Music theory = Creativity block?

Music theory is not rules. It is an attempt at explain some things about music.

I recommend discovering a music theory. Working for it, for an understanding. If you want your music to sound like music you've heard, it is obviously useful to seek a deeper understanding of that music. Do it yourself!

Music theory is not rules. It is an attempt at explain some things about music.

*gasp* I love that statement. It's so very true, and it can be applied to so many things beyond it's obvious musical applications. But this isn't the place for philosophy...

You don't mind if I quote you?

And I like the idea of discovering your own music theory, while incorporating many of the "rules" (which are really better termed "explainations") of traditional Music Theory, and thowing out others, because you have an explaination that better points you in the direction you want to go. Hey, if you want to write in a Romantic idiom, then study the rules that those composers learned. If you want to write in a Baroque idiom, then study those rules. If you want to write in a modern idiom, study those rules, and so on and so forth.

Thank, jacob, I think you've shaped my opinon about theory. :) Of couse, seeing as I'm only half-awake, that opinion might change in the next few hours. lol.

Hehe!

Hehe! (yes, this is sarcasm :D )

?

(And so that my entire post isn't a question mark whats the hehe for...? Or do I even want to know? I'm guessing not.)

Can't speak for Letehn, but mine was because I found the bit at the end of #27 funny. * grins *

I think theory is really whats in you to know naturally but if you learn it it's basically sparing you a lot of time and mistakes.

I used to be against it when I was a complete n00b but really it's a good tool you can use to benifit you not block your natural creativity, as long as you are a living being you'll be subject to trauma and joy and theory or not your spirit is what shines through. Knoweldge is power.

Good Viscount, I began by tossing notes onto staves when I had no clue what I was doing. Does that make me any worse? (Don't worry; I know your answer.)

However, what about the fact that when I did actually take theory, my compositional vein dried up almost entirely, even though when I did write what I wrote was excellent? (You yourself have testified to this, and I don't think my taking theory had much to do with the advance in my writing.)

Thinking of theories... French classical drama, and many others elsewhere, like Ben Jonson, were smothered by Aristotle's notes on drama. What Aristotle did was describe what was done in Greek drama of his day and prior ones, but during its rediscovery, these descriptions were taken as prescriptions for the only possible way to write plays. I have to ask: is theory a description à la Aristote of how music works on the level of physics and of how composers have written, or is it a set of rules? Just wondering...

And Marisa should be able to comment at length. (Is language descriptive or prescriptive?)

Noble Baron [Humnab], what you did to learn music is one of many possible roads one may take. It's not the easiest, nor the best. You no doubt derived some enjoyment - and rightfully so - from the fact that you taught yourself everything you knew, even the very rudiments. I'm at a loss to say why learning theory should have stymied you, and indeed some others. All I can say is that when I was in a similar position, learning theory made music seem more like work, where before it had been mostly fun.

Theory is nothing but the codification of generations of practical compositional experience. We read "how-to" books on everything else, from cooking to auto repair. This is no different. You can take off into it flying by the seat of your pants...that's fine. I did it myself. The first couple of times I tried to study theory in middle school, I couldn't see the value of it. But at some point I began to see that despite all the fun I was having, my music lacked something in its blissful ignorance. It lacked whatever it was those composers who wrote "the rules" had learnt over the centuries, and I wanted what they had.

Once again: I'm not suggesting that everyone follow "the rules" all the time a la Aristote as they did in 17th Century drama, but I am saying that knowing what they are and how they're applied will inform everything you do in music from that time onward. The masters learnt through trial and error how to apply physical science, such as it was at the time, to what they were doing ("this works and that doesn't, so let's make a rule"), and understanding what they learnt, whether we actually use it or not, has a transforming effect. You yourself are supporting my argument by admitting that after your study of theory, your music improved in quality. It may not have come gushing out of you as it had before - my own output slowed down somewhat - but would you rather have quantity or quality?

The more I think of it, it seems to me that it's natural that untamed creative thought slows and falters a bit temporarily when the the deliberate, cogitative mind puts a bridle on it so that they may work together. If we work through it, the effects are quite temporary. Can anyone give an example of a composer whose study and understanding of music theory, applied or not, permanently ruined him as a composer?

Well, I don't like Satie's counterpunctal stuff as much as his earlier works, but that's just me...

J. Lee Graham: ...learning theory made music seem more like work, where before it had been mostly fun.

I agree with what you said. I'm taking theory right now(for the first time) and everything makes much more sense, but when I tried to compose a month into theory, I had problems and couldn't do it. (only now have I be able to slow pull myself out of it) I think I was thinking to much about what people should and want to hear and not what I want people to hear.

I guess we all need to be like Mozart or something, I'm sure he knew what people wanted to hear, and he knew what sounded good, but as his music shows, he didn't let that slow or takeover his creative imagination.

Plus he didn't know great composers like Schoenberg :P