How many of you know music theory?

[Wiesty]

Its all math really.....counting wise. And for chords and scales its really quite simple. Theory is probably one of the easiest things to learn about music, and once you know it its easy to sit down with anyone and just play quickly. Also, if your learning theory, don't mix it up reading music. 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT SKILLS that should never be intertwined IMO. I know a ton of amazing jazz players who can make up the most beautiful harmonies and chord voicings, but when it comes to reading they are a bit slow. Either way, theory is so important.

[zykO]

Its all math really.....counting wise. And for chords and scales its really quite simple. Theory is probably one of the easiest things to learn about music, and once you know it its easy to sit down with anyone and just play quickly. Also, if your learning theory, don't mix it up reading music. 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT SKILLS that should never be intertwined IMO. I know a ton of amazing jazz players who can make up the most beautiful harmonies and chord voicings, but when it comes to reading they are a bit slow. Either way, theory is so important.

huh?

...um, huh?

[Kanthos]

Theory is simple if you define theory to be keys, major/minor scales, and triads. Start adding the various 4-note chords, modal music, 4-part arrangement, counterpoint and harmony techniques, cadences, and also keep a good sense about when and how those techniques should and shouldn't be used, and things start getting really complex really quickly.

I have a reasonably high understanding of theory, through classes when I took piano lessons, a university course extending that (would've covered the next theory course I'd have taken if I'd kept up my piano lessons), self-taught learning, and actually applying the theory to what I play, particularly in jazz (knowing how to form chords is one thing; seeing that actually used in real music and understanding the form of pieces you're playing is very different).

I think some theory is 100% essential. If you're trying to play in a group setting or read music, you really can't get away with not knowing keys and scales. More advanced stuff is, I think, a big asset, particularly if you're writing or arranging for certain genres. I can't, for example, write a piano chart for a jazz song and expect any competent player to play it if I don't understand the chords I want used. I could write it out note by note or I could just write chord symbols; either way, if it's going to work, I need to understand the chords.

Theory isn't as important in performance, but it does help a lot. I generally don't have time to analyze theory when I improv, other than looking at the root notes of the chords; beyond that, I just "feel" the nature of the chords given what the rhythm section is doing combined with the knowledge that sticking strictly to the notated chords doesn't always give the best solo anyway; they just roughly define what the rhythm section is doing. The more I know about the chords, the better I'm likely to be, although I'm not good enough to do that when sightreading.

[Fratto]

Its all math really.....counting wise. And for chords and scales its really quite simple. Theory is probably one of the easiest things to learn about music, and once you know it its easy to sit down with anyone and just play quickly.

It would be interesting to know how much theory you know. I would only agree that theory is one of the easiest parts of music if you stop at scales, keys, and major/minor chords. Learning about a sub-dominant, how to make a German +6 chord, neapolitan chords, plus a lot of other crazy shit, and then how to actually use these practically is not the easiest thing to learn.

Yeah, that may be so, but especially in this day & age communication is paramount. If you can't articulate to someone why and how what you did sounds good, that's a negative. It makes learning and collaborating that much harder. That's why I think theory plays an important role regardless.

QFE.

[Lunahorum]

I would only agree that theory is one of the easiest parts of music if you stop at scales, keys, and major/minor chords. Learning about a sub-dominant, how to make a German +6 chord, neapolitan chords, plus a lot of other crazy shit, and then how to actually use these practically is not the easiest thing to learn.

winner

10char

[prophetik music]

dunno if anyone's posted this yet, but here's my response to cree''s post.

i think that if you take the time to learn piano, you're going to discover the theoretical aspects of music will come along as you're learning keys.

that said, if anyone has any theory questions, ask me. i'm going to be getting my masters in composition, probably, and i'm going to be working towards teaching theory at the collegiate level. so...if you've got a question feel free to ask me.

[DrumUltimA]

dunno if anyone's posted this yet, but here's my response to cree''s post.

i think that if you take the time to learn piano, you're going to discover the theoretical aspects of music will come along as you're learning keys.

that said, if anyone has any theory questions, ask me. i'm going to be getting my masters in composition, probably, and i'm going to be working towards teaching theory at the collegiate level. so...if you've got a question feel free to ask me.

hey proph remember like two years ago we got into an argument over music theory?

[prophetik music]

i think so, what was it about? i can't remember...

[DrumUltimA]

neither can I

[Cree`]

Hah, thanks Phrophet. I'll make sure and ask some questions when they come up.

[Zephyr]

I'd recommend taking piano and theory to anyone that's interested in music, I love it and it's taught me everything I know. If you do, take it from someone, don't teach yourself.

[Lunahorum]

it's intuitive yet wrong to think that learning the rules limits creativity.

[prophetik music]

heck, the rules were created so that they could eventually be broken - but it's knowing when you're breaking those rules and why that makes it better.

[Monobrow]

I like music

I like music theory

but mostly I like music

[Patrick Burns]

Music theory is nothing more than definitions in the history of music.

The "rules" aspect comes in when teachers package music theory in order to the show practical benefits for students. This harmony can go here, this scale can go over this harmony, etc. This is useful knowledge for people who compose or perform in this manner, but it is contrary to the way some people compose/perform. To the the latter group of people, music theory then becomes this stupid mix of arbitrary rules. These people are missing that fact that they are rebelling not against music theory, but against the way it is packaged for them.

There is nothing about music theory (in the most abstract sense of the word) that tells you what to do. It's there to give words to explain what is there. To some people it can be useful in their creative process, but it is useful to EVERYONE from a historical standpoint, and it makes communcating with other musicians about music much easier.

So if you're looking to use music theory as a practical tool in the creation of music, then there are a lot of resources available to you. However, if you want to study it for the sake of understanding music and its history, you're going to have to be mindful that a lot of music theory literature is simplified and packaged to give people a framework for composing/performing/improvising, and it isn't necessarily geared towards understanding. (Again, this is why for some people music theory has a reputation for being arbitray and stupid, and to a certain extent they're right.)

[po!]

heck, the rules were created so that they could eventually be broken - but it's knowing when you're breaking those rules and why that makes it better.

i really hate how music theory classes present things as RULES. it's made to sound like the rules were created out of nowhere and given to us like the ten commandments... YOU SHALL NOT USE PARALLEL OCTAVES

music theory explains what people did (harmonically). someone analyzed Bach's voicings and discovered that he never used parallel octaves. that was just Bach's style, since he probably thought they sounded bad. they are in no way RULES.. but someone decided to teach them as RULES, not merely "stylistic patterns of Bach"

and now we have misconceptions about theory with people thinking its a set of rules that governs the way music works.. like the way math theory governs numbers. there's people thinking music is based on theory, when it's the other way around... theory is based on music

ok.. i dunno where i'm going with this, just wanted to say that THERE ARE NO RULES

[Hemophiliac]

i love what po! just said, that's exactly right. people misunderstand that when they call them "rules" really it's just within the context of the classroom...within the context of doing your homework the way your teacher wants you to.

it's music...it's an art. anything goes.

[Lunahorum]

THERE ARE NO RULES

ya exactly. Saying rules is easier than saying stylistic patterns. There are lots of broadly used words that vary in meaning depending on the context - language has evolved and continues to evolve. When people say rules in the context of music, they mean stylistic patterns.

[prophetik music]

don't get me wrong, i wasn't saying that if you write parallel fifths bach would kill a kitten, or something. what i WAS pointing out is that you CAN'T really write parallel fifths until you understand WHY they were 'bad' in the first place, four hundred years ago. well, yeah, you can, because there aren't really any rules nowadays - just general guidelines that help make things sound pleasing. but understanding it makes it that much better.

[Fray]

What exactly is a parallel octave/fifth again? Would a parallel fifth be something like C,G,D,A, played in sequence? Or the two-note chords, C+G,D+A?

Proph, I get what you're saying about learning rules before you break them, but I'm not really sure most of the old, i.e. outdated, rules are really useful for anything besides historical perspective. Music history is filled with instances where such-and-such chord shape or melodic pattern was considered too dissonant. But then someone (or a few someones) came along and started using them until everyone got used to it. Or it may have just been a limitation in the tuning of instruments at the time. So those particular rules aren't something we really need to be concerned about anymore.

[prophetik music]

parallel fifths is two voices/parts playing a fifth between them and then the next note is a fifth between them as well. it sounds normal to us (thanks to pop) but it was a big no-no back in the day.

take a course in 16th century counterpoint and then tell me that the rules aren't useful for anything but historical perspective (lol). seriously, though, you'd be surprised how much people like beethoven, mahler, schoenburg, glass, and cage - revolutionaries of their time - useed the 'rules' as a basis for their music. it's worth it, i promise.

don't forget that the rules i speak of aren't just voice leading, it's scales and progressions and non-chord-tone uses and stuff like that. that stuff is uber important, even if it's just for soloing and the like. YOU'D know that, of all people - SRV, petruci, et cetera - all were/are theory geniuses when it came to stuff like that. do YOU know when to use a whole tone scale? maybe you should find out.

[Fray]

Right, I'm sure there are plenty of ideas in counterpoint that are still relevant and useful. I'm not trying to dismiss counterpoint as a whole or any study of theory for that matter. Believe me I'd love to take some music theory classes, if nothing else for the sheer enjoyment of it.

[Nicholestien]

First off, I do not mean to demean anyone, or discourage anyone from learning theory, I just want to show a bit of a different perspective, since you asked for everyone's opinion on this; Theory has never worked for me, ever. When I learned English, I always relied on my own instincts for what sounds right, and for the most part, I was always right.

Same works for me in music: When I have to figure out difficult chordal extensions, write an intricate progression, solo over a backing track, I ALWAYS rely on my ears first, and after that, if I'm up to it, I figure out what the hell I actually just did. To keep with Snappleman's dictionary analogy; I make words up, and sometimes, when I feel like it, I look them up in the dictionary to see if I was right.

I think the MOST important thing is (might only work for me this way though) to actually listen to music, a lot. Get used to the way the counterpoint, the progressions, the harmonies, the rhythms, melodies etc etc etc for that certain musical genre sound, and try to apply them yourself in your ReMix.

What I'm trying to make clear is that you shouldn't see learning musical theory as the be-all, end-all of your musical life. For the most part, you should be able to get by without it, and you should IMO only use your knowledge of music theory when you really have no idea what to do. Sort of like the way you wouldn't use a dictionary to look up every word before writing it down

Seconded.

One thing I think is really good, that just seemed to help me relate to the piano, guitar, etc, alot more, was finding those little zelda tunes on them.

and once you find them, I mean the exact notes, not the intervals, both are important though, once you've found them, move onto more complex thing.

You'll know what diminishing a note "feels like" instead of what it "looks like" etc.

it's also important to learn to play what you LIKE first. If your trying to learn a song you don't like at all your not going to feel the music and it's going to become a choir rather than music.

But it's important to learn about classical and Jazz like that ice tea dude said, or whatever.

[Nicholestien]

Your audacious cataclysmic methods seek nothing more than sangradient itoprophies.

what in the fuck ...

you need to lay off those pills boi.

[Nicholestien]

Without learning WHY things sound the way they do, or what the relationships between notes are, you can only make music without knowing theory for so long before you hit a brick wall. Either your music will all sound the same, or you'll realize that your ability to write is limited and you'll then start to learn theory.

Like zyko said, theory is just a way to understand music. If you choose to go in farther, then more power to you, but EVERY musician needs to know the basics, and should be able to think of a song in terms of the events going on as opposed to memorizing how it sounds.

bullshit. complete bullshit. You learn why things sound the way they do, and the relationship between the notes regardless of your theory knowledge. It's better to learn these things by ear and expand your music knowledge by listening to diverse styles of music and understanding their backround.