Music theory

Do you think learning music theory is beneficial, or does it honestly just limit creativity? pic-unrelated

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ives
elephant-talk.com/wiki/Interview_with_Robert_Fripp_in_Guitar_Player_(1974).
youtube.com/watch?v=23ImVLezV4c
youtube.com/watch?v=sHI2xyyH-CU
youtube.com/watch?v=0akGtDPVRxk
youtube.com/watch?v=j3FZkQTn51o
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

No

It depends on the individual. I have friends who studied music in college and it seems many of them now enjoy musical concepts more than the music itself. They listen to music differently, and while composing they can't just jam and see what happens, they are stuck on theory. I think having an understanding of it can open a lot of doors creatively, as long as you don't lose touch of actually feeling music.

Sometimes you must learn the rules to break them, though reaching a creative peak takes trial and error. While starting you're gonna have a harder time learning the basics and skipping said basics may lead to some bad habits. Remaining naive will allow you to think more free-er thus putting no limits on your creativity giving you a higher risk/reward.

This is your choice.

>“It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.”
― Pablo Picasso

you can get a working knowledge pretty easily. shit is not that complicated.

As far as creating music, unless you're some retarded savant, theory is absolutely beneficial. You can pluck every note on a string with a backing track until you find out what works, but unless you know WHY it works, it's just trail & error and a complete waste of your time, taking away time that could have been spent actually creating and not fumbling through notes. Once you know at least the very basic bits of theory, then you can experiment with breaking the rules. That's what jazz/blues/etc is all about. Lots of songs in those genres don't follow the "rules", but it works because they know the rules and how/when to break them. Just keep in mind when learning that they're not so much "rules" but general guidelines and don't wall yourself into abiding by them and your creativity will only flow easier.

depends on whether the teacher is a prick.

How having more tools can possibly limit you?

are there even any talented or at least commercially successful musicians you can easily name?

because it also begets a certain way of thinking, the way its taught nowadays

in-the-box thinking becomes routine

still, best to learn theory and then deprogram your mind from the academic way of approaching music

Knowing the basis of harmony allows you to explore it further and with more precision. I'm not sure why 'popular' musicians decide to be wilfully ignorant of principles they've probably already copied.

Music theory is useful for knowing what "works" and what "doesn't", and I use quotes because theory gives you guidelines as opposed to hard rules. I've been playing bass guitar for 10 years, and I still can't read music. Nevertheless, I made sure i got the basics of music theory in the beginning (notes, chords, solfeges, scales). Setting aside theory, most of what I've learned about music has been inference from theory basics, trial and error, and listening to a lot of music.

You don't need it, but it can give you an edge in some areas like improvisation*, and it helps when you want to share ideas with others.

*even improvisation doesn't NEED theory, I know some guys for whom it's all feel.

Posts ITT that are spot on:
>Sometimes you must learn the rules to break them

There are only 12 notes, I only need very few seconds to try out everything and see what sounds the best, even if i usually pick the right note at the first or second try. I think the total amountof time i would need to learn theory is bigger than the total amount of time that i used and will use to figure out things by ear

hendrix didnt know theory

On a slightly related topic - is it hindering for a prospective musician to take a music degree?

I'm friends with quite a few music students, they're very proficient, but somewhat lacking in originality. Seen some of their performances, and even their 'experimental' music is pretty unremarkable. There's so many students at the college trying to be edgy and different, but drinking from the same trough so they all sound a dime a dozen.

Pic related as well - do people really expect to make a living out of music nowadays? Your best bet is to spend your entire life devoted to a wind, brass or string instrument and join an orchestra - there's a billion singer songwriters already, we don't need any more.

>stifled by society

oh no, you can't make your strange alternative rock music and earn a living by doing local 'gigs' where you income solely subsists on old white people giving you money because they feel bad for you

idiot hipsters

>making a career out of music

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ives
>He is one of the first American composers of international renown,[2] though his music was largely ignored during his life, and many of his works went unperformed for many years. Over time, he came to be regarded as an "American original".[3][4][5] He combined the American popular and church-music traditions of his youth with European art music, and was among the first composers to engage in a systematic program of experimental music, with musical techniques including polytonality, polyrhythm, tone clusters, aleatoric elements, and quarter tones,[6] foreshadowing many musical innovations of the 20th century.

>In 1899, Ives moved to employment with the insurance agency Charles H. Raymond & Co., where he stayed until 1906. In 1907, upon the failure of Raymond & Co., he and his friend Julian Myrick formed their own insurance agency Ives & Co., which later became Ives & Myrick, where he remained until he retired.[14] During his career as an insurance executive and actuary, Ives devised creative ways to structure life-insurance packages for people of means, which laid the foundation of the modern practice of estate planning.[15] His Life Insurance with Relation to Inheritance Tax, published in 1918, was well received. As a result of this he achieved considerable fame in the insurance industry of his time, with many of his business peers surprised to learn that he was also a composer.

tl;dr: Keep music as a hobby and git gud. If you're lucky someone might care, but get a degree (e.g. double major with music, major in music and minor in something practical, or major in something practical and minor in music) that can land you a job, you filthy hippy

Kind of like asking if learning a language would limit your ability to express yourself.

I never quite understood why people believe knowing more about music theory would limit their ability to make music.

Considering you're not obligated to follow the "rules" of music theory once knowing it, the worst case scenario is that you have a better understanding of what you're creating and why it sounds the way it sounds be it directly pulled from concepts of theory or deliberately going against them.

def helps if youre trying to write something. you dont have to fiddle around or try to think up something. you already know where something can go and you can just edit or change around those parts how you want.

it can fuck you up though because you get bored quickly like "ya 2+2=4. i know ive seen it a million times. i want to make something new and interesting though".

most people dont care though. most popular songs or those big festival edm songs are all the same fucking shit. just with shiny new sample edits and effects here and there.

Theory is just a way to explain what musicians were already doing before theory. If you feel like your music is too basic, learn some theory. It's actually equally helpful to just learn a lot of complicated songs though.

this is the correct answer

how many of these albums were composed by somebody trained in music theory?

probly like 4 of them.

and only like 4 of them are actually good

1) Society shouldn't pay for you for expressing yourself. Unless you're a genius and create culturally-transcendental music (and even that's debatable), you don't deserve to live off welfare just because "muh feels"

2) That being said, if you can live off of another probably shitty job while you put your music degree to use by yourself or with a band, orchestra, whatever, then there's no problem.

Also, getting a job as a composer for movies, videogames or shows is a real possibility if you don't mind bastardizing your craft.

talented user here. Music theory is nice for people who don't have the gift

truth is, you can't learn the gift. I know tons of people who 'studied music theory', but at the end of the day they can't play anything they hear instantly like yours truly

10 of them are good.

nmh, anco, radiohead, slint, mbv, burial, talking heads, king crimson, gybe, kanye, grips and i haven't heard the last one but i assume it is too

that doesn't mean learning theory will be detrimental for you..

>not true by the way

i know basic music theory I was kinda half trolling with that post

the stuff I could learn about music theory is just vocabulary

In what way does composing for games or movies bastardize the craft of making music?

Take note, kids, this is what a compulsive liar looks like

It shouldn't limit creativity if you don't force yourself to follow the guidelines and empirical knowledge of music theory
I'm pretty sure if you're interested in creating it does more good than harm having that knowledge

Video game composers are seen as little more than novelty

No matter how good 0edit, Darren Korb or Koji Kondo are, they'll never be held in a higher esteem than popular musicians

i was obviously joking about "the gift", but I'm not lying. Basically any real musician can play what they hear. It's not super rare. Guarantee there is a guy working at your local guitar center who can play by ear

Fripp definitely knows his theory. Source: elephant-talk.com/wiki/Interview_with_Robert_Fripp_in_Guitar_Player_(1974). It's a blasphemy to ''compare'' King Crimson to Death Grips and Kanye. It's just not right.

he's also severely autistic

That's nice. Would you like to take a stab at answering the question now?

(You)

To writing music? of course. That's like asking if learning grammar is beneficial to writing.

To listening to music, it doesn't really matter.

Every one except American Football

none. Which is exactly why they're awful.

Knowledge and creativity are separate.
Knowledge gives your natural creativity more options to express itself.

And he's a mediocre songwriter because of it. Literally all his solos are in 1 scale, minor pentatonic.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you - Pure Unadulterated Autism: The Post

Why exactly do you think I'm autistic? Because I'm not a popular music pleb?

i love u

Yes

ah so you mixed up "autistic" with "enlightened"

got it. Come back when you wean yourself off popular music

in Hendrix' defense, if you're playing 'the blues' like he did that's the scale you use

and he was a very colorful and creative blues guitarist who stepped outside of that box pretty frequently

Hendrix didn't play prog rock but what he did, in my opinion, is way cooler than what John Petrucci does

Care to share some of your favorite bands and musicians? You seem to have a refined taste in music.

>I'm just going to call him autistic because I can't refute his claims
You are everything wrong with Sup Forums

>I'm autistic

>You are everything wrong with Sup Forums

Autism

>You are everything wrong with Sup Forums

kek

How and why exactly is King Crimson awful in your opinion?

Because it's gay

Damn

I'm not that guy, but King Crimson has a lot of awful music. Can't really put it into words, but the best I can do is say it's so cerebral and heartless

I like a lot of their shit don't get me wrong, but I can understand why someone would think they are awful

Especially someone who wasn't a music nerd

(You)

Let me guess, you're listening to Top 40, aren't you?

I'm listening to field recordings on your mom's moans when I fucked her in the ass

with that attitude, you'll never do anything with your music beyond "it sounds okay, I guess"

music theory exists because musicians agree that there's a way to streamline that note selection process that you can't move past

basic music theory is like learning multiplication tables. intermediate theory is like learning how to calculate the volume of a sphere. advanced theory takes you to places where you can model real-life events

No. Reread my post I like King Crimson but they have awful shit as well. Like listen to "Beat" and tell me that 90 pct of that isn't garbage. Do it with a polygraph on

Honestly man

and I have nothing against pop music either

(You)

pretty much this. unless you have independent means of support you'll probably never make it big as a musician

Bach (that art of fugue), Palestrina (that missa papae marcelli), Gesualdo (that sacred music), Victoria (that requiem), Morales (that requiem), Fayrfax (that sacred music), Scarlatti (that stabat mater), Haydn (those string quartets), Strauss (those operas - elektra and salome), Mahler (symphony 5 mostly), Janacek (those piano pieces, string quartets and that sinfonietta), Schoenberg (those 5 pieces for orchestra), Martinů (those symphonies), Bartok (those string quartets, and the concerto for orchestra), Schnittke (that concerto for piano and strings), Lera Auerbach (that first symphony, those piano preludes), John Psathas (that omnifenix sax concerto and abhisheka string quartet).

To be honest I haven't given them much of a chance. For me if someone isn't a trained composer they aren't worth my time. I listen exclusively to classical or traditional music. prog and "bands" just dont interest me any more. They did for 10 ish years, but I guess I just grew out of them.

>"bands" just dont interest me any more

Kek the autism here is astounding, I can't tell if you're serious or not. And the entry level classical music is a nice touch

>I grew out of bands

>There are only 12 notes
Microtonality exists

youtube.com/watch?v=23ImVLezV4c
youtube.com/watch?v=sHI2xyyH-CU
youtube.com/watch?v=0akGtDPVRxk
youtube.com/watch?v=j3FZkQTn51o

>"bands" just dont interest me any more
Literally how I feel. Is it that hard for you to understand?

Why waste your time listening to music written by untrained plebs for untrained plebs? Oh thats right, because its marketed to you with a pretty cover and its on TV / Radio / Review site you worship so it must be good

Aspergers

I remember when I was in a punk band and I started learning about music theory. I got really upset when I discovered that all of our songs were written in I-IV-V structure and started arguing with the rest of the band that we needed to start writing more innovative stuff.

point being, I was missing out on the simplicity of song structure as a means of directly conveying energy. I should've been in a heavy-metal band.

music theory will give you a larger vocabulary, but it won't give you more things to talk about.

I absolutely despise pop music for that matter, but yes, I do agree that Beat definitely isn't great. Only ''pop'' musicians I consider good are: Phil Collins (it pains me to say this), Michael Jackson, Mariah Carey (only thing I like about her is that voice; lyrics on the other hand...), Amy Winehouse and that's pretty much it.

is it important for an author to understand sentence structure and grammar? not always but its easier to break the rules in a creative way if u understand the rules.

I think it's useful to know at least a basic amount of music theory. But don't let it limit you. I took AP Music Theory in high school. There's some stuff I'm glad I know that helped me become a better musician, but then there are some limiting things about it. Apparently there's such thing as a "wrong" chord for a chord progression (on the test one of the questions required me to replace a chord with a different one to make it correct) and it's like, what if the composer purposely meant to make this part dissonant, or to maybe surprise you by ending a chord progressions on a subdominant chord or something? Maybe that's the feel the composer intended?
So as people already said, it's best to learn theory and then sort of use it as a guideline, rather than a hard set of rules.

>For me if someone isn't a trained composer they aren't worth my time
Considering this, jazz and jazz fusion music would be right in your ball park. You ''can't'' exactly be ''untrained'' to play those genres.

Fuck off poly your taste is shit

Allan Holdsworth for example pretty much ''invented'' his own chords and scales and reinvented the aspect of guitar playing as a whole. His guitar sounds more like a sax and he didn't want to play guitar, but that's what the instrument he started playing when he was young and it helped him say what he had to say.

the only people who find theory limiting are people who dont know enough of it. you can literally justify any musical idea you want with theory.

this guy is a good example, if you had continued to study theory then you would have learned about modal interchange which effectively eliminates the idea of a "wrong chord" but modal intercahnge only became a thing because people were already doing it and theory needed a word for it. This isnt a chicken or the egg argument. Theory is just used to verbally described musical ideas that someone already had. this is why people can find it limiting. if u just stick to theory and never do anything outside of it then you are just borrowing ideas that have already been established and explored, but, this doesnt mean you cant explore the established ideas to your own creative means. basically, creative ideas can happen inside and outside the world of theory. to keep yourself from being limited it is probably best to have either no understanding of theory at all or to know the fuck out of that shit. whether you should know it or not is a choice you need to make with your artistic intent in mind.

Jazz is literally the worst genre. All the musicians are niggers and untrained. It's just "muh kewl sax and piano XD" Only album worth listening to is a love supreme and the black saint. Everything else is hot garbage

fucking rockist faggot ass mother fucker. you are one wrong ass motherfucker and if u ever said that shit around me you'd be a dead ass motherfucker.
-a black guy who knows a hell of a lot more than your biggoted white ass.

think your hot shit? post something of you blowing over autumn leaves, i need something to laugh at since you just gave me cancer.

(You)

Just ignore him. Let's not derail this thread.

your right, thanks.

...and yet unique and consistent enough that you recognize me

I dont mind Jazz, but classical is really where its at for me. Bach fugues and baroque sacred music, renaissance polyphony, 20th century serialism, spectralism, and polystylism. 20th century music really is a wealth of interesting styles and pieces, as long as you keep away from popular music.

AYO HOL UP

What is the best way and guide to learn music theory?And when I learn it will I be able to make melodies in my mind and have no problem to do them in real time.

>as long as you keep away from popular music.

You're close minded and stupid as all fuck.

I respect that, though I would recommend expanding as a listener. Try to find something you like in other genres of music. By the way, there are definitely good new bands, but not so many popular new bands.

I listened to popular music and bands for 10+ years, I think I've had enough.

Being close minded would be ignoring all the amazing music written in the last 500 years, and just listening to "bands" from the last 50 years.

I'm pretty happy with classical, it meets my needs of polyphony and economy of material. If something aint polyphonic and written by a trained composer, it probably isn't going to hold my interest.
Plus I write more than I listen so the times I do listen I prefer to make sure its quality inspirational stuff to give me ideas.

>Being close minded would be ignoring all the amazing music written in the last 500 years

agreed

>as long as you keep away from popular music

wut

Please RESPOND

hes right, there will be more music recorded this week than you can listen to in a lifetime there is no reason to dwell on the most popular recordings

Apart from that, most popular music isn't worth listening to.

Which explains why it's so popular amirite?

I used to think it was really dumb, but honestly it helped so much with finding unique chord progressions and stuff like that. Learning the "tropes" helps you get away from them more, and I feel like that's the whole point of music theory

You can't deviate from conventions if you don't know what the conventions are in the first place.

Yeah, same reason billions of flies eat shit: Because its delicious!

Except that you can?

You don't need a map of a city to leave it

If I dropped you in the center of mexico city, you would never find your way out without directions or knowing spanish

All of them except for Burial.
Burial, however, had the privilege of already being well-versed in creating UK garage, which is an entirely different form of music creation to the rest.

Mate, American Football are really good musicians. You gotta know music theory to play that jazzy math-emo.

Precisely

Literally pick any direction and walk in that direction until you're out of the city.

This is a really simple concept