Pros & cons of playing an instrument and knowing theory

[studiologic]

i have a question for you...


how many times have you written the same song?

dont you ever get tired of that?

Why not simply click the link in my signature and try to find the answer to this question yourself.

no disrespect... but i could load up a Heavyocity plugin... and have any 2 year old just press the white keys and come up with the same thing...

personally, i hear no talent in that... i like a groove, harmony, melody and secondary melody in my music... now i under your remarks about gospel music...

i will be the first to say i am not talented... but i enjoy music... enjoy learning about music... enjoy listening...

https://soundcloud.com/neverenoughfunk

[studiologic]

To make my point about basic music theory, I was listening to a track by Gaia and they were going through the cycle of 5ths. They clearly understood that simple music concept. They still have to master Ableton and all the different sonic possibilities, but from a song structure point of view, they used a basic concept. And to my friend who is 65, God Bless you bro. That really inspired me. Stay healthy my man.

what does "going through the cycle of 5ths " mean... the song was full of chord changes?

here is an example of someone who read a paragraph of music theory... and now want to explain it...

the cycle of 5th is a tool to help remember how many sharps/flats are in a scale...

simple as that...

You're showing that you may be the one who just "read a paragraph of music theory" here.

The Circle of 5ths is a tool for visually demonstrating things like key signatures and other key and chord relationships.

The Cycle of 5ths is an actual chord progression that can be realized either diatonically (staying within one key) or chromatically (moving through all keys on the Circle of 5ths).

It's a pretty simple distinction, and now you know about it.

i think we are pretty much talking about the same thing here...

but tell me where you hear the cycle 5th in a track by Gaia...

that was my point!!!

[stringtapper]

another point about music theory...

in the key of C maj... you know Dmin usually resolves to G maj.... you know G maj usually resolves back to the root or E min... you know that Emin usually resolves to A min... Amin usually resolves to F maj... Fmag usually resolves to Bdim...

You mean "Gmaj usually resolves back to the Tonic."

A "root" is the designation for a pitch that is a chord member (i.e. Root, 3rd, 5th, 7th, etc.). Every chord has a root. People who say "root" when they mean "Tonic" (the I chord) probably read a paragraph of music theory and then think they know what they're talking about.

Also, your list of resolutions in general is a bit wacky. While some of them may be "usual" there are certainly other resolution that are just as "usual" and some that are more common that you haven't listed. Like Am moving to Dm (descending 5th progression).

my main instrument is the drums... but i took lessons to learn music theory... i was taught the song Autumn Leaves... Autumn Leaves is about 80% of all western music... you take any 2, 3, 4, 5 chords in a row from the chord progression of Autumn Leaves... you will have 80% of all western music...

in conclusion, yes one could trial and error to learn this... but why... just learn Autumn Leaves and the scales/modes of the key you are working in... for me... i learned Autumn Leaves in every key and the scales/modes of all the keys... then you could get fancy... and just play Pentonic/Blues Pentonic scales over those Autumn Leaves progressions...

Psst… guess what?

The chord progression of Autumn Leaves is a Diatonic Cycle of 5ths.

"Learned" indeed…

[stringtapper]

The biggest fallacy I see coming mostly from people talking about music on the internet is the idea that music theory will ruin your creativity. In my experience if that happens then you probably weren't very creative to begin with.

I've said this before, but most of what people talk about in these threads as "music theory" is not what I call music theory. It's really musical fundamentals.

That is, it's just the mechanics and vocabulary of music. To me music theory is the type of heavy research and analysis that music theory scholars get into. But I know that music fundamentals is still called "music theory" by the majority and it will likely remain that way. Even the titles of the college courses I teach have it in the title.

But I think in a way attaching the term "theory" makes it seem more esoteric than it really is. In what seems like our ever increasingly anti-intellectual modern society this may have the effect of turning people off of learning things that I believe can make them better musicians.

[Tarekith]

I've gone through a couple different phases of immersing myself in music theory and fundamentals over the years. I've noticed their always associated with times I was more into improving my guitar skills than working on electronic music songs. I've learned that like anything, unless you use it all the time, it's not something you will retain all of the details of once you get past a certain skillset.

I definitely think the basics are good to know, understanding a bit more how music has traditionally been written never hurt. And I find even a basic knowledge helps when talking to other musicians, especially if you're collaberating on something together.

[stringtapper]

I've learned that like anything, unless you use it all the time, it's not something you will retain all of the details of once you get past a certain skillset.

Definitely. I tell my students that music is like athletics in this regard. You won't be "cramming" for a sight singing test.

And I find even a basic knowledge helps when talking to other musicians, especially if you're collaberating on something together.

That's a big point. Having shared terminology for musical concepts makes working with other musicians more efficient.

[studiologic]

music theory in the context that i am talking about is for us non-talented individuals... the problem i think we have is individuals thinking that they are talented... i.e. can look out there door and see a talented individuals... talented individuals are far and few in between... music theory is a way of learning what an individuals knows and are doing on his/her instrument... by a set rules and guidelines...

practice is always the key... music theory can help with what to practice... doing exercises to develop ones ear and/or dexterity to play an instrument... individuals think learning music theory is like climbing mount everest... it is learning rules and guidelines... i.e. when you go on a tangent you know exactly where you went wrong... playing by ear does not give you that... you just go on a tangent... how many times have you play something and could not do it again... with the rules and guidelines of music theory that is less likely... because there is a level of consistency... i.e. has to fit a rule of guideline...

when i first started... everything were triads... then does 7th began to sound good... then the 9th, 11th, 13th... music theory helps us non-talented individuals grow musically... and the beauty of it all... learning it is natural progression... in other words... just have teacher teach the basic... by practicing what is taught you will be discovering things about music in no time... i.e. teaching yourself...

[stringtapper]

And to get back on topic…

To say that music theory (in any context) is for "non-talented people" is to imply that "talented people" are somehow born knowing music theory. Well of course that doesn't happen.

Some people can't fathom that talent and intellect can coexist when it comes to music. It muddies the romantic notions they hold of humanity and its relationship to art.

[studiologic]

i think individuals have different views of what music theory is... just read this thread...

the key is...

whatever one can do to make their music better...

just do it...

dont think about... just do it... music theory or no music theory...

you read for yourself and you make your decisions on how important music theory is to you...

because you are the one at the end of the day actually making the music...

ENJOY!!!

[[jur]]

Ok boys, topic cleaned.
Now, please keep discussing on this interesting OP question without fighting.
Use the PM feature if you really need to debate who's the most clever one.
Next off-topic post will earn you a nice warn.
Thx,
Julien

[stringtapper]

I have to say that I don't completely get what the OP's point was. If he's saying that there are cons to learning music theory in the sense that it can kill your creativity then I've already addressed that fallacy.

He said something about not having time or patience to learn the software. Well in the context of what I consider to be part of "electronic music theory" I think understanding the concepts of signal processing and synthesis to be just as much a part of the game as knowing how harmony, melody, and rhythm work. It can seem daunting to have all of that heaped on, yes.

Some might find it hard to believe that Miller Puckette actually designed Max as an approachable environment for composers to program their own instruments and interactivity engines. I see people here who get frustrated trying to learn Max or don't even want to go there because they are "musicians, not programmers." Well Max was made for that very type of person and yet even it has a pretty steep learning curve. The breadth of knowledge that the modern musician is expected to know can be immense.

The funny thing to me about this is that I have seen people deny the need for knowledge of traditional music theory only to then see them participate in a detailed discussion about concepts behind signal processing or synthesis. To me, I see those as different parts of the same thing when it comes to making electronic music.

[[jur]]

He said something about not having time or patience to learn the software. Well in the context of what I consider to be part of "electronic music theory" I think understanding the concepts of signal processing and synthesis to be just as much a part of the game as knowing how harmony, melody, and rhythm work. It can seem daunting to have all of that heaped on, yes.

Some might find it hard to believe that Miller Puckette actually designed Max as an approachable environment for composers to program their own instruments and interactivity engines. I see people here who get frustrated trying to learn Max or don't even want to go there because they are "musicians, not programmers." Well Max was made for that very type of person and yet even it has a pretty steep learning curve. The breadth of knowledge that the modern musician is expected to know can be immense.

The funny thing to me about this is that I have seen people deny the need for knowledge of traditional music theory only to then see them participate in a detailed discussion about concepts behind signal processing or synthesis. To me, I see those as different parts of the same thing when it comes to making electronic music.

I 1000% agree with that, and I love Max/M4L and spending hours creating synths presets and know very well the logic behind...

If he's saying that there are cons to learning music theory in the sense that it can kill your creativity then I've already addressed that fallacy.

But in the meantime I 100% agree with the idea that sometimes/for some musicians thinking while playing music/composing can kill your creativity, and the moment I start thinking about what I'm doing when playing the guitar = I lose everything.
You have arguments to justify your opinion, but please don't say that it's a fallacy just because you disagree with the opposite opinion, that's exactly the kind of allegation that starts a testosterone fight. Things aren't just black or white.

[EasyWorkflow]

I have to say that I don't completely get what the OP's point was. If he's saying that there are cons to learning music theory in the sense that it can kill your creativity then I've already addressed that fallacy.

He said something about not having time or patience to learn the software. Well in the context of what I consider to be part of "electronic music theory" I think understanding the concepts of signal processing and synthesis to be just as much a part of the game as knowing how harmony, melody, and rhythm work. It can seem daunting to have all of that heaped on, yes.

Some might find it hard to believe that Miller Puckette actually designed Max as an approachable environment for composers to program their own instruments and interactivity engines. I see people here who get frustrated trying to learn Max or don't even want to go there because they are "musicians, not programmers." Well Max was made for that very type of person and yet even it has a pretty steep learning curve. The breadth of knowledge that the modern musician is expected to know can be immense.

The funny thing to me about this is that I have seen people deny the need for knowledge of traditional music theory only to then see them participate in a detailed discussion about concepts behind signal processing or synthesis. To me, I see those as different parts of the same thing when it comes to making electronic music.

I never expected to see such a heated argument about music theory. I was the first one to admit that sound design is too much for my brain to handle so I have to limit my creative abilities by taking a different approach to composing by using my skills as a guitarist and music theory to control soft synths which limits many aspects of writing music for me. I also mentioned that the people that write MIDI in by hand and do not even know theory probably have created some of the very best tracks ever written in EDM. I still consider them musicians who play the "computer" as their instrument. So what part did you not get? The point being was not knowing theory probably has resulted in some of the most iconic songs ever written because people had to rely on their ears without having any formal knowledge of what they were doing. That is a PRO of not learning theory. The Con is that you do limit yourself in many aspects. As an example. Not understanding inversions which if you had, you may have changed a 3 chord progression to their inversions which may have given the tune a better vibe. But you can't use inversions if you do not know what they are unless your ear is that good and knows that the 3rd instead of the root note should be on top. At least this post has opened up some peoples minds that maybe knowing a little theory will most likely not hurt their creativity and can only help it. Sorry for creating any in fighting but I think this was a good topic to address and obviously it hit a few people's chords no pun intended. Just have fun because at the end, that's what music is all about.

[stringtapper]

But in the meantime I 100% agree with the idea that sometimes/for some musicians thinking while playing music/composing can kill your creativity.

But that's precisely why actually learning music theory is a process of internalizing the concepts so that you don't have to think, or at least not to the extent that it can derail the creative process. And that's why I say the contrary view is a fallacy, and often posited by people who ultimately don't want to take the time to learn.

As Charlie Parker is often quoted as saying in one form or another:

"Master your instrument, Master the music, and then forget all that shit and just play."

[stringtapper]

The point being was not knowing theory probably has resulted in some of the most iconic songs ever written because people had to rely on their ears without having any formal knowledge of what they were doing. That is a PRO of not learning theory.

But that's just another side to the same fallacy I keep talking about.

The state of not knowing isn't what contributed to those songs being iconic. The artist's musical sense that developed from whatever musical environment they were exposed to did.

Saying that the absence of knowledge of music theory caused a song to be better is untenable, because there's absolutely no way to prove it. A statistician would tell you that you're making the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causation. Just because you can correlate a particular artist's output with the fact that they didn't know music theory doesn't mean that you can prove that their lack of music theory knowledge caused their output to be of greater quality than it otherwise would have been had they known music theory. Absolutely no way to prove that.

So no, I will stand by my sentiment that what you're calling a "con" is a logical fallacy in how you're viewing what music theory's role is and can be in music making.