Music Theory?

K, so i know little to nothing about music theory, aside from what is needed to read music, and very basic chords.:P

For the most part everything i do is by ear, or what sounds right.

My question is how neccecary is theory...?

How much do you guys actually use it?

My mom says i should learn, i just don't know where to start.

This is what I can tell you:

If you know absolutely nothing as far as theory goes then a wonderful series to go through to understand basics is something called Easy Music Theory by a canadian named Gary Ewer. You can search that on google and I believe you will find his website as the first result. It will cost a small amount, but it is seriously worth it. He is a little corky and silly, but he is actually pretty fun. He teaches all of the fundamentals of music. Here are the different subjects for each lesson: 1) The Grand Staff; 2) Notes; 3) Sharps, flats, and semitones; 4 + 5) Note durations; 6) Measures; 7 + 10 + 11) intervals; 8) Major scales; 9) key signatures; 12) Minor scales; 13 + 14) Time signatures; 15 + 17) tonic and dominant triads and roman numerals; 16) Key identification (how to be able to identify what key a piece is in and what key you are writing in); 18 + 20) transposition; 19) triplets, duplets, etc. 21) triad inversions; 22) cadences; 23) modes; 24) advanced clefs (beyond treble and bass like alto); 25) formating a score. There are written lessons that you read. Then there is a video of Gary in a classroom setting teaching in his funny little way (and if there was something I had never understood before I understood it with Gary. He is a very easy to understand teacher.) Then there is practice exercises. Then there is a test to go along with each lesson. It all comes in a 2 inch binder and 2 CD's that you can play through window media player or something like that. It is great. I don't think it is a bad thing to get even if you already know most of that and you just want to brush up on everything and make sure you have a full understanding of the basics. After you purchase the series you can sign up for his monthly newsletter which is worth it. They are very interesting and they can only further your understanding of different topics. He also has a little article that he wrote that can help you launch from the theory basics into composing.

I have a pretty good understanding of all of the stuff covered in that series. I am not so knowledgable when it comes to the next stage of compositional theory like counterpoint, harmony, form and analysis, etc. I have learned a few things here and there, but overall I am definately no expert. My suggestion to you is to sign up with someone in the "Lessons" sticky thread. Then, I know of a few classic books that you ought to buy if you are serious about learning this stuff. There is a classic book called The Study of Counterpoint and it is by J.J. Fux. Beethoven used it to learn; Mozart used it; and so did Haydn. It is basically "The" book to learn counterpoint. Then there is a book that is suposed to be great to learn harmony from and it is called "Tonal Harmony" by Kostka and Payne. My dad has a book from college on form and analysis called Basic Formal Structures in Music written by Paul Fontaine. I have read a little of the last reference and it seems to be pretty good and reasonable.

So, my philosophy on theory is as goes. Compositional theory is designed to teach you to compose what your ear would find the most natural and most correct and most satisfying in terms of harmony, resolution, counterpoint, orchestration, etc. I believe it is invaluable to learn this stuff in a traditional way. You can continue to compose by ear, but you will be missing a lot. You will not understand why things are the way they are and therefore you will have immature and empty sounding music. This is true moreso when you are writing for 4-part harmony or for a full orchestra then it is if you are writing for a piano solo or a single instrument solo. However, it is still important. I believe that people's ears are trained so much on modern/contemporary/impressionist music that they do not hear the mistakes and the fallacies with their music that people of early centuries would have. What I mean is that people are so used to the sounds of clashing 2nds and 7ths in contemporary music and the sounds of augmented 4ths in Debussy and the funny crazy mismatched rhythms you get in more modern music and the emptier sounds you get in more modern choral music that they do not recognize it when they write something that does not match the rules and does not sound complete and full (not that there is anything wrong with that). It is just that the rules are very foreign to come people and are that much more important to learn because fewer and fewer people have a basic intinct that gravitates towards that. Now, if you learn how to do everything correctly then you can break the rules properly. There are somethings that can be broken and it works even better than if you followed the rules strictly. But you cannot break the rules until you know the rules. Bach is a master of musical composition and he still broke the rules as much as anyone did and he was brilliant in the ways that he did. I know some people will say that it is no longer necessary to learn the rules because of what I have described, but I do not agree. I think it widens a person potential and capabilities to understand the rules. Once you understand the rules you will be able to express yourself so much better and you be able to see so many more opportunities than before. Also, there are different instances when you would want more or less traditional music. I think that in a form of scoring whether it is broadway or hollywood you would want dissonance in creepy scenes and in beautiful emotional scenes you would not. You would need to be able to compose both ways. In a hymn that is designed to get a mind ready for the study of God's word you would not want unresolved disonance because that would not be consitant with God's character. It would provide an unsettled felling and it would not be perfect. It would not prepare you to study. And in regular everyday music knowing the rules will help you find your style and help you understand the dynamics of your own music.

Thank you for suggesting that book, Ravel. I'm going to buy it.

The way I see it, I don't want to be writing music based on music theory. If I am CALCULATING what my next chord should be, there's something wrong.

However, I have loved learning music theory in the past. IMO learning musical theory is just a tool for inspiration to manifest more quickly and clearly. Learning keys and scales etc. is great, like when I play a guitar or piano, I can see the scales and keys like seeing the matrix kind of thing, makes things a lot easier and quicker.

:ninja:

When I am learning music theory and stuff, I do it with my mind. But when I am composing, I am in a meditative state of no-mind, or as close as I can get anyway.

The way I see it, I don't want to be writing music based on music theory. If I am CALCULATING what my next chord should be, there's something wrong.

Nobody should 'calculate' their next chord...theory doesn't dictate where you go, but how you can get somewhere.

Intimate knowledge of music is of the utmost importance. Otherwise, you're fumbling in the dark, perhaps occasionally stumbling on something useful.

Someone who knows nothing about engineering might spend years re-inventing the wheel... yes, good for him, he actually figured out a very basic conept on his own. But what impact does it have in the larger context? None.

If you know nothing about theory, then you will spend all your energy trying to figure out what thousands of composers before you already knew or discovered.

Once you understand theory, then you are free to compose music and make musical decisions based on that foundation.

Anyone who tells you that "theory is about calculating chords" is an idiot. Theory is about understanding relationships. Even the "rules" of harmony and counterpoint are about understanding those relationships.

Understanding theory (and harmony, and counterpoint) isn't about blindly applying what you learn. It's about understanding the underlying principles and applying them to your music-making.

cool,

my mom kepts mentioning that i get along nicely not knowing the "rules". what you guys have said sheds a little more light on the term.

Your mom will always encourage you... you need subjective opinions. Learn theory.

Your mom will always encourage you... you need subjective opinions. Learn theory.

... You mean objective opinions? .. .. Right?

Anyways, "music theory" in the traditional sense is nice to look at. If you want to use it or not, it's up to you, but you should at least know what it's about and then decide. Like, uh, just about everthing else in music.

i'd like to meet your mom sometime.

maybe we could get some coffee.

... You mean objective opinions? .. .. Right?

Isn't that an oxymoron? Aren't opinions subjective by definition?

Isn't that an oxymoron? Aren't opinions subjective by definition?

i have an idea, let's not go there.

Isn't that an oxymoron? Aren't opinions subjective by definition?

Hmm. I'm not sure. Depends in which context. I suppose that it's not that an opinion is subjective or not, but that it's not claimed to be the truth/fact itself. So, an opinion can be objectively a fact, but I'm not sure if the opinion as such then is also objective.

Take for example, a picture on a wall. You can say "I'm of the opinion that the picture is on the wall.", and that would be factually correct. By saying this however it means that, the picture CAN as well not be on the wall, and you hold the opinion that it is.

I suppose objective/subjective would be judgment passed to opinions in relation to other variables and context in between. At least, that's how I understand it, but I may be totally wrong, lol.

Your mom will always encourage you... you need subjective opinions. Learn theory.

yeah, she says that i need to learn it also...

She will point out mistakes.