How much music theory do you take into consideration while composing?

Perhaps a better question would be, "Do you compose what sounds good to you or what is theoretically correct?" This isn't a perfect question, but I think it clarifies the different methods of composing. Can you guys think of a better phrasing?

Personally, I compose what sounds good. It doesn't matter if your harmonies are technically correct if the piece itself doesn't sound good.

-John

That's the thing though, there's no "theoretically correct" anything. There's "writing in style of X" and how close you are to that style, and that's about it.

And yeah, the whole point is writing what you want to hear. If you want to hear D>T cadences for 6 hours, then go ahead.

Perhaps a better question would be, "Do you compose what sounds good to you or what is theoretically correct?" This isn't a perfect question, but I think it clarifies the different methods of composing. Can you guys think of a better phrasing?

Personally, I compose what sounds good. It doesn't matter if your harmonies are technically correct if the piece itself doesn't sound good.

-John

Even if they don't follow any various system's rules/guidelines.. there is still an independent usage of theory behind that can be deduced. I was trying to elude to that in my earlier posts in regards to bryla - and I think SSC also misunderstood what I was saying.

Even if they don't follow any various system's rules/guidelines.. there is still an independent usage of theory behind that can be deduced. I was trying to elude to that in my earlier posts in regards to bryla - and I think SSC also misunderstood what I was saying.

Er, well that's something else then. It still comes down to redundancy, like I said you can say everything ever has a theory behind it. I don't see the point of saying that since it brings nothing.

You can make up your OWN theory based on other people's music and, behold, that's what everyone understands as "theory" today. I says nothing about the method of composing, just your own interpretation of what you see on paper.

Er, well that's something else then. It still comes down to redundancy, like I said you can say everything ever has a theory behind it. I don't see the point of saying that since it brings nothing.

It's all about viewpoint, i think. Obviously, we can state that everything whether intended or not is capable of producing a theory after analysis. That's just the way humans operate.

You can make up your OWN theory based on other people's music and, behold, that's what everyone understands as "theory" today. I says nothing about the method of composing, just your own interpretation of what you see on paper.

True, hence why you have many different ways to analyze music.

Yes, I struggled in making the question clear and understandable, but I left it too vague apparently. I believe when I was making this I was thinking of Western Tonal music. Though like it has been said, it can go towards pretty much everything that has been developed. Which is where I realized some of you folks would take this question through leaps and bounds. Glad that people are thinking beyond though.

I..... think the original question wants to know if someone here does something like this:

"I wrote this, and sounds good to me, but I think I'm gonna delete it because I read in a book it shouldn't be written like that"

or

"I don't know what that 7th is for, but I'm gonna add it here because me teacher told me to"

Not about what is or what is not "theory".

Listen to SSC. Theory came after the music was written -- it's a way to describe what's going on in a piece.

Using that definition, you should certainly have an idea of what's going on in your piece. If you don't after you've written it, that's fine, but find out -- see how you use the language you just wrote down.

I just use the basics. Everything else is bent according to how I want it to sound.

Question: "How much music theory do you take into consideration while composing?"

Answer: "All of it whenever I need it."

Question: "How often do you take music theory into consideration while composing?" - This is the question I believe the Poll was supposed to ask...

Answer: "As often as I need to use it, which varies from one work to the next." - I put all the time because I presume that, even when I don't think I'm using music theory, I probably am.

statement that someone uses music theory while composing without doing it consciously is either nonsense, or trite. music theory is a large large body of statements and propositions regarding various things that are called musical. there is no chance that you can use music theory without knowing it (that you do it) . you can, nevertheless, use various musical patterns composing that you constructed some time before applying music theory to your composition, but these are not themselves something you could call 'music theory' or 'things that use music theory', since they are part of your instinctive writing process. these are blocks of compositional practice, but not music theory. music theory is a body of statements and propositions, you don't use these things unconsciously. you can use musical patterns derived from applying these statements, hypotheses ( which, of course is conscious) in your composition instinctively, but it's not the same as using music theory to construct these patterns.

on another hand, if the argument goes that we, nolens volens, use musical theory, since it explains how we construct patterns, hear sound and so on and it is hardwired in us, it too assumes that theory somehow is the thing it tries to explain, which, of course, is nonsense.

so either we use musical theory consciously, or we don't use it at all. and, most probably, use only some bits of musical theory, since i doubt we can use all of it without overloading.

music theory is a body of statements and propositions, you don't use these things unconsciously.

what about when i dream about writing a tune

what about when i dream about writing a tune

if it involves rational judgement (like in, "i'm doing this and this, because it's this and that"), then most surely you may use certain bits of musical theory in your dream. dreams are not unconscious if you perform rational tasks there. i actually wanted to rephrase and use different term for what counts as using something 'consciously', but the most intuitive thing is to say using it reflectingly, as in knowing what you are doing. also, writing a tune does not necessarily involve using music theory, since writing tunes (or singing) is older (and may be said to empirically presupose the existence of it) than musical theory.

statement that someone uses music theory while composing without doing it consciously is either nonsense, or trite. music theory is a large large body of statements and propositions regarding various things that are called musical. there is no chance that you can use music theory without knowing it (that you do it) . you can, nevertheless, use various musical patterns composing that you constructed some time before applying music theory to your composition, but these are not themselves something you could call 'music theory' or 'things that use music theory', since they are part of your instinctive writing process. these are blocks of compositional practice, but not music theory. music theory is a body of statements and propositions, you don't use these things unconsciously. you can use musical patterns derived from applying these statements, hypotheses ( which, of course is conscious) in your composition instinctively, but it's not the same as using music theory to construct these patterns.

Point taken. I respectfully disagree with you that music theory is nothing more than statements and propositions. Sure, if you want to dumb it down semantically, then anything we "study" in school is nothing more than statements and propositions, including Philosophy! But it's simply not true. Conceptual meaning is attached, so then when one instinctively selects a particular chord due to its relationship to another, we can't necessarily say that there is a purposeful, conscious thought or that someone is dwelling on music theory statements or propositions. There indeed can be an instance where music theory is subconsciously used.

on another hand, if the argument goes that we, nolens volens, use musical theory, since it explains how we construct patterns, hear sound and so on and it is hardwired in us, it too assumes that theory somehow is the thing it tries to explain, which, of course, is nonsense.

so either we use musical theory consciously, or we don't use it at all. and, most probably, use only some bits of musical theory, since i doubt we can use all of it without overloading.

Interesting dichotomy, but I still think your argument generalizes music theory (or any pedagogy) down to statements and propositions without accounting for what I can only refer to as conceptualization. There is an evaluative process that should occur, and that process is what many of us may use consciously or unconsciously when writing music.

Kind of hard to answer this with the given poll responses.

Theory is so ingrained in the brain that it's impossible for me to do anything without at least some fleeting reference to something you've learned which could count as 'music theory'.

Depends what you class as music theory.

The important thing, I think, is to follow your ear, and your instincts, and the theory that you've learnt helps shape that in the most effective way possible. I don't think you can start from theory or derive meaningful inspiration from it, but it's important to have it built into your system, just running in the background.

Almost all of the time, I just compose with the ear doing all the work, testing stuff at the piano. The benefit of 'theory', or to be more accurate, composition teaching, is that I detect when things aren't as effective as possible, way better than before.

You'll develop this skill naturally without teaching, but 100 times slower than with a really great teacher.

Point taken. I respectfully disagree with you that music theory is nothing more than statements and propositions. Sure, if you want to dumb it down semantically, then anything we "study" in school is nothing more than statements and propositions, including Philosophy! But it's simply not true. Conceptual meaning is attached, so then when one instinctively selects a particular chord due to its relationship to another, we can't necessarily say that there is a purposeful, conscious thought or that someone is dwelling on music theory statements or propositions. There indeed can be an instance where music theory is subconsciously used.

Interesting dichotomy, but I still think your argument generalizes music theory (or any pedagogy) down to statements and propositions without accounting for what I can only refer to as conceptualization. There is an evaluative process that should occur, and that process is what many of us may use consciously or unconsciously when writing music.

to first, i actually don't think that "system of statements and propositions" deserves adjective "mere" or "nothing more". i have huge respect for good, ground breaking theories and systematic thinking. but with the second proposition, i think you show, that you missed my point - the relation between chords is not theoretical first of all! by noticing relations (that is degrees of differences) you don't have to know any specific theory whatsoever. so, there is no theory in instinctive understanding, and i'm arguing purely from logical grounds, otherwise we would lose any meaning arguing about intinctive, or mechanical, or learned, and let's say conceptual, reflective or theoretical. so, to pose some unconscious use of THEORY, either we change what is meant by theory, or by uncoscious. i think there's is no need to reinvetn this language game. to me it seams quite plausible to speak of theoretical as possesing differences from practical. that you use something that you learned in school, or from other theoretical inquirees, does not mean that you use theory, but tools that you derived from it. they are not theoretical in any sense, i believe.

conceptualization, or references of names of musical or any theory is a neccesary part of understanding a theory in a sense as to be able to create tools to demosntrate it, so i don't see how it comes as an argument against theory being a system of statements and propositions (this is vague definition, you can include mathematical formalization and things like that in theory). tools or concepts you may use uncosciously but precisely because they became instinctive, because they lost their theoretical meaning. that some chord has some relationship to another is a given fact of experience, everything in world are in a relationship of degrees of differences or intensity. by itself it is not musical theory to say that chords have relationships, but to name the charcter of the relationship. now that is musical theorizing. and i would go as far as to say that using 'musical theory' is a bit of misunderstanding in itself. when you extend, invent names, propose or create experimental situations for musical theory to be tested, that is when i would say you are in buisness of musical theory. which, i would think, is highly reflective and rational. when you 'use' musical theory, you use actual tools that were created by it, you use it like one uses hammer, you don't necessarily need to understand the mechanics of its theoretical aparatus (of engineering it). so, this could be said to be unreflected usage, but i wouldn't say that it means that you actually use musical theory, since there's no necessity for it to have existed already in theoretical outfit. that is if someone uses some chord progression which is called this and that and has been established as having this type of relation to other chords or material of body of invented theory, it does not imply that he uses theory in any sense.

that's my whole point.

also to give more intuitve example, good sample master can use various recorded sound bytes and put a collage, that someone could describe in certain terms of musical theory like tonality, that does not mean that sample magician knew or used any theory (of tonality) in his work. actually, he was rather using a practice of sampling (which may be or become theorized)! nevertheless, him creating a work from different relations, has nothing to do with actual understanding of musical theory in question.

Almost all of the time, I just compose with the ear doing all the work, testing stuff at the piano. The benefit of 'theory', or to be more accurate, composition teaching, is that I detect when things aren't as effective as possible, way better than before.

You'll develop this skill naturally without teaching, but 100 times slower than with a really great teacher.

Isn't that more like you just got better at knowing what you want than before?

A good teacher can help you clear up your own ideas, but this has nothing to do with "theory" of any sorts.

to first, i actually don't think that "system of statements and propositions" deserves adjective "mere" or "nothing more". i have huge respect for good, ground breaking theories and systematic thinking. but with the second proposition, i think you show, that you missed my point - the relation between chords is not theoretical first of all! by noticing relations (that is degrees of differences) you don't have to know any specific theory whatsoever. so, there is no theory in instinctive understanding, and i'm arguing purely from logical grounds, otherwise we would lose any meaning arguing about intinctive, or mechanical, or learned, and let's say conceptual, reflective or theoretical. so, to pose some unconscious use of THEORY, either we change what is meant by theory, or by uncoscious. i think there's is no need to reinvetn this language game. to me it seams quite plausible to speak of theoretical as possesing differences from practical. that you use something that you learned in school, or from other theoretical inquirees, does not mean that you use theory, but tools that you derived from it. they are not theoretical in any sense, i believe.

conceptualization, or references of names of musical or any theory is a necessary part of understanding a theory in a sense as to be able to create tools to demonstrate it, so i don't see how it comes as an argument against theory being a system of statements and propositions (this is vague definition, you can include mathematical formalization and things like that in theory). tools or concepts you may use unconsciously but precisely because they became instinctive, because they lost their theoretical meaning. that some chord has some relationship to another is a given fact of experience, everything in world are in a relationship of degrees of differences or intensity. by itself it is not musical theory to say that chords have relationships, but to name the charcter of the relationship. now that is musical theorizing. and i would go as far as to say that using 'musical theory' is a bit of misunderstanding in itself. when you extend, invent names, propose or create experimental situations for musical theory to be tested, that is when i would say you are in buisness of musical theory. which, i would think, is highly reflective and rational. when you 'use' musical theory, you use actual tools that were created by it, you use it like one uses hammer, you don't necessarily need to understand the mechanics of its theoretical aparatus (of engineering it). so, this could be said to be unreflected usage, but i wouldn't say that it means that you actually use musical theory, since there's no necessity for it to have existed already in theoretical outfit. that is if someone uses some chord progression which is called this and that and has been established as having this type of relation to other chords or material of body of invented theory, it does not imply that he uses theory in any sense.

that's my whole point.

I do not separate Music Theory from Theoretical Knowledge, as though in one state it's statements and propositions while in the other it's the body of knowledge one possesses pertaining to musical theoretical concepts. Music theory is the body of knowledge including but not limited to writings about concepts in music. So, to reduce this "body of knowledge" down to "statements and propositions" is "merely" generalizing music theory, because this only accounts for the written or spoken language of and about music. The point we seem to be disagreeing about is what that knowledge becomes once one becomes studied or knowledgeable of music theoretical concepts. When one's written music changes after learning about the large and vast history of music (estimates of up to 50,000 years of music history, and we only really cover 1,500 years of it in the span of 4 years) and the concepts that have emerged and been used for whatever reason, that knowledge is still present in the decisions the composer is making after conceptualizing theoretical concepts. Hence, when you know what you're doing, when you understand what you are writing and the decisions you're making aurally (after learning music theory), you're using music theory, because you're presumably using your knowledge, which is part of a much larger body of knowledge where your understanding originates... it's a continuum of knowledge/understanding and there is no reason to create some kind of distinction between knowledge and theory when the same material/intangible source of that understanding originates in the ever-expanding pedagogy of music theory.

Music history, while documented since the time of at least Homo Erectus archaeologically, has not had a continuous development of 50,000 years - even in estimate. There have been lots of proof that early man's ancestors possessed the capability to create music BUT that doesn't mean they possessed a body for recording music in writing. The earliest documentation we have archaeologically of music being inscribed or written down comes from a few places: Mesopotamia (the Hurrian tablet), India (well attested ancient scores found here), and China. The earliest of these comes from about 5000 BP (Before Present). That's just a few. There may have been a written system in Central and South America but I've not seen any journals or archaeological reports stating tentative proof. Sorry for derailing, I just wanted to make sure people had a clear view on the matter. Proceed with the conservation at hand!

Isn't that more like you just got better at knowing what you want than before?

A good teacher can help you clear up your own ideas, but this has nothing to do with "theory" of any sorts.

Nah, but it's similar to that. It's knowing how best to achieve what you want, which is distinct from knowing what you want.

And what a good teacher imparts may well include music theory, as well as lots of common sense stuff. It depends, again, on what you class as theory.

I do not separate Music Theory from Theoretical Knowledge, as though in one state it's statements and propositions while in the other it's the body of knowledge one possesses pertaining to musical theoretical concepts.

but that is what it is. it's a body of statements, which is theory, and it's tools which are various ways of composing. you may learn to compose using musical theory, but it's not thinking theoretically per se.

the whole concept of theory relies on being thought of as a being something else than mere practical usage you may get out of it. hence there can be no uncoscious dabling in musical theory. ok, i may agree that there are degrees of 'using' musical theory and not, but the more you are trully 'using' music theory, the less you are doing it unconsciously. you use concepts or blocks of language that were created by such and such musical theory, that, if you don't use them in the context of other relations, are not specifically concerned in any sense with music theory.

me, having learned hegelian dialecics, doesn't mean using it whenever i use concepts like thesis, antithesis and synthesis. i'm not using hegelian theory by any means. the same goes for music, there's no general theory of music, whatsoever, because it's a thinking proccess, that underlies and/or surpasses (escapes) any theoretical conceptualization. so either you use certain theoretical system of explaining music while compsing, and it means you reflect on it, or you simply are thinking in musical terms which are not theoretical in any specific manner, since they do not take into account a large body of theory involved to construct them. i do not use philsophy theory in thinking, i may use various bits and pieces i have made a body of my thinking through experience, and dabling in this and that theory, but after i'm done, i'm done, i'm not being hegelian, deleuzian or anything else.

as most of the young guys who are using tools they aquired from learning tonality (the point where they were theoreticians) which they use in composing are no longer 'using' musical theory, unless they think and rethink it in theoretical terms AND relations prescribed by that theory. they use tonal language of music, which is not music theory, in the end it may come out that in the first place something you called musical theory was nothing else but a verbatim translation of the text that need different analysis, and thus different theoretical aproach. that the theory part is really not very theoretical, but historically aquired indexication of practices, and that, my friend, is not theory in any sense.

so, we see how things like 'using musical theory unconsciously' really do not work and are rather misunderstandings and lead nowhere one would like to go, believing he is "using musical theory" in first place!

art seems to be a bit different than science, so which show are you on?

(i know i'm going more ways here than intitial problem i adressed, but i think it should be clear that 'using theory unconsciously' is something of a very loose kind of applying one language to another and so on, which, to me, seems too awkward to express much meaning)

but that is what it is. it's a body of statements, which is theory, and it's tools which are various ways of composing. you may learn to compose using musical theory, but it's not thinking theoretically per se.

the whole concept of theory relies on being thought of as a being something else than mere practical usage you may get out of it. hence there can be no uncoscious dabling in musical theory. ok, i may agree that there are degrees of 'using' musical theory and not, but the more you are trully 'using' music theory, the less you are doing it unconsciously. you use concepts or blocks of language that were created by such and such musical theory, that, if you don't use them in the context of other relations, are not specifically concerned in any sense with music theory.

me, having learned hegelian dialecics, doesn't mean using it whenever i use concepts like thesis, antithesis and synthesis. i'm not using hegelian theory by any means. the same goes for music, there's no general theory of music, whatsoever, because it's a thinking proccess, that underlies and/or surpasses (escapes) any theoretical conceptualization. so either you use certain theoretical system of explaining music while compsing, and it means you reflect on it, or you simply are thinking in musical terms which are not theoretical in any specific manner, since they do not take into account a large body of theory involved to construct them. i do not use philsophy theory in thinking, i may use various bits and pieces i have made a body of my thinking through experience, and dabling in this and that theory, but after i'm done, i'm done, i'm not being hegelian, deleuzian or anything else.

as most of the young guys who are using tools they aquired from learning tonality (the point where they were theoreticians) which they use in composing are no longer 'using' musical theory, unless they think and rethink it in theoretical terms AND relations prescribed by that theory. they use tonal language of music, which is not music theory, in the end it may come out that in the first place something you called musical theory was nothing else but a verbatim translation of the text that need different analysis, and thus different theoretical aproach. that the theory part is really not very theoretical, but historically aquired indexication of practices, and that, my friend, is not theory in any sense.

so, we see how things like 'using musical theory unconsciously' really do not work and are rather misunderstandings and lead nowhere one would like to go, believing he is "using musical theory" in first place!

art seems to be a bit different than science, so which show are you on?

(i know i'm going more ways here than intitial problem i adressed, but i think it should be clear that 'using theory unconsciously' is something of a very loose kind of applying one language to another and so on, which, to me, seems too awkward to express much meaning)

We should give credit where credit is due. How we learn to write music with more intent and purpose is proportional to those theoretical concepts we have learned and processed. I think the point I'm making here, however, is that (if unconscious is not the best word to use here) the information we learn from music theory is still theoretical, and thus as we are using that information in writing what we write there is no change in the fact that the knowledge we are using is theoretical. So, say I'm writing a piece I want to sound "tonal" (in the traditional sense) and I am in the decision-making process in writing a chord progression. I'm considering my choices based on my aural aesthetic sense as well as, presumably, any relevant theoretical knowledge (unless I've forgotten it) to "choose" what chord follows the one I just wrote. This is conscious.

Say I'm writing an original work conceived from my mind and stored in my memory. We'll use the same example as before. I hear and have constructed in my mind a chord progression. I know what the chord progression is before I'm writing it, even though I haven't directly applied any conscious thought to the "theory." My choices in the process are entirely instinctual and aesthetic without a care in the world for the "theory" I have learned. Still, when on paper it just so happens that the chord progression turns out to be the same that would result from conscious effort to include theory in my writing, I'm still using existing knowledge of theory in crafting the progression. I'm simply not aware that I'm doing it because my focus and concentration in the moment is on the aesthetics.

We can write all day long about the semantics of conscious and unconscious, of whether to separate theory from practice vs theory from knowledge, but I think when we reduce music theory down to what it is, it's more than statements and propositions. The body of knowledge many of us possess and use (consciously or otherwise) is theoretical. It will never be anything other than theoretical, because music, like any art, doesn't exist in a vacuum of concrete, objective thought processes. The body of knowledge we continue to learn about and add to extends beyond the realm of academics. If I'm critical listening to a pop tune that has never been "theorized" in any realm of academia, if I'm processing information about the music I'm hearing and adding it to the body of theoretical knowledge I have, it's still theoretical. It will never be anything other than theory, and if I use it (whether I'm consciously using it or doing so without an awareness that I'm using it) I'm still using theoretical knowledge of music.

I think the "matter of degrees" to which we use music theory has more to do with the purpose of a given piece and how much we understand about what it is we are writing at a given point. When I first started composing, I had no idea what two measures of the piece I wrote that I really liked actually were. There was a theoretical "void" of knowledge, a gap in which I wanted to understand what I had done but had no conceptual understanding of it. I could not replicate it, it just happened to show up (maybe by accident, I don't remember). This would be a case where I am not using music theory in my writing, where I cannot conceptualize what it is that I wrote or how to replicate it in other works. Do you see my point yet?

We should give credit where credit is due. How we learn to write music with more intent and purpose is proportional to those theoretical concepts we have learned and processed. I think the point I'm making here, however, is that (if unconscious is not the best word to use here) the information we learn from music theory is still theoretical, and thus as we are using that information in writing what we write there is no change in the fact that the knowledge we are using is theoretical. So, say I'm writing a piece I want to sound "tonal" (in the traditional sense) and I am in the decision-making process in writing a chord progression. I'm considering my choices based on my aural aesthetic sense as well as, presumably, any relevant theoretical knowledge (unless I've forgotten it) to "choose" what chord follows the one I just wrote. This is conscious.

Say I'm writing an original work conceived from my mind and stored in my memory. We'll use the same example as before. I hear and have constructed in my mind a chord progression. I know what the chord progression is before I'm writing it, even though I haven't directly applied any conscious thought to the "theory." My choices in the process are entirely instinctual and aesthetic without a care in the world for the "theory" I have learned. Still, when on paper it just so happens that the chord progression turns out to be the same that would result from conscious effort to include theory in my writing, I'm still using existing knowledge of theory in crafting the progression. I'm simply not aware that I'm doing it because my focus and concentration in the moment is on the aesthetics.

We can write all day long about the semantics of conscious and unconscious, of whether to separate theory from practice vs theory from knowledge, but I think when we reduce music theory down to what it is, it's more than statements and propositions. The body of knowledge many of us possess and use (consciously or otherwise) is theoretical. It will never be anything other than theoretical, because music, like any art, doesn't exist in a vacuum of concrete, objective thought processes. The body of knowledge we continue to learn about and add to extends beyond the realm of academics. If I'm critical listening to a pop tune that has never been "theorized" in any realm of academia, if I'm processing information about the music I'm hearing and adding it to the body of theoretical knowledge I have, it's still theoretical. It will never be anything other than theory, and if I use it (whether I'm consciously using it or doing so without an awareness that I'm using it) I'm still using theoretical knowledge of music.

I think the "matter of degrees" to which we use music theory has more to do with the purpose of a given piece and how much we understand about what it is we are writing at a given point. When I first started composing, I had no idea what two measures of the piece I wrote that I really liked actually were. There was a theoretical "void" of knowledge, a gap in which I wanted to understand what I had done but had no conceptual understanding of it. I could not replicate it, it just happened to show up (maybe by accident, I don't remember). This would be a case where I am not using music theory in my writing, where I cannot conceptualize what it is that I wrote or how to replicate it in other works. Do you see my point yet?

what you say, does not give enough weight on justifying statement 'using theory uncosciuosly', unless we modify what is regarded as theory and unconscious. and by doing that we might reinvent the language game that is constructing around those concepts, which would be a major task and i do not think very fruitful. to think that you somehow unconsciously immerse in theory runs against the idea that unconsciousnes is precisely the vast pool of ideas, thoughts, language blocks that rational agent is not aware of in conscious mode. that is what psychoanalysis runs on, which is the main workshop of concept of unconscious. to say that one can theorise unconsciously is to say that magic is a part of theory.

also, various forms of msuical language is not necessarily theoretical in any sense. i may love some chord progression without any theoretical knowledge of what place they hold in such and such theory (of music), after aquiring that knowledge i do not necessarily become 'theoretician', for i still may love it precisley because i like it, only that i may be able now to use differen terms to describe it. this point is open in regards to my becoming the user of musical theory. for all i know, is that this very phenomenal block of experience is conceptualized as such and such in such and such system. whereas, for me to really be using music theory would amount more to think the relations that it presupposes in its contextual area, that is to think why and how this and that form a relation that has this and that quality. for there's no ncessity in writing msuic to really subscribe to any statements pressuposed by this and that musical theory. but it does not make one use theory unconsciously or consciously altogether. in normal language games a theory is something that by using its axioms and statements one can create new works that enlighten the information this theory may possess. whenever a theory loses this capacity it stops being a theory in strict sense and becomes a blueprint for making copies of already invented tools, which bear little to theory as such.

of course that depends on what one calls musical theory, it might be nothing more as these blueprints in the first place, but then concept of theory is very misleading in this case, and could be only a highlight 'term' borrowed from different field without possesing any traces of its initial application. (which i do not think is the case, and that's why i think musical theory can't be reduced to mere instructions of building tools, but because of that i think 'using music theory' is a bit strange concept in first place).

I try to use all the theory I know of. I study scores every morning then try to incorporate what I learned in my music. So I guess my answer is all the time! :]

I find this question slightly misleading and overgeneralizing. I have to assume, given the wording and the context of this website, that "Music Theory" refers to Western Tonal Music. This is a major overgeneralization, since Western Tonal Music is such a minuscule fraction of all the music ever created on Earth. I almost ALWAYS consider musical theories when I compose music, and simultaneously, I ALWAYS use my inner ear, the musical ear. But only every now and then is the theory I try to apply Western and/or Tonal, so I responded moderately to this post.