# 'Essential' or useful Music Theory for amateurs to enhance enjoyment of music?.



## FrankE

For those who don't play, compose or conduct are there elements of music theory / musicology which are useful to enhance enjoyment of music?
What aspects of music theory are "essential" to hold one's own (blag it) in a discussion of music with people who know what they are talking about?

As school though I played and was taught an instrument I was taught no musical theory other than monkey read monkey play and the blues scale. Nothing in general music class either.
I met a music teacher a few months back and speaking of my absolute lack of music theory knowledge they said they do teach everyone some things such as 'The 8 elements of music' 
They taught us nothing about form, types of ensembles which are of definite interest when buying recorded music, modals, history.
What else did they not teach us?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I'd say the most general recognisable thing is probably form.


----------



## mikeh375

Learning to recognise motifs may enhance your appreciation. You could then follow their development and transformations in a sonata or symphony as it progresses.


----------



## Barbebleu

Being able to identify whether a note is higher or lower than the preceding note! I have had fun with friends when I have played a note on the flute then another note and asked them if the second note was higher or lower. I was amazed at how many of them had a poor or non-existent sense of pitch and couldn’t be accurate every time. They all enjoyed music but weren’t big fans and had negligible collections. Maybe a few CDs of popular music. I imagine there might be a connection.


----------



## FrankE

Barbebleu said:


> Being able to identify whether a note is higher or lower than the preceding note! I have had fun with friends when I have played a note on the flute then another note and asked them if the second note was higher or lower. I was amazed at how many of them had a poor or non-existent sense of pitch and couldn't be accurate every time. They all enjoyed music but weren't big fans and had negligible collections. Maybe a few CDs of popular music. I imagine there might be a connection.


Relative pitch?


----------



## Barbebleu

FrankE said:


> Relative pitch?


Just so. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## mbhaub

I believe that a person can thoroughly enjoy classical without any training - I know I did. And there are clearly things that improve one's appreciation: knowledge of the instruments, for example. Peter and the Wolf isn't popular without reason - it achieves its goal beautifully. So does Britten's Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra.

Knowledge of form really helps, too. It lets a novice learn the terrain of a work. A working knowledge of music history and the styles really helps, too. But knowing things like how "the composer modulates to the subdominant key" is useless - I don't know any musicians who talk that way. But one thing to not do: don't ever try to bluff your way around a discussion of music with pros unless you really know your stuff. Just shut up, listen, and learn. Learn from the experts. Of course, that old saying always is in the back of my mind: The Experts Usually Aren't.


----------



## pianozach

I learned to play piano without any formal training in music theory. What I knew of music theory was the bare minimum needed to learn and play music flawlessly.

I've acquired a great bunch of music theory, some being a Music Major in college, but most of it was through experience.


----------



## Roger Knox

FrankE, I taught music theory professionally for many years and have a master's degree in the subject that included theory pedagogy and supervised teacher training.

If you are interested in classical music your distinction between theory and musicology is a good one. Many of the above good suggestions apply to Music Appreciation (or an equivalent term), which is kind of the beginning of the musicology line -- e.g. instruments and ensembles, types of music, form (from the level of motifs to whole compositions), and music history by era. 

Basic music theory for classical music of the Common Practice Tonality (CPT) era (18th and 19th century*) is precise -- don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Much, but not all, of it applies to popular music too. If you can read music, it continues from there with Rudiments: scales, intervals, chords, basic rhythm and meter, transposition, and musical terms. One topic builds logically upon another. Long ago I it learned from a British-type manual in a community class; nowadays there are courses online as well. Some people learn Rudiments as they go through instrumental training. Otherwise, I have never met anyone seriously interested in music -- classical or popular -- who regretted taking a good Rudiments course.

*For the 20th and 21st centuries there is no Common Practice, but there is much that can be learned as extensions of 18th-19th century practice, and much else that can be learned logically on its own. Incidentally, on TalkClassical Edward Bast is an expert in music theory.

As for listening in the sense of Ear Training (which note is higher than another, relative pitch, etc.) please PM me. If one has an inquisitive mind and a positive attitude music theory can lead to good things.


----------



## Michael122

For *playing* music, learning theory is a waste of time.
For *composing* music, understanding theory is vital.


----------



## mikeh375

Michael122 said:


> For *playing* music, learning theory is a waste of time.
> For *composing* music, understanding theory is vital.


I have a different view in that I think performers _should_ have some basic theoretical background and depending on the music, sometimes a more profound and practical knowledge. The keyboard works of Bach for example need to be informed and performed with some knowledge of contrapuntal technique. Jazz players need to be able to improvise over extended compound harmony and its substitutions, including modality.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mikeh375 said:


> The keyboard works of Bach for example need to be informed and performed with some knowledge of contrapuntal technique.


Why would they need to? If they don't improvise on the works.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> Why would they need to? If they don't improvise on the works.


I suspect it depends if they are played on harpsichord or piano, where any line can or can't be emphasized over others.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I suspect it depends if they are played on harpsichord or piano, where any line can or can't be emphasized over others.


Nowadays I think that's nonsense cause emphasizing certain lines over others is something Bach never instructed in his keyboard music. I know there are people who like their favorite performers' ways (eg. Gould) to emphasize lines in Bach, but it's all subjective. And the idea that having knowledge to avoid parallel fifths somehow gives you better understanding which line to emphasize at any point of a Bach work is absurd.


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> Nowadays I think that's nonsense cause emphasizing certain lines over others is something Bach never instructed in his keyboard music. I know there are people who like their favorite performers' ways (eg. Gould) to emphasize lines in Bach, but it's all subjective. *And the idea that having knowledge to avoid parallel fifths somehow gives you better understanding which line to emphasize at any point of a Bach work is absurd.*


You've gone off on the wrong tack HK, I wasn't suggesting something like the bolded above is a requirement, although that particular rule about fifths is so famous I wonder if many haven't heard of it.

Rather, I meant that recognition of thematic material and any transformations is interpretatively significant for the solo performer. Spotting a theme in a dense a5 environment that may be in augmentation or diminution, or noticing that a fugal episode is related to a prior one because of the inverted triple counterpoint can be gleaned without an in-depth understanding of how it was achieved technically. Emphasis (subtle preferably) or none is optional, although in dense textures for me, some emphasis certainly aids cognition by providing a musical focus when listening to Bach on a piano.

Imv, I feel it's important for a performer (specifically a soloist) to be able to understand and if need be, be able to analyse what they are playing, if only for their own edification and nobody elses. The performers musicianship benefits from such an informed approach, as does their enjoyment and ultimately, their interpretative performance.

EDIT...this from my Alma Maters website (my bolded).

_Academic study

Academic study is essential to your creative and intellectual development. Core modules in Aural, *Analysis *and History reinforce your awareness as a listener, develop your interpretative abilities and extend your knowledge and imagination._

https://www.ram.ac.uk/study/about-our-courses/undergraduate-courses


----------



## Bwv 1080

Michael122 said:


> For *playing* music, learning theory is a waste of time.
> For *composing* music, understanding theory is vital.


Theory helps quite a bit in memorizing music

And any decent musician should be able to both improvise over simple chord changes and harmonize a melody


----------



## Sondersdorf

Michael122 said:


> For *playing* music, learning theory is a waste of time.
> For *composing* music, understanding theory is vital.


Gosh. Maybe I don't understand what people mean by "theory". I read music quite poorly. But, if I can look at a string of notes and think, "That's a descending A-flat major scale." I think I am in a better place than reading eight notes. Similarly, if I see a flat seven and a bunch of thirds, and it sounds like it we are heading toward a V7 chord, isn't that better than reading four rote notes?


----------



## starthrower

mikeh375 said:


> Learning to recognise motifs may enhance your appreciation. You could then follow their development and transformations in a sonata or symphony as it progresses.


I can recognize motifs but I can't always tell to what degree they are being developed. Especially with modern, abstract music. And I don't know if I really know the difference between development and variation? Although I played musical instruments and learned to read on a basic level, I never had any ear training and I didn't study classical forms or composition. Just some basic drum and guitar lessons.


----------



## Michael122

Sondersdorf said:


> Gosh. Maybe I don't understand what people mean by "theory". I read music quite poorly. But, if I can look at a string of notes and think, "That's a descending A-flat major scale." I think I am in a better place than reading eight notes. Similarly, if I see a flat seven and a bunch of thirds, and it sounds like it we are heading toward a V7 chord, isn't that better than reading four rote notes?


Gosh! Doubtful anyone would have ever figured that out without a serious comprehensive study of theory. Darn good thing, time wasn't wasted on practicing. How many years of theory did it take to get that good?


----------



## pianozach

Sondersdorf said:


> Gosh. Maybe I don't understand what people mean by "theory". I read music quite poorly. But, if I can look at a string of notes and think, "That's a descending A-flat major scale." I think I am in a better place than reading eight notes. Similarly, if I see a flat seven and a bunch of thirds, and it sounds like it we are heading toward a V7 chord, isn't that better than reading four rote notes?


*"Music Theory"* is evidently pretty tough to pin down to a simple definition.

*Wikipedia* attempts it, but instead comes up with collection of . . . of . . . well . . . here it is:

_*"Music theory considers melody, rhythm, counterpoint, harmony, form, tonal systems, scales, tuning, intervals, consonance, dissonance, durational proportions, the acoustics of pitch systems, composition, performance, orchestration, ornamentation, improvisation, electronic sound production, etc."*_ . . .

. . . although *The Oxford Companion to Music* describes three interrelated uses of the term "music theory": *"Rudiments"* (which are needed to understand music notation (key signatures, time signatures, and rhythmic notation)); learning *scholars' views* on music from antiquity to the present; and a sub-topic of *musicology* that "seeks to define *processes and general principles* in music".

Uh . . .


----------



## Roger Knox

pianozach said:


> *"Music Theory"* is evidently pretty tough to pin down to a simple definition.


Through long experience in the field of music theory and other related areas I think you are right: music theory is difficult to define. While the term as it stands may cover too much ground, coming up with alternative terminology would be very difficult both practically and philosophically. I can't help much with the latter, but with the former I think such topics as rudiments, harmony, counterpoint, form are still useful if the type of music and historical era are specified. Routinely I use those categories rather than the less specific "music theory."

Maybe we could address the enormous gap in complexity between, say Rudiments and Transformational Theory by reconsidering the use of "theory" in the simpler areas. But it is also possible that trying to reach a consensus would be more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## Sondersdorf

Michael122 said:


> Gosh! Doubtful anyone would have ever figured that out without a serious comprehensive study of theory. Darn good thing, time wasn't wasted on practicing. How many years of theory did it take to get that good?


Double gosh. I went off to college and took the first course for music majors and ran. What are you guys talking about? Really, Professor, I don't need this! The way it works is you listen to music and think "Huh?". Or, you think "Wow!". Then, you settle down and think, "What do other people call that?" Bingo! You have music theory!


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Idk a sensible way of categorizing (at least some of the?) various things that are covered by "theory", might be:

The "natural" parts:
-The (rudimentary) physical, scientific aspects of sound, frequency, overtones etc., and how the human brain perceives them: melodic movements, octaves/harmony, timbre, rhythm (as a way of perceiving time universal to all senses), and all the other interrelated stuff from those areas.
the way the standard 12-tone scale emerged out of that, along with other systems and tunings.
-Addressing the blurry boundaries between "non-music" sound and what various times and places acknowledged as "music".
-Showing what various musicians have come up with while arranging these sounds and notes in various ways, in an organized fashion. 

More "artificial" areas would include:
-Showing how to imitate certain styles, or fit in within certain musical scenes - this is where "descriptive" observations can effectively turn into "prescriptive" rules, depending on how broad/narrow the particular institution is.
-"Correct notation" and symbols etc., essentially the "spelling" equivalent. Along with alternative/historical forms of notation, of course.

The 1st group is stuff that various degrees of supergeniuses can figure out on their own, at least some of it / in theory; the vast majority of us lumbering monkeys couldn't pull that off though.

The 2nd is generally as relevant as the individual's plans to join some (professional) branch and learn their conventions and symbols etc.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Unfortunately, people on TC lack a solid understanding of theory, even the professionals it seems. It makes it much harder to discuss music here at a deeper level. I'm not surprised though, as people at conservatory seem to not get it either (students and professors alike). I've come to believe that a lot of it simply boils down to natural aptitude and intuition. You either have it or you don't. Most evidently don't. Not to toot my own horn, but I'm more gifted in this regard than just about anyone I've ever met. I would fit into the group of "supergeniuses" described in the previous post (although I'm no supergenius), and I've managed to figure out a lot about the "artificial" areas on my own too (as confirmed by my later learning about it formally and coming to the same conclusions). This is all to say, perhaps I'm not qualified to give advice in this thread.

However, that said, what I suggest is learning slower than you think you should, and instead focusing more on applying your knowledge base with active listening. Focus on building up your musical intuition as best you can. Improvise daily (on an instrument or with your voice), and try to make the connections between theory and improvisational technique. Try to rely as little as possible on rote memory; having a solid foundation will help you towards a much deeper and easier understanding of theory. Come up with your own ideas and post them here; exploration and experimentation will help you come to terms with established ideas.


----------



## mikeh375

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Unfortunately, people on TC lack a solid understanding of theory, even the professionals it seems. It makes it much harder to discuss music here at a deeper level. I'm not surprised though, as people at conservatory seem to not get it either (students and professors alike)...........


Ermm..........I'm not sure about that BWAGM.
Love to hear some of your music btw.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

mikeh375 said:


> Love to hear some of your music btw.


I appreciate this. I've put it off for long enough; 2022 expect posts in Today's Composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> It makes it much harder to discuss music here at a deeper level.


In one thread, I made the point about "Bach having more harmonic depth than Handel". Apparently people who disagreed were the usual "contrarians", "subjectivists", or "people who didn't seem to know what they were talking about", (or maybe some of them were "Handel cultists"). It was quite disappointing. When pointed out that "chilly pepper sauce is spicier than chocolate", there will always be "people who disagree". Maybe their taste buds are not working properly, or they never learned what the term "spicy" means. One person made a fuss about the Passion recitative in the Messiah being harmonically/chromatically daring in that thread.

So I looked up the score of the "Passion recitative" ("Unto which of the angels..") to find out what the fuss was about. The progression consists of an A major first inverted triad (bar 1), and then a D minor triad (bar 3) and then a G minor first inverted triad (bar 4) and then finally an A major root-position triad (bar 5, final) in which acts as the dominant which resolves to the tonic of the subsequent chorus. There is an eighth-note chromatic anticipation non-chord tone, C# right before the first strong beat of the final bar, resolving to the A major triad in that bar, but "daring" isn't exactly the word to describe this sort of harmony/chromaticism. 




 -if one really believes "Salieri has just as / more harmonic depth", why doesn't he do a visual demonstration about it in the way Rosen did with 'Bach vs. Handel'?

In another thread, I made the point that the Romantics like Berlioz thought their certain predecessors were "full of passion and gloominess" in expression, but certain others were not. It's usually people who don't "understand" this stuff that fuss over minor things, (by saying things like "liturgical music was outdated! Irrelevant!"). A Mozart string quartet, or piano sonata could be related to a Wagner prelude harmonically, https://www.talkclassical.com/56299-mozart-le-nozze-di-9.html#post1982298 even though the string quartet genre was irrelevant to Wagner and the piano sonata genre wasn't what he was invested in as a mature composer. The Mozart Requiem could have meant far more to Berlioz and Chopin, than some 100 churned-out symphonies by some other Classical period composer. I kept stressing that the "essence" was more important; "a tub of pork and beer" wasn't more relevant to the Romantics just cause it didn't deal with religious stuff in its libretti. But there were some people who just never seemed to understand; they couldn't cite a single viable source to support their view, and discredited others by telling them "not to cherry-pick". What's even more troubling is that they distort history by trying to pass their own "subjective opinions" as "objective facts".

I do think there's a certain correlation between "being able to play an instrument (usually a keyboard) and able to read score" and "having the insight to understand what's written on the score in relation to historical facts" (although there are exceptions).


----------



## FrankE

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I'm not surprised though, as people at conservatory seem to not get it either (students and professors alike).


I was speaking to final year students of music at a university.
One mentioned they were planning taking their grade 8. That quite surprised me as I thought they needed at least that plus A level or equivalent music to get in to a BMus music degree programme. I recall my sister did grade 8 at secondary school as did many others, my mother at primary school.


----------



## Roger Knox

FrankE said:


> For those who don't play, compose or conduct are there elements of music theory / musicology which are useful to enhance enjoyment of music?
> What aspects of music theory are "essential" to hold one's own (blag it) in a discussion of music with people who know what they are talking about?
> 
> As school though I played and was taught an instrument I was taught no musical theory other than monkey read monkey play and the blues scale.


I've already answered you in post #9. For yourself, it helps to reflect on your aptitudes, interests, and values in music. You mentioned that you learned an instrument in a "monkey read monkey do" way -- well, you learned to read music, good! Just hope you can talk you can sit down with one or more knowledgeable people in your region who can respond _positively_ to your questions as expressed in your original post. It is necessary to show an interest in, better still a passion for, what they do. Many people like to talk about what they do with people who do a little preparation. Anyway, try to stay upbeat, and good luck!


----------



## wormcycle

Aaron Copland "What to listen for in music"
Nicolas Carter *Music Theory: From Beginner to Expert *


----------

