and paid any attention in high school math class you can see that harmony is at best loosely related to the natural world. Hardly the foundation you would find in any science or math treatise.

And then after we derive our scale carefully from the overtones of our natural world, we hack it up with equal temperament!

And then to top it off, after you spend years learning all the rules of functional harmony you look at the 20th century and everything gets upended

No, functional harmony is more of a study of common practice in the 18th and 19th centuries than it is any sort of absolute like the laws of physics. But if you are going to play chords built in 3rds, its worth knowing at least a little something about it.

I used to play with an old bebop piano player, and sometimes after a really hot number he would tell the crowd "Everybody who heard that tune got 10 years added to their life!"

what he meant was that if you understood what he just did, he saved you 10 years of searching on your own.

that is what I'm trying to convey about learning some theory. You might find some answers that might take years to find on your own


----------



## Luchesi

Equal tempering hacks away at the series? Maybe hack is the wrong word. 

OTOH, humans don't 'need' the natural and sharp elevenths/flat thirteenths (which result in being the notes most tampered with) for references.


----------



## Nate Miller

yea, maybe not "hack" but I was thinking of Rameau's treatise with all the ratios and all and then we go and flat the 5th a bit and raise the major third a bit....but my real point is that music theory isn't really that rooted in nature. Whenever I teach somebody something like what tonic and dominant is or the "nashville number" system, I always start off by saying "now I'm going to have to say alot of things as if they are gospel, but remember that the whole of the 20th century academic music is based on the premise that 'no, it's not'"


----------



## Luchesi

Nate Miller said:


> yea, maybe not "hack" but I was thinking of Rameau's treatise with all the ratios and all and then we go and flat the 5th a bit and raise the major third a bit....but my real point is that music theory isn't really that rooted in nature. Whenever I teach somebody something like what tonic and dominant is or the "nashville number" system, I always start off by saying "now I'm going to have to say alot of things as if they are gospel, but remember that the whole of the 20th century academic music is based on the premise that 'no, it's not'"


That's true, at the acoustic level, but the first 4 intervals (the 5th is problem for our brains) come from the smallest integers we have everyday experience with. Those are the primal sign posts that our brain centers relate so well to. In all the arts. 
We're robots reacting to integer patterns. 'Not really, just joking..


----------

