Is music theory essential for music production?

Is music theory essential for music production?
Do you think someone can be a brilliant musician with knowing little/no music theory?

Other urls found in this thread:

soundcloud.com/matanken/possession-take-2
youtube.com/watch?v=7bUYte3VPE4
youtube.com/watch?v=49alQj7c5ps
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

jimi hendrix

essential? no. but you are probably going to struggle for a long time and get frustrated very often. writing a song without any clue what chords or scales you're using is not easy. but it's possible. do yourself a favor and buy a clip-on tuner for your instrument so you can learn what notes you're playing, then find a website that lists chords and go from there.

You're probably going to need to understand a little unless you're one of those savants.

>almost
>if you cant play any instruments, no.

How is the alt scale the 7th mode/locrian mode of melodic minor? The alt scale has a major third, whereas both melodic minor and locrian have a b3, so where is this 3 coming from?

you can do the same thing with the 7th mode of the harmonic minor scale. it has a b3 and a 3.

Tame Impala is great

music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.
I'm pretty sure most active pop musicians have no clue what they're doing.

unless you want to get into some elitist group, such as jazz, it's not necessary.

Yes, they can, but there's a 99% chance you are not one of those people who are that talented. Stop being an arrogant little shit, and either dedicate yourself to something, or go wash dishes. There's no shame in either of those things but there absolutely is in trying to half-ass your way through life.

>Is music theory essential for music production?
No.

I just don't know where to start and I don't know how to apply it

shit I was totally confused, thanks

the 4 in 7th mode of melodic minor corresponds to the major third you'd typically find in the normal dominant 7 scale, no wonder this was so confusing to me

ie G7 has G A B C etc...

G7alt has 1 b2 b3 4 ...

but the 4 in G7alt is B, which is the major third of just a normal G7 (but slipping in the b2 and b3 pushes that major third to a fourth in the G7alt)

apologies if I'm butchering the notation or if this is incomprehensible

t. bad musicians

Dude read the thread some people are saying really practical things. If there was some magic trick, everyone would be doing it.

can one of you theory advocates post something you've written
seeing a lot of talk ITT but not much evidence

But not the people who are advocating for not learning it? Go fuck yourself.

i'm seeing hendrix, nirvana

Nirvana knew only basic music theory and they were excellent musicians mate

>implying be elitist is overrated
jazz is the superior genre

>One-trick-ponies who are dead because they were junkies

Set higher aspirations

>excellent

they were passable which is all you can hope for

musictheory.net

musictheory.net

The first thing you've got to do is understand how to construct scales. After that, you learn how to construct chords. From there, you learn how to construct diatonic chords (chords built from notes in a given scale). Now you're learning about chord progressions, why some work, why some don't, and why a lot of pop songs sound the same harmonically if you listen closely. On the flip side, you'll also realize why some pop songs sound amazing.

From here you're going to want to learn about modes (maybe the pentatonic scale, too), which will allow you to develop and understand more complicated chord progressions. From there, I'm not sure.

Music theory is supplemental to innate musicianship or whatever the hell you're talking about. There is no reason you should neglect music theory. Yes, a lot of bands sound good without any theory whatsoever (or at least minimal theory). But by not learning music theory they're seriously limiting themselves and restricting their own musicianship by not being more musically exploratory. Music theory is just another tool, and a powerful one at that.

Also, what are your reasons against learning music theory?

>inb4 they'd sound too jazzy

I didn't realize we had Hendrix/Cobain posting ITT
The people against theory only want to skip out on learning it and pretend they'll write good music anyway (they won't most of the time)

oh I agree.
and I enjoy studying and applying music theory.
it's just that you don't -really- need it unless you go for a spot within such groups.

writing music with chord progressions is a bit like composing with training wheels on

>writing music with chord progressions

Cool, let's hear your composition that doesn't have chord progressions. So one chord only. Oh, and before you post some one-chord drone-fest, remember that we're talking about harmony and melody, not timbre or tone, so don't bother with examples that are just shoegaze pedalfests (no disrespect to the genre, though, love your tone). I'm not looking for innovation of tone and that's not what this discussion is about.

Its easy enough to learn key scales, as long as you can tune things right when you need to the rest is up to you.

You are never worse off for trying to learn and better yourself!
Musicians all "know" music theory, whether it's formal or not. Jimi Hendrix is usually used as an example of a guy who didn't know music theory, but he most certainly did. He knew the relationships between chords and notes even if he didn't know the labeling that music theory gives you.
Music theory is descriptive, and builds upon previous generations of musical ideas. If you don't want to use it you'll only be learning the same stuff in a different order on your own, instead of getting the cumulative insight and understanding of pretty much all the musicians that ever existed.

Pretty sure he's talking about preconceived progressions.

Music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. It was written by those who already understood music on a spiritual level. So those who have the innate musical ability obviously can do without theory - because it was people like them who invented the whole thing in the past!

Your favorite musicians compose music using their imagination.

Some of them use theory to "enhance" what they imagined, but the base is always inspiration that comes from within the heart of the artist

what's the best interval?

Did I say you couldn't experiment either?

>preconceived progressions
This term means absolutely nothing, preeeeettttyyyy much every base chord progression has been played or made before

Not studying music theory is like being an alchemist in a world full of peer reviewed science literature.
You build your own understanding of what sounds good. You might know which chords go well with which other chords. You learn a lot through the process and it definitely feels good, like you’re discovering the whole world for yourself.
But take a look at “music theory”and you’ll see each of your own discoveries have been analyzed and codified by generations. They’ve perfected this ancient art into a science. What could you do standing on the shoulders of giants?

>Not studying music theory is like being an alchemist in a world full of peer reviewed science literature.

This is a really dumb comparison.
Science studies the objective, art is about the subjective

Yeah, I know, but I just really wanted to nail him for that little bit of ambiguity. Theory-haters in this thread make it sound like people who know music theory just sit down and use prescribed formulas for music when that's far from the case.

It's pretty funny considering that most bands can't into interesting chord progressions and can only sound cool for the first chorus or verse of the song, and by the time they're due for another verse they can't even switch things up by the slightest bit.

>Your favorite musicians compose music using their imagination.
>Some of them use theory to "enhance" what they imagined, but the base is always inspiration that comes from within the heart of the artist

Nobody's arguing either of these things. However, if you're claiming that one should not learn music theory because inspiration "comes from within the heart of the artist," I think you're wrong precisely because you can

>use theory to "enhance" what they imagined

Do you know any music theory? Genuinely curious, this question is not meant as a slight.

Not him, but it's a pretty good comparison
Even though art and music is subjective you can still examine how and why parts work together the way they do

The way you state that art is subjective, you make it seem like there's absolutely no need to learn about any sort of theory that goes into any art.
I mean there's a reason music, film, paintings, literature, sculpture and all sort of other mediums have classes, theory, and teachers

Why do you have to rationalize your lack of talent this hard? Do you just think it's funny?

I was in a music class.
I learned music theory, but we did not go all the way down the rabbit hole

Its not a rabbit hole though. Just calling it that reveals that you don't get it.

It's a terrible comparison.

You can't make good science without knowing the scientific literature.

But you can make incredible albums without knowing music theory, as demonstrated by plenty famous artists

Well it's impossible for any one class to give you complete mastery over anything

Not him, but what level of music theory we're you working with

Only practical composer combinatorics.
Book theory is almost useless for making music.
For example, Mozart improvised from age of 4 whole days, by age of 16 his understanding of musical laws was at the level of a first-class professional, but if you count how many hours of practice it cost, there will be insane figures. You can learn all textbooks of music theory, but you can't even write a good song without practical experience.

You can make plenty of "good science" (whatever that means) without the use of scientific literature, but you'll be retreading stuff that's pretty much already been done.
Same goes for music

How far did you get? Because I've only gotten my toes wet and music theory has seriously opened my eyes as to making changes to my own little personal compositions. It helps tremendously if you're getting composer's block, and it also helps explain why other songs sound so good harmonically (and why other sound so bad).

I can understand where you're coming from--music shouldn't be formulaic and should fueled by imagination, no doubt. And while music theory allows for formulaic music, it also allows for greater musical exploration. But music theory is a tool and, in my opinion, is as much a tool as the instrument(s) used to make the composition.

I made this musical piece with zero consideration of the music theory i learned:
soundcloud.com/matanken/possession-take-2

Forgive my sloppy playing, judge the piece compositionaly.

It's actually a bit sophisticated if you analyzed the theory behind it, even though no theory was considered in the making of this song. it was created using my ears and my imagination

Also plenty of fresh innovative science comes from pushing the limits of what we know, same with music
It's pretty easy to see if you know the history of science and music

>You can make plenty of "good science" without the use of scientific literature,

No you literally cannot. science is inherently different from art.

In science things are objective, and you need to actually prove things experimentally, just "feeling" that something is right would not be enough.

But in music, its all subjective, and "feeling" that something is right is everything

It's just okay though. Modal shifting isn't as sophisticated as true, functional modulation. And I agree, it sounds cool and modern, but it just comes across as a highly ornate I-IV-I-V-I thing, or some permutation at least.

You have to make a choice. Do this thing and really learn what kind of counterpoint your using, and consider ALL of the possibilities or make something simple that you can play effectively. You're such a fence-sitter that you're just making yourself all confused.

And here, have some Ben Monder. I do believe he's mastered the style you're going for.

youtube.com/watch?v=7bUYte3VPE4

getting sadder

No, because music uses only one system for several centuries.
The only question is the agility of possession, which is developed by practice. Therefore, many pop musicians compose more better than theorists with music education.

i think something that a lot of people are missing is that music theory is a tool for understanding, yes it can help compositions, but at it's most valuable it's used to analyze other people's works and then apply it to your own
im shit at playing by ear myself but using theory i can manage just fine.
also production techniques are just as important in creating music,dont go skimp out on it

When I was a kid I did a science experiment with teeth I got from my dentist, then let them soak in soda and periodically weighed them at my local pharmacy to see what happened.
Science doesn't require an intense understanding of everything that's going on to produce results, in the same way that music doesn't require an intense understanding of everything that's going on to make decent sounding stuff. Neither are as forumlaic as you think, and they both start with ideas and questions. All I'm trying to say is that knowing more about a given subject will only ever help your creativity and the options you have to make and experiment, in either science or music.
This sounds pretty, but would knowing this is pretty much just 2 or 3 arpeggiated chords take away from that? No not at all! The more you know, the more you options you have to take in songwriting.
Even though you don't know the label's that go to what in a formal sense, you used ideas that are throughly described with music theory.
Idk why you think understanding and imagination/creativity are so mutually exclusive

lol I drop by after years and still this same fucking thread

Actually most of my compositions are much more minimalistic than the one i shared here, and i feel like the more minimal stuff are the things i enjoy the most.
(Of course im biased judging my own music though.....)

I never shared this particular piece online, but one of my favorite pieces of mine is a piece that is so minimal, every chord transition happens only once in the entire song, and each chord is played very slowly for a really long while. very few people ever heard me playing that piece. i find that piece to be magical and highly hypnotic. one day i will hopefully release an album and it will be included there

Thanks for sharing Ben Monader btw, never heard about him before. sounds interesting

>music uses only one system for several centuries
This is just wrong, there are so many nonwestern systems of music theory. And it's not as if music theory has remained static this whole time, it only builds apon itself.
And I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with the second half of your post, since I'm not trying to argue that only trained theorists with musical education can make good music

Only if you are a genius and making music comes naturally to you. Chances are that this is not your case, so yeah, go learn some fucking theory.

Saying learning music theory will make you a worse musician is like saying learning grammar will make you a worse writer. It's what stupid people tell themselves to justify their ignorance.

youtube.com/watch?v=49alQj7c5ps

They are not mutually exclusive. you can absolutely know music theory and still be a creative, imaginative composer.

I'm just saying music theory is not essential for the creation of good music

Music theory will make you a worse musician ONLY if you will follow it blindly as blueprints instead of following your artistic vision.

If you don't do that, there is no reason knowing music theory would make you worse as a musician. you just need to realize that the core of your compositions should come from your own imagination and insparation

What the hell are we arguing about then? I never once said that music theory is essential to make good music. I only said that knowing more will broaden your ideas, creativity, and give you a deeper understanding of what you're actually doing

It's okay if you're too stupid to learn theory. Just stick to camp fire songs and people will still think you are talented.

You don't know anything about making music.

The problem is that this discussion on this particular forum is going to devolve into a shitfest because everybody wants an answer right here, right now. Even when it's a subject where even the littlest improvement is experienced over such a gradual period.

Reading over it one more time, I can say that the best starting point is to learn to identify melodic and harmonic intervals, do that for like an hour a day, but after that, just forget it and go back to what you're doing.

There's a kind of arrogance in "I don't need no theory, mane" that's really annoying, but even that first step takes more than a day to really grasp, so it's not surprising that people react to it this way.

I already know enough music theory user. i don't want to proceed further because i want to concentrate on the emotional and imaginative aspect of music, and i find delving into theory to be a bit disruptive for my creative process.


Objectively wrong but i don't feel like arguing with you when you make such silly arguments.

Post something. I know you won't. It's obvious from your posts that you have a pedestrian understanding of music.

I don't mean to sound arrogant.

I think not everyone must create music through the same process, you know? if you feel like you need music theory, go for it. and if i feel like it's disruptive to my own process, im not going to delve into it further

lol

whatever makes you feel better

>Post something. I know you won't.

I already did, see

learning is disruptive I am le true artiste xD

>this is your brain on ignorance

Wow a couple arpeggiated chords, real impressive

I will explain to you why it's disruptive for me.

I like to think about my music as locations or feelings - i like to think about my music as an atmosphere.

Music theory disrupts my atmospheric line of thinking and it makes me think about things as math and chord progression. i feel like thinking about my own music as theory can really disrupt my creative process.

No offense but your reasoning doesn't make any sense.

you have no real understanding of what music theory even is if you think this.

I had low expectations and you still managed to disappoint me.

I posted a clearer explanation one post above you.

I will summarize it:
I like to think about my music as an atmosphere, not as math. thinking about my music as math and chord progressions disrupts the technique i use for my creative process

Depends what kind of shit you wanna make.

You don't have to know anything about theory as long as you have an ear for what sounds good. Whatever chord you throw down on the piano roll might have a technical name, but it doesn't really matter as long as you can finish the progression.

your brain is garbage manifest

^ I am not this rude little shit
>i don't want to proceed further because i want to concentrate on the emotional and imaginative aspect of music
I get where you're coming from but
>you can absolutely know music theory and still be a creative, imaginative composer.
You yourself admit that using theory properly will not detract from those things

Just curious now, how does learning disrupt your creative process? I don't know a lot of music theory, but whenever I learn something new I'm always excited to see how I can apply it to my own music , which leads me to a bunch of ideas.
The worst issue I have is what ideas I want to flesh out first

You're typecasting these various sounds and sonorities into "feelings". Instead of calling it like Cma7+11, you're saying something like "nostalgic" or whatever. It's a statute of limitation you're putting on it, and learning the nomenclature will actually free you of this, not make you more restrained.

Thanks for sharing your honest opinion.

I've seen some people in the thread liking my piece, and i've seen you disliking my piece. it's just a matter of opinion.

But music theory isn't a process for making music! It's just describing what's going on, it's not some cold formula

Learning music theory will allow you to more aptly describe the environment you're trying to create through sound.

Theory is a tool, not a guideline. You'd know that if you spent even a small amount of time learning theory.

Learning the fundamentals of any discipline allows you more creative potential, not less.

this pretty much

>it's not some cold formula
Tell it to any blues musician ever, a genre that 100% relies on the most basic formulatic music theory

>Learning music theory will allow you to more aptly describe the environment you're trying to create through sound.

Maybe for you, not for me though.
What is right for you is not essentially right for me, user

you're actually retarded

You could talk shit but your composition is trash so you have no room.

this is how stupid people justify not growing their knowledge.

this is how fat people justify not losing weight. your argument is the definition of ignorance.

I'm sorry for telling you the truth about blues.

The entire genre is based on following a basic music-theory formula

>music theory
>formula

you are dense as fuck, I'm done.

I'm tired of people calling me stupid in this thread.

I think my point of "what is right for you is not essentially right for me" was a very fair point. i'm not the first musician who doesn't like to compose using music theory.

And there are plenty of successful musician who don't give a fuck about theory

Most prominent blues musicians did not have a "proper music education"
They played what they felt, it wasn't until the analysis of it that theorists could lump it together and say "this is basically what's going on"

And even though the theory of blues is pretty limited relative to other genres, it's pretty impressive how different artists used very similar scales to create very different pieces

you're actually hopeless

He's too dumb to learn theory so he spends his time rationalizing it.

I don't know how learning more about something like harmony for example could ruin the creative vision of anyone since many innovations started in artists wanting to destroy the things they studied before but I guess if you already have your own style then go for it, knowing what you want is the most essential thing after all.

being afraid of influence is sign of weakness.
it's also observable fact that some initially fresh underground artists lost their identity after contact with basic theory, but this will happen sooner or later anyway, you cant stay a noble savage forever.
aphex twin and legowelt still maintain a veneer of noble savagery in interviews but bet they explored many concepts already, there's no isolated artistic curiosity which is only interested in own discoveries.