# Theoretical intuition in the modern age



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

My thoughts on this are somewhat ill-formed, so I beg the reader's indulgence if nothing I say here makes any sense. 

As far as I know, when students learn music theory, it is still heavily based on what was done in the 18th and 19th centuries. Much of what popular musicians do is probably also based on that, including pop musicians who cannot read music and have little formal understanding of theory. (The Beatles come to mind). 

So perhaps we all have a sort of intuitive sense of "proper" harmony, and western music theory is just a formal description of it. This may be then why many listeners at least initially find 20th century classical music to be rather startling, and some never warm to it.

I became interested in it in my teens and never looked back, but it had an interesting side effect. Or at least, I think it did, which was this: I cannot make head or tail of music theory. I once saw an advertisement online in which a guy promised to teach people how to properly harmonize melodies, and to illustrate his point, he had same melody harmonized by an untrained person, and then by himself, using his superior knowledge. Presumably he assumed that prospective listeners would immediately hear the superiority of his version, but I for one couldn't for the life of me work out why he thought his way of doing it was any better than that of the untrained person. 

I have not studied much theory, but on occasion tried to improve my ear a bit, and found it a long battle, and completely counter-intuitive, to learn the traditional steps of the major and minor scales. 

Now I wonder whether I am perhaps just a bit tone deaf, or whether my ears got so used to music not written in pre-19th century idiom that traditional music theory no longer makes the intuitive sense it did a century or two ago. 

I don't know if any of the above makes sense or whether anyone else has had a similar experience. I'd be interested in seeing some comments...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

*Theory is no set of rules, but an aggregate number of premises which have changed era by era, of how composers made certain musical devices / harmonies / structures work.*

What you have described as the general parameter is the most common to the average listener:
From the already very tonal Baroque, with the limit on the other end still rather common practice usage as expanded into the early 20th century, through the romantics, late romantics, and a few conservative moderns ala Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, Copland, Vaughan Williams, etc.

That mindset also falls under another category: Semiotic. 
An idea or concept seems to be commonly held and agreed upon -- seems universal -- to the general population. That idea is so embedded and habitual it seems to be a native reflex, to the degree where many might believe there is something natural or organic about the idea, concept or condition.

But conditioned it is, as you have stated. That general parameter of tonal music from Baroque through early 20th century *It is a thing of habituation only, not any sort of natural order or organic law.* Seen that way, the constructs of the idea are no longer natural, or organic, or the one truth, but are actual constructs, yet again a cumulative set of generally agreed upon conceits.

I do believe that most of the greatest composers across the eras, once in command, rarely thought of theory at all when they were writing, any more than an artist any longer thinks of color theory or the variance of brush strokes they had to practice to execute various textures or effects. Craftsman reaches for the right tool, uses the apt technique, for the situation, without thinking technically about either tool or gesture.

I doubt if there is anything wrong with your ears, other than the lack of a decently laid out pedagogic series of exercises to train them well. Ditto your not understanding theory…

*Theory can be, often enough is, DREADFULLY TAUGHT. Books, no matter how well written and laid out, can sometimes bring no understanding, while the reader sort of gets it, like numbers, but from the outside, never getting 'in' to the how and why of it.*

When studying, say, common practice Bach-style chorales, one must stay within the parameters of that era, accustom the ears to the customs of those times, and then you can begin to see a sense, temporal, of an era. Coming from the present, it is easy to see why any of us might think chord a works as well as chord b in a certain place, because we are also used to Debussy, Jazz, where contrary to common practice theory and usage, chords no longer have such set functions as they were thought to have in the common practice period.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Theory can be, often enough is, DREADFULLY TAUGHT. Books, no matter how well written and laid out, can sometimes bring no understanding, while the reader sort of gets it, like numbers, but from the outside, never getting 'in' to the how and why of it.


Adding to this. I have seen certain tendency to consider music theory as an analog to a scientific theory, particularly CPT. Like some kind of rules that music _must_ obey in the same sense in which two bodies attracted by gravitation obey Newton's law of gravitation.
I find that thought as utterly wrong and naive. Things like, e.g., CPT are, as you say, descriptive systems of how composers made certain musical devices / harmonies / structures work.
I think people who do this have a very misleading idea of what art is. 
You simply can't impose an "universal" system of thought, in any art, and criticize others for not using it!. And of course, this is not the same as saying that art is a completely random and chaotic thing. 
And, I think, that's one of the most valuable things of art, and that's the reason why it's the optimal place for the imagination.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

My impression, especially WRT to CPT, is that composers of yore were supposed to master "the rules," which were well-defined enough post-Fux that exercises could either be right or wrong. For example, there are plenty of extant examples of Beethoven's exercises corrected by Haydn, by Albrechtsberger, and by Salieri. Ludwig was impatient but buckled down for a very long time to get it all right.

Of course, after "graduation" composers were free to do whatever they could get away with.

Not sure if any of this is relevant today.


----------



## Marisol (May 25, 2013)

brianvds said:


> So perhaps we all have a sort of intuitive sense of "proper" harmony, and western music theory is just a formal description of it.


I think that is the case, Western classical music is built exclusively from octaves, fifths and thirds. Sevenths exist as blue notes and some Eastern music has sevenths and ninths, but beyond sevenths it becomes more difficult, for the untrained ear a ninth can be easily mistaken for a close fifth or third. And of course with equal temperament everything is really out of tune.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2013)

Bach would have failed, then.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> My impression, especially WRT to CPT, is that composers of yore were supposed to master "the rules," which were dell-defined enough post-Fux that exercises could either be right or wrong. For example, there are plenty of extant examples of Beethoven's exercises corrected by Haydn, by Albrechtsberger, and by Salieri. Ludwig was impatient but buckled down for a very long time to get it all right.
> 
> Of course, after "graduation" composers were free to do whatever they could get away with.
> 
> Not sure if any of this is relevant today.


Completely: I go to a favorite Stravinsky quote: "Academic writing is perfectly legitimate within the confines of academia."

They are only "rules" when being studied to make sure you get the working premise within the confines of its era... far too many take that far outside the realm of the classroom well after having departed campus altogether.

Too, for all those Fuxian "rules," you can bet your bippie that the composer's works from which those rules were extracted, well, there will be "Exceptions" to those rules within any number of the same composer's works -- which also "work." Ditto for all the common era guys, too.

The mistake about "rules" and getting a right or wrong answer, is that it is often framed in a highly reductive manner, leading many to believe, like when most of us first studying a romance language thought, for about the first year, that the majority of the verbs, other word forms, were _regular_, LOL.

Study one or more years after year one, learn the majority is _irregular_.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Marisol said:


> I think that is the case, Western classical music is built exclusively from octaves, fifths and thirds. Sevenths exist as blue notes and some Eastern music has sevenths and ninths, but beyond sevenths it becomes more difficult, for the untrained ear a ninth can be easily mistaken for a close fifth or third. And of course with equal temperament everything is really out of tune.


I can not even begin to express the degree of misunderstood and wrongly conceived notions -- based upon the tiniest bit of fact -- that are in the above...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> Bach would have failed, then.


a-Yep, and Buxtehude, Guillaume de Machaut, Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Schubert, ad infinitum.

ALL. All failed


----------



## Marisol (May 25, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I can not even begin to express the degree of misunderstood and wrongly conceived notions -- based upon the tiniest bit of fact -- that are in the above...


Feel free to explain what you think is wrong.

In pure intonation we have:

C - D = a fifth above a fifth
C - E = a third
C - F = (a fourth) a fifth below
C - G = a fifth
C - A = a third above a fifth below
C - B = a third above a fifth
C - C = an octave

If you want I can write down the intervals for Db, Eb, Gb, Ab and Bb as well, they also are thirds and fifths.

For a Pythagorean tuning we have only stacked fifths, e.g. C - G - D - A - E - B - F# etc

As you can see everything is built on octaves, fifths and thirds, just what I said.

Most other tunings are compromises to make the essential fifths and thirds as pure as possible.
And in equal temperament everything is averaged out but out of tune.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Marisol said:


> Feel free to explain what you think is wrong.
> 
> In pure intonation we have:
> 
> ...


All that, and that hard core definition of tonality -- after the fact of the 17th century etc. and thousands of works in differing degrees of tonality so far extended from that prime as to no longer be recognizable, as theoretically thought of at and in that one tiny time slot, plus the fare, gets your position on the bus.

Already by the Renaissance, that data was nearly irrelevant, not thought about, not very much part of the academic canon, at least not past harmony 101, and the tuning, ahhhh, the numbers... the cosmic truth of them, LOL -- not even thought about or a concern of the day.

This fundamental list of musical tenets are simply more than rather unimportant, a virtual non sequitur, a tiny and non-affecting factoid.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

^^^ (to post *10) Oh, no!. I don't think this forum will resist another MR.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Oh, go on, lets have a billion rainbows, it'll be fun! 

I come from a different background to the OP - folk, early and church music and Baroque. That throws up problems for "harmonisation".

Pythagorean tuning is fun but don't forget your Phrygian cadences built around sixths. Pythagorean only "works" for octets not hexachords or pentatonic scales. And what about tetrachords?

Don't forget some of the (mad) early keyboard instruments built with multi keyboards to do different styles of tuning.

Most of my "harmonisation" is for folk. When you get a modal tune, you need to really listen to the tune to see how "modal" it is and then to choose the harmonies. You do tend to use sevenths because of the way the intervals work and to avoid a major or minor feel.

When you look at early music (pre 1500), then you can see a whole range of preferred harmonies.

Harmony is partly a cultural artefact based on the sorts of tunes people prefer and the things composers can do with them. The whole development of musica ficta and working outside the (Guidonian) hand leading in to chromaticism shows that there is nothing new under the sun.

So to answer the OP, no you're not "tone deaf", you're just listening to different music with different demands and different ideas of what makes up harmony. Nothing wrong with that either! Just be aware that "harmony" depends on what we perceive as consonant (or dissonant). Some people avoided tritones others encouraged them. Parallel fifths, empty fourths anathema to some, fun to others.

It's a bit like Godel and parallel lines - there is nothing to "prove" the Euclidean axiom about parallel lines, it does provide a consistent geometry but we can have other versions of the axiom each of which can also provide a consistent (but different) geometry. There is nothing provable about common practice tonality, it does provide a consistent theory of harmony. There are other systems each of which can also provide a consistent (but different) theory of harmony. Once you're used to one system, it takes time to adjust to another.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Well, now I have a lot to think about. 

At the moment, I don't really have time to study music theory anyway. And I must confess, the little bits I have read about it struck me as boring in the extreme, although there is also something enticing to the notion of being able to analyze music from a theoretical point of view. When more informed members here start making lots of long posts about how composer X went from this cadence to that chord and then easily but startlingly modulated to an unexpected C# in the Dorian mode, I am both fascinated and at the same time find my eyes glazing over. Very weird.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2013)

Interesting how "music theory" means "harmonization" to most people.

I don't know why that is. But even Berlioz thought that rhythm had been very poorly taught in school, and one of his unfinished projects was to do a book on rhythm along the lines of his treatise on instrumentation.

Well, at least we have _Benvenuto Cellini,_ in which he tried out a lot of his ideas about rhythm. Well, we _have_ it, but mostly we don't listen to it. The most astonishing and progressive opera of the 19th century according to me.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

some guy said:


> Interesting how "music theory" means "harmonization" to most people.
> 
> I don't know why that is.


Good point!

Basically, because most people doing theory are thinking about harmonising or orchestrating a melody or alternately are writing a melody to accompany verse. That means that the rhythm is (more or less) taken for granted.

Within accompaniment, you may think about rhythm but (usually) only as a way of managing harmonic changes where you wouldn't otherwise have enough space under the melody.

It's only when you actually compose new music that you have to think about rhythm in any depth and that's composition and fugue writing and not "theory".

Really, it's two sides of the same coin.

The other thing is that rhythm is also part of the performance side of things rather than the pure theory and writing part - the whole thing about syncopation and getting odd rhythms going with different hands.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

I noticed the same thing with rhythm as I did with harmony. In my youth, I sometimes dabbled in composition (I am more responsible now, and too old for inspiration anyway). For the most part, my style was pretty much what most amateur composers do: pseudo-Mozart. But I noticed an odd thing: unlike Mozart, I simply could not keep a piece in a same rhythm throughout, and for passages here and there, I could in fact not work out what exactly the time signature should be at all. I suspect that is what comes of listening too much to the Rite of Spring.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

What music majors are required to study....

To first give a frame of reference from then to now: 
Mozart was taught theory and comp at home first. Most importantly, _it was only the theory of his own time that he "studied."_. Later, in his mid-teens, he studied modal counterpoint (he only learned of Bach in his late twenties, proportionately very late in his brief life.)

Study of theory in music schools covers past theory but very much includes later modern theory and theory and pracitce of the present.

Presently, in formal training, theory requirements include: 
modal counterpoint 
baroque counterpoint 
common practice Classical and Romantic theory
modern and contemporary theory
orchestration 
electronic music 
...and all the attendant literature -- as the complete _basic parcel_ of what a student is expected to study through undergraduate level. I.e. There is that much _(much)_ more.

Formal undergraduate training covers theory from the earlier renaissance, a bit -- supplemented a little more by the required music history course covering the same period, the most concrete immersion the modal counterpoint requirement -- then a solid bloc of common practice from baroque through late romantic: the last semesters in undergrad have a fair in-depth survey of modern and contemporary theory and techniques.

The further in-depth study of modern / contemporary theory, is found in grad school, some required of all graduate music majors, a maximum required for comp and theory majors, of course.


----------



## stanchinsky (Nov 19, 2012)

aleazk said:


> I have seen certain tendency to consider music theory as an analog to a scientific theory, particularly CPT. Like some kind of rules that music _must_ obey in the same sense in which two bodies attracted by gravitation obey Newton's law of gravitation.
> I find that thought as utterly wrong and naive. Things like, e.g., CPT are, as you say, descriptive systems of how composers made certain musical devices / harmonies / structures work.
> I think people who do this have a very misleading idea of what art is.
> You simply can't impose an "universal" system of thought, in any art, and criticize others for not using it!. And of course, this is not the same as saying that art is a completely random and chaotic thing.
> And, I think, that's one of the most valuable things of art, and that's the reason why it's the optimal place for the imagination.


This is very true, I think however there could be sound reasons for teaching counterpoint and voice leading as 'fact' (although perhaps without instilling fear into students of the dreaded parallel fifths and octaves, and being overtly dogmatic).


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> I do believe that most of the greatest composers across the eras, once in command, rarely thought of theory at all when they were writing,...


No but what they did do and still do is analyse the the practices of their predecessors or elder contemporaries.
Without a good grasp of theory it is not possible to understand what governed the compositional choices of the past masters.
*Music theory is important for composers and performers but not for listeners.*
Even those who write or perform in music of an aural tradition such as popular and folk, are listening _analytically_ to their predecessors or elder contemporaries. Each new generation of composer assimilates, understands and rejects or develops those aspects of past practice as suits it's needs. You cannot know if a technique is useful to you until you have a working knowledge of it and if the music is written down that means studying the score. To study the score you need to be musically literate.

Even an electronic musician will have studied the theory that is pertinent to them. Why put low frequency high energy sounds in the centre of a mix? How much and what type early reflection reverb will create what type of space?

There is no need to follow any rules but it is important to understand _why_ things were done in a particular way if you want to be in _command of your material_.


----------



## Marisol (May 25, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I can not even begin to express the degree of misunderstood and wrongly conceived notions -- based upon the tiniest bit of fact -- that are in the above...


Why do you refuse to backup your accusations about my alleged misunderstandings and misconceptions?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brianvds said:


> ...So perhaps we all have a sort of intuitive sense of "proper" harmony, and western music theory is just a formal description of it.


We do! You're absolutely right! Our ears hear harmonically, so it's a completely visceral reaction to "dissonance yield." It all goes back to hearing "the big note!" That's right! _All music is based on just hearing one note!_



brianvds said:


> This may be then why many listeners at least initially find 20th century classical music to be rather startling, and some never warm to it.


This is absolutely correct! If it's "non-harmonic" atonal 20th century music, and based on ordered tone rows, it's not structured harmonically! Atonal music is not designed with our ears in mind!

But take heart, and remember, tonality goes by degrees, just like a swimming pool. _If the music is still harmonic,_ but getting more chromatic, it's like learning how to swim. Just keep paddling, and don't go too far into the deep end untill you're ready! Pretty soon, you'll be "referring to tonics" you previously never would have heard!

Then before you know it, you'll be enjoying Stravinsky, Bartók, early-to-middle Schoenberg, Hanson, Persichetti, Debussy, and so many more fantastic composers! Just float on your back and let the music wash over you!



brianvds said:


> Now I wonder whether I am perhaps just a bit tone deaf, or whether my ears got so used to music not written in pre-19th century idiom that traditional music theory no longer makes the intuitive sense it did a century or two ago.


You're OK! Don't worry! I wonder, too. What is Taggart talking about, with those Friggian cadences? What is that? They're thinking too much! They should simply "turn off" their brains, and lie back and enjoy the pure sensuality of sound!

You're OK, I'm OK; we know what sounds good! And we don't need no stodgy old professor to strut in and fill our minds with all this intellectual gobbledygook!


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Then before you know it, you'll be enjoying Stravinsky, Bartók, early-to-middle Schoenberg, Hanson, Persichetti, Debussy, and so many more fantastic composers! Just float on your back and let the music wash over you!


I already enjoy much of that, actually. But that was partly my point: I seem to have more trouble with CP theory. 



> You're OK! Don't worry! I wonder, too. What is Taggart talking about, with those Friggian cadences? What is that? They're thinking too much! They should simply "turn off" their brains, and lie back and enjoy the pure sensuality of sound!
> You're OK, I'm OK; we know what sounds good! And we don't need no stodgy old professor to strut in and fill our minds with all this intellectual gobbledygook!


Seems to me though that all the great musicians and composers are/were fluent in the gobbledygook.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

brianvds said:


> Seems to me though that all the great musicians and composers are/were fluent in the gobbledygook.


Makes this guy better than Bach






PS I agree totally with everything he is saying.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brianvds said:


> I already enjoy much of that, actually. But that was partly my point: I seem to have more trouble with CP theory.


That's what I'm saying, as well; just forget all the theory, raise your right hand, and accept the creed that "tonality is heard as loyalty to a tonic," and you'll do fine.



brianvds said:


> Seems to me though that all the great musicians and composers are/were fluent in the gobbledygook.


Just leave all that stuff to the experts. You don't have to understand a car to drive it, so just drive it and enjoy!


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Just leave all that stuff to the experts. You don't have to understand a car to drive it, so just drive it and enjoy!


My life is bedeviled by my insatiable curiosity...


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

brianvds said:


> My life is bedeviled by my insatiable curiosity...


Beware. Remember what happened to the elephant's child...


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> They should simply "turn off" their brains, and lie back and enjoy the pure sensuality of sound!
> 
> You're OK, I'm OK; we know what sounds good! And we don't need no stodgy old professor to strut in and fill our minds with all this intellectual gobbledygook!


Sounds like you've been down itchycoo park!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Music Theory is a Tool*



Petwhac said:


> *Music theory is important for composers and performers but not for listeners.*


I tried to make this point in another thread. See:

http://www.talkclassical.com/25396-those-who-have-done.html#post457346


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> I tried to make this point in another thread.


I'm saying that hearing tonality takes no theory; just lots of listening. The more chromatic it is, the harder it gets, but it comes with experience.

On the other hand, how would music theory do you any good listening to most John Cage or most Ligeti? It doesn't matter in those cases.

If listening to Corelli, knowing CP theory makes it fun, fun, fun! Identifying roots, dominants, hearing diminished transitions, chord inversions...a real blast.

But to hear the tonic? No experience required, except in extreme cases. Listen to lots of Ravi Shankar, like I did.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

New thread idea:

*"Do I need to know music theory in order to listen to electronic music?" *:lol:


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2013)

That reminds me, did we ever talk about when we started listening to music?

That beginning must have always and in every case predated any study of theory.

And our enjoyment? That must be quite a different thing from knowledge of keys and modulation. (I only learned the word modulation so I could talk easily about what it was about Schubert that I enjoyed so much. And even then, "modulation" didn't really capture Schubert's magic for me.)


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> That reminds me, did we ever talk about when we started listening to music?
> 
> That beginning must have always and in every case predated any study of theory.
> 
> And our enjoyment? That must be quite a different thing from knowledge of keys and modulation. (I only learned the word modulation so I could talk easily about what it was about Schubert that I enjoyed so much. And even then, "modulation" didn't really capture Schubert's magic for me.)


Quite. I loved music before I could add up or even read properly so knowledge of theory is certainly not needed for full enjoyment. 
However, when we know what a composer is actually doing in a composition, even the stuff we may not notice aurally, it can enhance our appreciation of their art. But of course listening and enjoying is what counts in the end.
I remember when I was at school and studying 'O' level music (old UK exams for 15/16 year olds). I had the Brahms Piano Quintet as a set work. One day a friend of mine, a non-musician but music lover followed my finger through the score as we listened to the last movement. I gave a little commentary as we listened, saying things like " here he's turned the motif upside down and here it's the right way up but in harmony" etc. My friend was beside himself with joy and awe at the sudden realisation of the intricate workings of Brahms mind became an immediate fan. Mind you he dug the sound it made anyway.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianvds said:


> My life is bedeviled by my insatiable curiosity...


Just be sure to remind yourself, often, that taking the engine apart, revving it up in the garage, etc. are Not taking yourself for a ride, a spin, an excursion. Lab detail fascination is not the ride, nor should it be if you are designing both the route and the landscape.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Hey! Y'all quit putting-down theory, and pass the biscuits!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Just be sure to remind yourself, often, that taking the engine apart, revving it up in the garage, etc. are Not taking yourself for a ride, a spin, an excursion. Lab detail fascination is not the ride, nor should it be if you are designing both the route and the landscape.


Some people are quite happy rebuilding engines and old cars; for them the ride is secondary. That's fine.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The same intelligence is applied when listening; all theory does is teach you the terms for it all, so you can then communicate with other people who don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Just be sure to remind yourself, often, that taking the engine apart, revving it up in the garage, etc. are Not taking yourself for a ride, a spin, an excursion. Lab detail fascination is not the ride, nor should it be if you are designing both the route and the landscape.


Yeah, that takes all the fun out of "the excursion:" finding a gig, hauling equipment, road trips, trying to get paid, etc.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> The same intelligence is applied when listening; all theory does is teach you the terms for it all, so you can then communicate with other people who don't know what you're talking about.


I wonder if this is really entirely true though. I once listened to Bach's concerto for two violins, while trying to follow the score. I have no idea at all of music theory, but even this humble exercise helped me to notice things that I had never noticed before, and I became much more aware of Bach's intricate writing. I suspect that had I known any theory, I would notice even more, and I don't think noticing the technical detail will necessarily detract from the visceral enjoyment.

Alas, I don't see it happening any time soon. Perhaps one day when I'm retired? Except I have no intention of retiring at all.

As I have noted before, it seems to me that there is relatively little point in trying to learn theory without also developing one's ear; you have to be able to hear in your mind what you read on the page. And I cannot work out how to learn to read even the simplest of melodies, let alone a Bach concerto. It is actually kind of strange, because I have no trouble recognizing or singing intervals, but I somehow struggle to recognize them on a score, and even worse, within a measure or two I forget which tone I chose as my tonic, and then all is lost.

Perhaps this kind of problem can be solved by practice, but it seems to me it will require hours of daily practice, for many years on end. Alas, I just don't have the time.


----------



## Marisol (May 25, 2013)

Knowledge is a good thing, how anybody can be against acquiring knowledge is beyond me.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Marisol said:


> Knowledge is a good thing, how anybody can be against acquiring knowledge is beyond me.


I think in the arts there is some concern, among some individuals, that knowledge may in some way "contaminate" someone's unique vision, or that a lot of theoretical study will lead to society producing an army of second rate Beethovens (or Stravinskys or whatever) when it might have produced more uniquely original composers.

I don't know if this idea has any merit whatever, and I am not at all clear on how we can even find out either.

Composers without theoretical knowledge are mostly active in pop and folk music; if they had made an intensive study of theory, would they have become bad classical composers instead of good or great pop musicians? What kind of music would Lennon and McCartney have composed, had they lived through different personal histories, perhaps starting their careers as trebles in a classical boys choir, and then moved on to study music at a conservatoire?

What kind of music would some of our contemporary classical composers have produced, had they started their careers in a garage band and never learned formal theory?

I think it is actually pretty difficult to say.

It seems to me clear that without advanced theory, classical music would not exist - I cannot think of a single classical composer of any note (no pun intended) who had no knowledge of theory, or who could not read and audiate a score, or who could not write down what he imagined without first having to work it out on some instrument. I am also not aware of anyone who does have these kind of skills who did not study theory in order to acquire and develop them.

But perhaps I am wrong on this? I would be most curious to know.


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

brianvds said:


> And I cannot work out how to learn to read even the simplest of melodies, let alone a Bach concerto. It is actually kind of strange, because I have no trouble recognizing or singing intervals, but I somehow struggle to recognize them on a score, and even worse, within a measure or two I forget which tone I chose as my tonic, and then all is lost.


It's not strange at all, the act of hearing the distance between two notes in isolation is a useful skill in dissecting music without a tonal center, but in music with a tonal center it's just unwieldy. Sight-singing simple tonal melodies isn't hard at all and would definitely not take years of practice, if you can sing 'Do Re Mi' you're already pretty much there. The hard part is reading multiple voices at once and then putting them all together in your head. That is a serious headache.



> It seems to me clear that without advanced theory, classical music would not exist.


Nope, other way around, without classical music, music theorists would have nothing to describe. Theory usually lags behind contemporary practice, witness the near total absence of systematic writing about sonata form in the late 18th/early 19th centuries.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Yardrax said:


> It's not strange at all, the act of hearing the distance between two notes in isolation is a useful skill in dissecting music without a tonal center, but in music with a tonal center it's just unwieldy. Sight-singing simple tonal melodies isn't hard at all and would definitely not take years of practice, if you can sing 'Do Re Mi' you're already pretty much there.


How does this differ from recognizing intervals? I have heard talk of solfege, but I can't work out how this differs from recognizing intervals (and according to Wiki's article on it, it takes full time music students several years to master it). It seems to me that the only way I can sing, say, "fa", is for me to know what distance it is from do, and which note I chose as do in the first place.



> Nope, other way around, without classical music, music theorists would have nothing to describe. Theory usually lags behind contemporary practice, witness the near total absence of systematic writing about sonata form in the late 18th/early 19th centuries.


It depends perhaps what exactly we mean by theory. Yes, composers (at least the great ones) greatly advance the theoretical possibilities, but surely they are first taught existing theory? Mozart studied for many years under his father; what is it that he learned? Surely the existing theory of his day? Would he still have been Mozart if he hadn't studied any of it?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

brianvds said:


> Mozart studied for many years under his father; what is it that he learned? Surely the existing theory of his day? Would he still have been Mozart if he hadn't studied any of it?


I believe most of what Mozart studied with Papa was counterpoint (from Fux) and voice-leading. These are both rather technical and in those days were keys to becoming a proficient composer. Beyond that, Mozart was expected to study the better works of other composers to pick up what he could. Other than that, whether he was a "good composer" or not was largely dependent on his innate talent and efforts.

Is it really different today?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Eric Whitacre*



brianvds said:


> What kind of music would some of our contemporary classical composers have produced, had they started their careers in a garage band and never learned formal theory?


Actually there is a very successful classical composer who started out as a garage band musician when he was in high school: Eric Whitacre.

When he entered the University of Nevada Las Vegas as a music major he could not read music. He joined the university chorus in order to meet girls. The first work he performed was the _Mozart Requiem_. The experience blew him away and the rest is history.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> Actually there is a very successful classical composer who started out as a garage band musician when he was in high school: Eric Whitacre.
> 
> When he entered the University of Nevada Las Vegas as a music major he could not read music. He joined the university chorus in order to meet girls. The first work he performed was the _Mozart Requiem_. The experience blew him away and the rest is history.


I am going to guess though, that he did not become a classical composer until he had acquired a thorough grounding in music theory. 

I do hope he did manage to meet some girls too...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I don't understand how knowing theory could interfere with comprehension, especially when knowledge becomes so ingrained that it becomes instant, intuitive, and below the level of conscious thought, like driving a car or playing an instrument well. Similarly, knowing about female anatomy should not be a deterrent to sex; ask any doctor.

Here's an example of what you can uncover when you have some knowledge of triads and intervals (pretty basic stuff).

In listening to Anton Webern (1883-1945): Concerto for Flute, oboe, clarinet, horn, trumpet, trombon, piano, violin and viola, Op.24 (1934): In three movements. Prosaic sounding, even quaint. These "Model-T" melodies of Webern are just what they seem: horizontal statements, probably of the row (ya think?). Any vertical or harmonic elements appear as isolated triads or dyads. No harmony is created as the result of intersecting lines, that I can hear.

I notice that in the first movement, I hear a lot of tritones and minor thirds/major sixths. (I can hear inversions of intervals). I hear snatches of a dominant sharp-nine chord in places (this from my jazz studies, and it's the "Hendrix" chord). So, here, Webern is exploiting possibilities of "diminished" sounds. Fourths rarely appear, just towards the end. The triads and chords which are played mainly by the piano or horns, are diminished-sounding, and a strange minor-ish chord reappears (a minor-add major seventh chord usually only heard in jazz). This "chord" is heard as a "burst" at the very end.

The second movement is a series of major/minor sixths. Major thirds begin appearing in the piano, more consonant than minor thirds used above. The result is more soothing. Dissonances are very wide, appearing as minor ninths and major sevenths (inversions of a minor second). These are static-sounding intervals. In jazz, major sevenths function as I chords, which creates a sense of static repose. This wide spacing helps smooth them out.

The third movement is faster, more lively. I notice immediately more fourths (inversion of the fifth). These intervals lend a sense of movement and momentum, aided by the faster tempo. I hear several minor sevenths (flat-7, used in dominant V7 chords)

So I can at least have a "rough outline" of what I think Webern is trying to do in this work, which is create different sonorous areas of contrast:

1.) minor thirds/tritones (diminished); expository, allegro.

2.) major thirds, widely spaced dissonance (sense of repose, spaciousness, static repose, introspection), slower tempo contrast.

3.) fourths (sense of outward (from the octave) or forward momentum; minor sevenths (flat-sevens) which also contribute to a restless "unresolved" sound. Faster tempo, finale (fast-slow-fast sonata form).

So after analyzing this Webern piece in this way, I can now go back with this info in the back of my mind, and just listen, appreciating and savoring the piece in a new, deeper way.

This is not to say that one could not hear this music totally intuitively already, but you would be unable to "articulate" in your own mind the more exact nature of your impressions.

Another post mentioned that regular theory was not useful in modern music, but this knowledge of intervals can be applied almost anywhere. There are certain instances, IMHO, where theory will not do much good, as in electronic music, percussion or non-pitched music, aleatoric music (later Cage), or textured music such as some Ligeti, but even here, a knowledge of intervals doesn't hurt. But like all music, it can be approached totally intuitively.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yardrax said:


> It's not strange at all, the act of hearing the distance between two notes in isolation is a useful skill in dissecting music without a tonal center, but in music with a tonal center it's just unwieldy.


I disagree, as my analysis of Webern in terms of sonority (consonance/dissonance) demonstrates. Intervals can be seen in terms of their "stand-alone" consonance/dissonance, not just in terms of relation to a tonic.



Yardrax said:


> Nope, other way around, without classical music, music theorists would have nothing to describe. Theory usually lags behind contemporary practice, witness the near total absence of systematic writing about sonata form in the late 18th/early 19th centuries.


You seem to be referring to "common practices" more than "naked theory" to me. Once a _broad working knowledge_ of tonality and theory is grasped, it can be applied almost anywhere. Notice my emphasis on "broad."

Theory must be based on general underlying principles, and not be shackled to certain historical periods or practices. That's why I encourage the study of jazz theory.

In contrast to "without music, music theorists would have nothing to describe," this is largely true, but often times musicians (like Thelonious Monk) create music intuitively, and themselves cannot "explain" the underlying principles behind their creations. Theory is a tremendous advantage in "continuing the models" of creation, or creating new "genetic variants" of a musical idea. It helps improvisors make "road maps" of improvisation, and can greatly aid the creative process.

It's best to use "both sides" of your brain.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

The study of music theory is always a post-mortem process. In earlier days composers would often copy out an entire work of another composer that they admired in order to discover how certain effects were achieved, this should still be practiced in my opinion. Also, I think voice-leading (counterpoint) is the most neglected aspect in the study of music composition today (e.g Beethoven/Fux). All harmony evolved as a result of converging lines - Augmented 6th chords are linear, for instance. There was intuition in the process, an intuition in the ear that recognized the octave, the 4th below and the 5th above and for tonal music it still holds - everything that is not the fundamental tone (tonic) is dissonant. A perfect example of the brilliance of voice leading that yields a beautiful harmony is the _et incarnatus est_ from the _Credo_ of Josquin's _Missa Pange Lingua_. edit: all in my humble opinion, naturally.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

NightHawk said:


> ... A perfect example of the brilliance of voice leading that yields a beautiful harmony is the _et incarnatus est_ from the _Credo_ of Josquin's _Missa Pange Lingua_. edit: all in my humble opinion, naturally.


Quite agree. Interesting, this refers to another thread because it was a paraphrase mass based on the _Pange Lingua_ chant in the Phrygian mode. The Kyrie gets attention from Fux (and others) because of its fugal treatment of the theme.

The _et incarnatus est_ is also a lovely piece of modal harmony.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

NightHawk said:


> The study of music theory is always a post-mortem process. In earlier days composers would often copy out an entire work of another composer that they admired in order to discover how certain effects were achieved, this should still be practiced in my opinion.


Or perhaps do what Bach did and make transcriptions for other instruments. If one just copies, one might not pay as much attention to the actual music.



> Also, I think voice-leading (counterpoint) is the most neglected aspect in the study of music composition today (e.g Beethoven/Fux).


As I noted before, I cannot even read single melodic lines; I don't think I'll do well trying to read an audiate multiple ones. 

But of course, I am not a music student. I would agree that a study of counterpoint would be a good idea for students, even ones who end up not composing primarily contrapuntal music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

NightHawk said:


> The study of music theory is always a post-mortem process. .


Naah, not for jazz players, or like Bach and Beethoven, who could improvise as well. I really think they knew theoretically what they were doing at all times. What you guys are talking about is theory "rules" for writing textbooks. The theory I refer to is tied-into the creative process.

Schoenberg would pose a problem, and get a student to do all the possible solutions (like your "writing-out" example), then would ask, "What is the underlying principle behind all these solutions?"

I think "post-mortem" as a descriptor for common practice tonality theory is ironically appropriate. :lol:


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Naah, not for jazz players, or like Bach and Beethoven, who could improvise as well. I really think they knew theoretically what they were doing at all times. What you guys are talking about is theory "rules" for writing textbooks. The theory I refer to is tied-into the creative process.


Perhaps theory is only a post-mortem process if you analyze a piece to death. 

As far as I know, a sound knowledge of theory is indeed pretty much essential for musicians who improvise a lot, as was standard practice before the 20th century. I would guess that the kind of knowledge required for that is not particularly deep or profound, but it does require the musician to be absolutely fluent in it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brianvds said:


> As far as I know, a sound knowledge of theory is indeed pretty much essential for musicians who improvise a lot, as was standard practice before the 20th century. I would guess that the kind of knowledge required for that is not particularly deep or profound, but it does require the musician to be absolutely fluent in it.


"Not particularly deep or profound" compared to what? A paraphrase mass based on the Pange Lingua chant in the Phrygian mode?


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> "Not particularly deep or profound" compared to what? A paraphrase mass based on the Pange Lingua chant in the Phrygian mode?


Something like that, perhaps. 
What I mean is that for successful improvisation, a composer presumably does not need a masters degree in music, or the kind of knowledge necessary to do an in-depth analysis of the Missa Solemnis. He does need to be very fluent though, and to be able to come up with ideas and stitch them together on the fly.

That, at least, is my guess. I spend half my time here bemoaning my own lack of theoretical knowledge, so perhaps I shouldn't hold forth on it, but then, I find that when I make bold but ignorant statements, I often get more feedback that I can learn something from than when I meekly ask questions. Classical music lovers really seem like they just love fighting. 

It occurs to me now that it also depends on what kind of improvisation we are talking about. I can spend an hour humming or whistling original and semi-original melodies and even variations on them, and to some extent I can do the same on a recorder, although with an instrument my fingers very frequently get it wrong and I end up not playing what I had in mind. I don't think this is unusual; one very often hears people whistling or humming to themselves, and probably much of it is original.

The difficulty lies in doing this on an instrument like a guitar or piano, where you not only have to ensure that your fingers play the melody you intended, but also have to harmonize on the fly. That I cannot do. Once again it is perhaps weird, because when I listen to music, I sometimes find myself spontaneously harmonizing along, and sometimes even managing bits of whistled or hummed counterpoint. But I have no idea how to translate that onto a keyboard or fret board on the fly. Presumably this is where knowledge of theory comes in?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

brianvds said:


> The difficulty lies in doing this on an instrument like a guitar or piano, where you not only have to ensure that your fingers play the melody you intended, but also have to harmonize on the fly. That I cannot do. Once again it is perhaps weird, because when I listen to music, I sometimes find myself spontaneously harmonizing along, and sometimes even managing bits of whistled or hummed counterpoint. But I have no idea how to translate that onto a keyboard or fret board on the fly. Presumably this is where knowledge of theory comes in?


Nope. That's the good old three chord (I IV V) trick. Basic harmonisation uses those three chords usually played on the main beat to match the melody note. That's the whole idea of a lead sheet. You also need some idea of cadences so you know typical chord sequeneces.

The next step is to use inversions so that you can switch easily between chords (more for piano). Then you get into more complex chords especially sevenths to do changes.

The next step, once you get the hang of things is to look at "voice leading" i.e. to consider how the notes are changing between chords so that it sounds smooth.

It's a mixture of theory and ear.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Nope. That's the good old three chord (I IV V) trick. Basic harmonisation uses those three chords usually played on the main beat to match the melody note. That's the whole idea of a lead sheet. You also need some idea of cadences so you know typical chord sequeneces.


Presumably it takes a lot of practice to learn to do all this on an instrument. For one thing, you have to know which key you are in, and which chords are the I, IV and V chords of that key. Seeing as I have nothing even approaching perfect pitch, I never have any clue of which key I am in. I also don't know how to know which of the I, IV or V chords to use; they don't all work at any point.

I suspect that many of the melodies I tend to dream up are modal; don't know if the three chord trick will work with them at all. 



> The next step is to use inversions so that you can switch easily between chords (more for piano). Then you get into more complex chords especially sevenths to do changes.
> 
> The next step, once you get the hang of things is to look at "voice leading" i.e. to consider how the notes are changing between chords so that it sounds smooth.
> 
> It's a mixture of theory and ear.


I would think that for improvisation it will indeed surely have to be a mixture of the two. Apparently, in the 19th century, whole books were written on improvisation for both guitar and keyboard instruments, as it was considered to be an essential skill for any musician. For some reason, during the 20th century this part of music education was abandoned, and I wonder why. Surely it leads to musicians with a far greater insight in music, and with greater general musicianship?

As I have mentioned, I dabble a bit in guitar; due to lack of time for practice, and general laziness, I'll never get beyond lower intermediate level, but it brings me much joy. However, I play the guitar like people use a typing machine: I mechanically play the notes I see on the score, and have no idea of why the composer chose those notes, or of the overall structure of the pieces. When it comes to memorizing pieces, I have to rely entirely on muscle memory.

With guitar, harmony is often greatly simplified because the thing has only six strings, so simple guitar pieces might actually serve as a nice introduction to theory in general, but somehow all the books on music theory that I have seen are boring in the extreme and none of what they say seems to have anything to do with actual practical music. I have been thinking of taking those simple guitar pieces and trying to make some sort of sense of them myself, but I am not sure how to go about it, or whether I will ever learn anything useful that way.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

brianvds said:


> Presumably it takes a lot of practice to learn to do all this on an instrument. For one thing, you have to know which key you are in, and which chords are the I, IV and V chords of that key. Seeing as I have nothing even approaching perfect pitch, I never have any clue of which key I am in. I also don't know how to know which of the I, IV or V chords to use; they don't all work at any point.


If you're playing something, and it ends in G and has one sharp, then it's in G major. So I starts on G (G B D), IV starts on C (C E G) and V starts on D (D F# A). That gives you all the notes of a G major scale so you can pick a note, see what chord contains it, and play that chord.

Does it sound major or minor? If it sounds major, then look for major chords based on the melody note. Keep going to see if you get a consistent set of chords and that gives you the key - same for a minor.



brianvds said:


> I suspect that many of the melodies I tend to dream up are modal; don't know if the three chord trick will work with them at all.


It works, you just need "different" chords sometime a VI or even a seventh to get the thing to sound right. It's all down to ear. You need to be able to hear if the tune is major(ish) or minor(ish) and pick an appropriate chord. If you've got a modal tune, the end mode will a) sound "right" and b) *not* match the key signature e.g. a tune that ends in E with a key sig of no sharps or flats C Major. ( I picked that because it's MR's frigian favorite!)



brianvds said:


> I would think that for improvisation it will indeed surely have to be a mixture of the two. Apparently, in the 19th century, whole books were written on improvisation for both guitar and keyboard instruments, as it was considered to be an essential skill for any musician. For some reason, during the 20th century this part of music education was abandoned, and I wonder why. Surely it leads to musicians with a far greater insight in music, and with greater general musicianship?
> 
> As I have mentioned, I dabble a bit in guitar; due to lack of time for practice, and general laziness, I'll never get beyond lower intermediate level, but it brings me much joy. However, I play the guitar like people use a typing machine: I mechanically play the notes I see on the score, and have no idea of why the composer chose those notes, or of the overall structure of the pieces. When it comes to memorizing pieces, I have to rely entirely on muscle memory.
> 
> With guitar, harmony is often greatly simplified because the thing has only six strings, so simple guitar pieces might actually serve as a nice introduction to theory in general, but somehow all the books on music theory that I have seen are boring in the extreme and none of what they say seems to have anything to do with actual practical music. I have been thinking of taking those simple guitar pieces and trying to make some sort of sense of them myself, but I am not sure how to go about it, or whether I will ever learn anything useful that way.


With guitar accompaniment, you are usually playing chords which are versions of I IV V. Look at the chord charts and the key of the piece. Do it by ear and instinct and then when you get to a (very dry) theory book you will have a sort of aha! moment when you can see what they mean. The beauty of theory is that it aids muscle memory by giving you a structure.

Above all - enjoy your music!


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Taggart said:


> If you're playing something, and it ends in G and has one sharp, then it's in G major. So I starts on G (G B D), IV starts on C (C E G) and V starts on D (D F# A). That gives you all the notes of a G major scale so you can pick a note, see what chord contains it, and play that chord.


So there is some sort of system at work. I think it will still require much practice though, perhaps more than I have time for.



> With guitar accompaniment, you are usually playing chords which are versions of I IV V. Look at some of the chord charts and the key of the piece. Do it by ear and instinct and then when you get to a (very dry) theory book you will have a sort of aha! moment when you can see what they mean.


[/quote]

Yes, perhaps it is indeed a good idea to first study "real" music before learning all manner of theory by rote without understanding where any of it fits in.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Taggart said:


> Good point!
> 
> Basically, because most people doing theory are thinking about harmonising or orchestrating a melody or alternately are writing a melody to accompany verse. That means that the rhythm is (more or less) taken for granted.
> 
> ...


Time to bring out that little matter of the difference between Rhythm and Meter.... and to contemplate, for a moment, that beyond metrics, or a rhythmic pattern or syncopation within a meter, there is another creature of rhythm which spans bar lines -- Harmonic Rhythm. That is the duration of one harmony before it shifts to another. Harmonic rhythm is most essentially important and can make or break a work with otherwise interesting writing and great 'rhythm' of its parts.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

PetrB said:


> ... Harmonic rhythm is most essentially important and can make or break a work with otherwise interesting writing and great 'rhythm' of its parts.


Don't remind me!

A lot of folk music has fairly static harmonies - maybe two changes in a 4/4 bar - so you can work along quite happily with one or two chord changes. That sort of harmonic rhythm fits the style quite nicely - think Irish Jigs or Scotch reels. Sometimes, particularly in the North East of England you get "busy" tunes where the harmonies are changing on every beat and it is quite tricky to play to so that it sounds "right". It also creates problems for getting the cadences right at the end as you switch about from chord to chord. This is pure improv rather than straight part writing.

I quite agree that Harmonic Rhythm is important but again would see it as deriving from the melody unless you mean the sort of part writing that has a chord change on every beat with lots of suspensions and so on on the half beat to make the changes work. Most people who accompany music don't want busy harmony because it's a total pain to play.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

brianvds said:


> The difficulty lies in doing this on an instrument like a guitar or piano, where you not only have to ensure that your fingers play the melody you intended, but also have to harmonize on the fly. That I cannot do. Once again it is perhaps weird, because when I listen to music, I sometimes find myself spontaneously harmonizing along, and sometimes even managing bits of whistled or hummed counterpoint. But I have no idea how to translate that onto a keyboard or fret board on the fly. Presumably this is where knowledge of theory comes in?


Guitar is down to three chord trick already mentioned. One idea for piano is to play a scale in the right hand, say C major, and then play chords in the left hand e.g.

RightLeft]CC Chord IDG Chord V EC Chord IFF chord IVGG Chord VAF chord IVBG Chord VCC Chord I

Listen to how it sounds, think how you're playing the left hand, look at how you're changing between chords. Once you've got the hang of it, throw in some different chords e.g. D minor on the D (II) or A minor on the A (VI). Add a 7th to some of the chords e.g. going from a I to a V put a 7th (B) on the I and it makes the change to V easier. Invert the chords. Get to know them.

Now pick a tune and play it in C and see if you can throw in some harmonies. As MR says, it's not about book learning it's about the musical "feel" and that's what you need to work at - scales and chords and doing "rough" harmonies to see what feels good.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Guitar is down to three chord trick already mentioned. One idea for piano is to play a scale in the right hand, say C major, and then play chords in the left hand e.g.
> 
> RightLeft]CC Chord IDG Chord V EC Chord IFF chord IVGG Chord VAF chord IVBG Chord VCC Chord I
> 
> ...


Well, I'll play around a bit and see what happens. I do note one thing, mind you: whether on guitar or piano, one has to know where all the chords are, so that if you decide to play, say, a D major chord, you can hit it without a moment's hesitation. That way, even if you get some chords wrong, you'll rapidly learn.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

brianvds said:


> Well, I'll play around a bit and see what happens. I do note one thing, mind you: whether on guitar or piano, one has to know where all the chords are, so that if you decide to play, say, a D major chord, you can hit it without a moment's hesitation. That way, even if you get some chords wrong, you'll rapidly learn.


That's the idea of the exercise, a) to get the left hand going without having to worry about the right b) to be able to listen to it and decide what's good and c) to learn how to move between chords.

Once you get into it, start looking at wiki under things like chord progressions.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

I would say that theory is not just knowing about _what_ is going on but _why_. Learning, say, all about the various different kinds of chords, harmonic resolution, contrapuntal lines etc. etc. is all just rote learning unless you look at it in context. Theory is, I believe, in this sense inseparable from musicality (not that they are the same thing, but any musical understanding is in some sense theoretical, and all good theory should be musical): it is the attempt to express our intuitive understandings.

Maybe Mozart did a surprise modulation somewhere. Maybe to III (who knows). You can say he did that, yes, but proper theory should be able to tell you what the effect of this is, and if you understand the effect of it you know the reasons (or at least some reasons) for it being there. You should be able to suggest why Mozart modulated at that precise musical moment, and to that precise key in that precise way and why he did not do something else (of course you cannot know his own personal thinking, but you can gain insight into the musical logic of the piece). If you understand the theoretical principles behind this particular move, you should then be able to generalise and gain insight into many other similar cases. Slowly we gain more and more understanding into our perceptions of sound in certain contexts, which is nothing less than a greater understanding of ourselves and our ideas of beauty.

As our understanding broadens we should develop theory for all musics. This includes being able to understand modern music (and of course early music and indeed all non-Western classical musics) better, maybe even within a single analytical framework which also includes tonal music. We are quite a way away from this though at the moment.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think "musical understanding" trumps all of it. A guy like Thelonious Monk might not be able to explain why he did something, but he knows why intuitively. In this sense, all "music theory" is just a translation, and a way to articulate and convey.
That's why, if you have a good ear, and are a good listener, you can understand the most profound musical meanings. Of course, you'll have no way of conveying this understanding, but I have great faith in your musical intelligence. If you understand some music and wish to convey this to me, just grab me by the shoulders and shake me; or simply air-conduct.
:lol:


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I think "musical understanding" trumps all of it. A guy like Thelonious Monk might not be able to explain why he did something, but he knows why intuitively. In this sense, all "music theory" is just a translation, and a way to articulate and convey.
> That's why, if you have a good ear, and are a good listener, you can understand the most profound musical meanings. Of course, you'll have no way of conveying this understanding, but I have great faith in your musical intelligence. If you understand some music and wish to convey this to me, just grab me by the shoulders and shake me; or simply air-conduct.
> :lol:


Well, yes, however I do think that theory aids musical understanding. Someone like Thelonious Monk, and of course a good many jazz musicians, are perhaps not fully appreciated unless we take the view that their great musical insight is not independent of, or due to, their lack of theoretical knowledge, but _in spite_ of it.

All knowledge is based on intuition. But theory is about creating a rational system from these intuitions which lead us to conclusions which we could only have reached by luck or great effort otherwise, and deepen our intuitions and allow us to see much further on a greater amount of solid 'ground'.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Ramako said:


> I would say that theory is not just knowing about _what_ is going on but _why_. Learning, say, all about the various different kinds of chords, harmonic resolution, contrapuntal lines etc. etc. is all just rote learning unless you look at it in context. Theory is, I believe, in this sense inseparable from musicality (not that they are the same thing, but any musical understanding is in some sense theoretical, and all good theory should be musical): it is the attempt to express our intuitive understandings.


Trouble is there's got to be some sort of crossover. Kids don't learn to read until they can speak. You've got to develop the basic understanding of music and then analyse it.

MR goes on about Jazz. Fine. That's one sort of intuition. I've just been looking a documentary about Martin Hayes and Dennis Cahil. Martin grew up in a family where his dad was a fiddler in a ceilidh band - he has a tremendous intuition about Irish music. Dennis Cahil is a trained guitarist but has picked up Irish music. Martin can express why he is doing things but not in music theory terms, but then he's a fiddler - melody line. Dennis can express it in music theory terms, but then he's a guitarist - chorded instrument.

The theory will help somebody who plays a chorded instrument but they also need the basic musicality to start with. That's why it seems dry and rote if they meet it without understanding the music.


----------



## Marisol (May 25, 2013)

Seeing the score and analyzing the harmonics is not only interesting but can also help making the piece more transparent:

For instance Richard Strauss' Morgen with basic score and analysis:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Ramako said:


> ...Someone like Thelonious Monk, and of course a good many jazz musicians, are perhaps not fully appreciated unless we take the view that their great musical insight is not independent of, or due to, their lack of theoretical knowledge, but _in spite_ of it. All knowledge is based on intuition.
> 
> ...But theory is about creating a rational system from these intuitions which lead us to conclusions which we could only have reached by luck or great effort otherwise, and deepen our intuitions and allow us to see much further on a greater amount of solid 'ground'.


Yes, theory is best used to convey musical ideas, both for didactic reasons, as well as for conveying to ourselves and defining for our own clarity these intuitive ideas, and making them more easily accessible; but there is always the danger of over-codifications which create stiff, inflexible systems and ways of looking at things.

We must always remember that music theory is best used as a tool to enable and empower creativity, not to exclude, restrict, hinder, or be mistaken as a replacement for our creative intuition.

Of course, I speak as an artist and performer who has to actually exercise my creative intuition in critical situations.


----------

