Music theory = Creativity block?

I noticed this interesting question on another forum just recently:

Music theory = Creativity block? I know many people who will say "No, of course not. Theory can only be used for good" but I've talked to other people who state otherwise. Could it be that if we study theory hard, we leave less space for creativity?

1. You read music theory. You're learning about composition technique such as counterpoint and modulation. You notice how your compositions become progressively better the more you learn music theory, and you're starting to create more advanced pieces that you didn't know you could do. However, studying other masterpieces, you notice how far beyond great they are, and you start to think that your music is nothing compared to them.

2. You don't read music theory. You're totally self-taught, and you don't really care reading about composition technique. You don't use any rules or borders, and you leave 100% up to your creativity. You will eventually achieve the same knowledge (to a certaint point) as the one who reads theory, but in a much slower pace. Your first compositions are ridiculously bad, and you get alot of bad critique by fellow composers. You, on the other hand, don't think your own pieces are bad. In fact, you think they are pretty good, and you see a lot of potential in your work.

Is it common sense to accept that you will never be as good as you wished you'd be (1), and that it's ignorant to believe you're going to be something one day (2).

Or is it the other way around? - It's unnecessary and condecending to think you're bad compared to your idols, and that it's vital to believe in yourself, and think you actually ARE better than your idols, but just haven't gotten there yet.

Meh, I guess you all are like this right now:

Everyone who answerd this question must be a total pesimist. Either you learn and loose creativity or you don't learn and no one likes your compositions. Both of these answers have nothing to do with reality! If no one ever learned anything how did they become so great? If someone studied a lot how did he become known if he has no creativity? Both views tell you you can't make it in composing, and it's obvious that some of us can. So here is my answer:

Music theory can help of course - it is made so that it leaves much, much room for creativity and your expression. I, for example, had theory classes for 5 years in a music elementary school. Just the basics. Never had any actual harmony, composition classes. So then i composed based on those rules, and later on i started to experiment a little. I listend many, many other peoples compositions, got some new inspirations and i am constantly trying out new things.

So, Ii think the only way music theory can create a creativity block is if you are not open minded, not too interested in composition and if decited to take your own strict style. (Like classical revivalist, or a strictly atonal composer).

I don't there's any harm in working on your own at first, without the aid of theory. A little exploration could't hurt. But at some point I feel its necessary to learn theory. It's like if you're going to be writing a paper on a current issue, without reading the articles of events leading up to that issue and the varying viewpoints on the issue. You need to know it, and apply it to your style in the most meaningful way you can.

And for anyone to compare themselves to the masters......well that's just ridiculous. :P

Is it a creativity block to learn the alphabet?

Music theory is to composition what the alphabet and grammar are to written language. Sure, you can tell a story and be illiterate - but it will never be Shakespeare.

I've never understood why some young people have such a mental block against learning theory. If you treat music as a toy, that's all it will ever be to you.

Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Sep 2 2005, 05:04 PM

Is it a creativity block to learn the alphabet?

Music theory is to composition what the alphabet and grammar are to written language.

I believe that a person should experinment with writing music with no theory at first. As this person becomes naturally better and learns what generally sounds good, he the person should advance towards learning theory. In that way the person can learn why certain chords do sound good together, or open his mind to new ideas. Things he would have never thought of by himself.

It works like this:

As a child you learn to speak without rules. You listen to sounds being formed around you and start to say words, then phrases. Then become pretty good at talking. However, you still make mistakes. Like "I don't want no vegatable!" Then at a certain age you learn the rules to grammar, learn new words and learn how to express your ideas more clearly. In the same way, music theory teaches you how to express your ideas better or in a way you wouldn't have thought of naturally before.

As this person becomes naturally better and learns what generally sounds good, he the person should advance towards learning theory.

Sounds good to me. :P

''I don't want no vegatable!''

You'd be suprised how many people actually speak like that. :P

Excellent piece of writing, bitterduck! Exacly how i feel.

I believe that a person should experinment with writing music with no theory at first.

But... what's "learning theory"? I think every composer should learn music theory early on - but not always in a formal setting. As long as learning theory doesn't involve learning to automatically think in a certain way, it's a good thing. (I, for one, usually think in terms of jazz chord notation rather than Roman numerals, because that way I find it easier to modulate from one key to another, or to handle harmonically unstable passages.)

Understand now?

No. :cool: What makes that so creative? Sounds confusing to me. Unconventional isn't necessarily creative.

As a child you learn to speak without rules. You listen to sounds being formed around you and start to say words, then phrases. Then become pretty good at talking. However, you still make mistakes. Like "I don't want no vegatable!" Then at a certain age you learn the rules to grammar, learn new words and learn how to express your ideas more clearly. In the same way, music theory teaches you how to express your ideas better or in a way you wouldn't have thought of naturally before.

OK, that's a lovely theory (no pun intended), and I'd buy this if it were everyone's attitude. But it's not. Too many people would rather stab around in the dark than learn something that will make them more effective composers.

Fine. Stab around in the dark. I think that's lazy and undisciplined, not creative.

And I've said it before, but apparently it bears repeating: Did theory stand in the way of Bach's creativity?

Did theory stand in the way of Bach's creativity?

Haha, you could even say in a sense that Bach molded theory (what do most beginning students study ...... the Bach chorales of course!)

2. You don't read music theory. You're totally self-taught, and you don't really care reading about composition technique. You don't use any rules or borders, and you leave 100% up to your creativity. You will eventually achieve the same knowledge (to a certaint point) as the one who reads theory, but in a much slower pace. Your first compositions are ridiculously bad, and you get alot of bad critique by fellow composers. You, on the other hand, don't think your own pieces are bad. In fact, you think they are pretty good, and you see a lot of potential in your work.

Because of this, I became firmly opposed to the idea of taking theory. Basically what it came down to was the fear that I would discover 'how' I was composing music exactly. And, as I think I said way too many times back when I was 15 or 16, it was the elusive quality of composition that drew me to it in the first place. (My piano teacher didn't help when she warned me that learning theory could destroy my 'natural ability' to compose.)

My dad, a composer and arranger himself, listened to this argument but routinely assured me that taking theory and such only enhanced the enjoyment of composition. I really wasn't convinced, and so decided to put it aside for later on.

And yet I inevitably picked up a lot of theory knowledge - sort of - in the next few years. I wrote more, which obviously helped; I took a small music composition class (which actually contained very little theory, as at the time I was pleased to discover); I found a lot of new music; and I even was given very helpful comments here at YC (this would be a few years ago, of course though).

And so my compositions have come a long way. My work from more than a year ago sounds earnest and all, but pretty amateurish other than maybe in the melodies. Nowdays I'm still composing by intuition, but it's a lot more guided just through the experience I've acquired. It's not the trial-and-error random guessing in the dark I was doing for so long. And I still like writing music as much as ever! More, even, because I have a better idea of what I'm doing.

I still have a long way to go, though. Officially all I know of theory doesn't extend terribly far beyond the basics: music notation, scales, circle of fifths, intervals.

I picked up theory backwards. I found something that sounded cool on the piano, like the circle of fifths and modulations and secondary dominants and what not, and then I read about it in a book and was like "so THATS what that is"

I recently got into an argument over whether theory is JUST the labels or if it also means a solid intuition for how music "works". I'd be more inclined to say theory is just the labels, and is completley unneccessary for creativity....mainly because I picked up the labels AFTER I developed an intuition for various devices (which ARE devices in common harmonic practice)

But... what's "learning theory"?

Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Sep 2 2005, 08:27 PM

No.

Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Sep 3 2005, 03:27 AM

No.

They want the quick and easy way, which is why I am not a big fan of work composed entirely on the keyboard with little forethought.

I have always found the idea that knowledge blocks creativity uncomprehensible (strange).

Theory gives you all these different techniques to write out an idea. It even activates creativity.

If music didn't have music theory I wouldn't be interested in it.

Some of the best composers didn't feel the urge to do something new: Reger, Brahms

I think theory should be taught, or better: "given" as a kind of last resort to which the composer should harbour, if he would run out of ideas. I always thought bad about some kind of universal theory, which will say, simplifying, "This is Good, and this is bad" and i think that rules are made by "putting up with" currently availible music.

Imposing strict rules to music newcomers is like killing an Einstein just because he had very bad grades at maths (he had). I do realise that writing music that is edible to the audience implies that you must conform in some way to the rules that are acceptable, but writing , obeying strictly all the rules is like fighting with windmills (Don Kichote and the like) because the very nature of rules implies that once in the past someone had written something superior, which exactly obeyed the rules, because it MADE the rules using which now we suppress the odd element in the newbie composers creations.

I think theory should be taught gradually, after a period of time when a composer should be told to develop his own style.

Now the problem emerges, because there is often that silly situation: if a newbie composer just starts, heard nothing about music, he don't know what his future style will be, nor is interested in particular type of music, providing that he didn't hear any music at all (impossible, but i must make some rethorical statements to aid the argument). The given composer should be handed to a careful mentor, who will present to him some carefully chosen music, and, with mutual feedback, modify the selection to help develop his style. Then, the theory should be given, as a sort of supplementar resource "They did that in the ancient times, you might want to check it out". And i think improvisation should be taught at schools from the begining. The great masters were great improvisers, so it might help.

What do you think?

Yeonil

I have always found the idea that knowledge blocks creativity uncomprehensible (strange).

Theory gives you all these different techniques to write out an idea. It even activates creativity.

If music didn't have music theory I wouldn't be interested in it.[/b]

Amen, brother. Testify.

I sence anger and emotion in your thinking (bad).....

Wolf, I've had a bad week - in fact, my whole country has had a bad week - and my patience is wearing thin. Forgive me. But also understand where I'm coming from. I have had proteges and students who have come to me for help and advice, saying they wanted to compose music in a traditional idiom (Classical, Baroque, etc). When I tell them that if they want to play Bach's and Mozart's game they have to play by their rules, they've usually ignored me or gave some silly reason why they liked their way better. When I refused to validate their work anyway, they got upset and accused me of trying to take away their creativity.

That's where my anger and emotion comes from. And that's what I mean by "lazy," "undisciplined," and "stabbing around in the dark." If all you want is to fool around, fine. But if you're trying for a specific result, something that really works, you need to know something about music theory...or hope you get really lucky.

Chopin, Schubert and Mussorgsky weren't disciplined

What do you mean by disciplined? I'm not talking about work habits (though Schubert wrote something - at least something - every day of his adult life, and if that's not disciplined, I don't know what is). They all knew their music theory solidly, and it didn't stop them from being creative, either, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.

For example many composers traveld a lot and sought inspiration cultures that they are not familiar with (Handel, Dvorak, John Cage......) and came up with something totaly original.

Knowledge of theory didn't hold them back, either.

You are just lowering all kinds of experimentation to "stabing in the dark". And it is possible that, by doing so, your unconcious mind avoids everything that music theory forbids.

That's very possible. People have always told me "free your mind, Lee!"

Why? What is the purpose of all this learning and experience we've amassed in music if we're just going to throw it all out the window and start hammering around on rocks with thighbones like Neanderthals did, calling it new and experimental? I have too much respect for the art and science of music to do that.

I also don't believe that just because someone gets their hands on a notation program and starts plunking notes onto staves with no knowledge of what they're doing that it automatically makes them a composer. That's also what I mean by "stabbing in the dark."

Experiment to your heart's content. But when you want to get serious about it, learn theory. It won't hold you back from being creative, and it will probably make you a better composer. That's all I'm saying.

Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Sep 3 2005, 11:03 AM

Why?

I think that is were the key lies. Music theory is the ground work. Take it for what it is worth, but you must always remember it is not the Holy Bible of music! It is simply guide to help you understand music and expand your knownledge. Like chris said before I, It helps to know the rules you are breaking. Also theory helps a person communicate to other musicians/composer. Theory gaves us a lot of the jargon we use as musicians.

Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Sep 3 2005, 07:03 PM

That's where my anger and emotion comes from.

What exactly does it mean to "know" music theory? Do you have to know labels for devices you absorb?

Say I learned the circle of fifths progression, secondary dominants, and basic part writing rules (etc.) entirely by ear and had no idea what they were called, but I have been using them intuitively.

Am I using music theory knowledge? I'd say I am...I just don't know the labels for what I do.