Do you know music theory?. Do you care?.

michael_m

@el_bo said:

@tahiche said:

@espiegel123 said:

@tahiche said:
Very interesting points. Maybe the problem some of us have is not so much about not wanting to know the relationships and logic in music but how it’s taught. Let me go back to the Push/Launchpad grid vs the piano keyboard. The piano layout is pretty much the basis of music theory as we know it. But it’s just one layout out of many possibilities, one that was made centuries ago and hasn’t really been challenged. I don’t think the 🎹 is the best possible way to illustrate the underlying relationships. In that sense I agree with @u0421793 “It’s an inelegant, obtuse, gatekeeperishly badly designed set of systems”.
Why is the perfect fifth 7 semitones apart and the fourth 5 semitones apart?. That’s not a good start…

Keyboard layout is not the source of music theory. Sometimes teachers use it as a visual aid but theory is not derived from European keyboard layout.

I agree that a lot of music theory instruction is poor…but that is an issue of the teaching not the subject.

Mathematics is often poorly taught (in the US it can be pretty atrocious) … that says nothing about mathematics.

Music has relationships and patterns that can’t be challenged, just like maths or physics can’t be disputed.
But what are we calling “music theory”?. I wouldn’t say it’s just the way it’s taught, I think the accepted “standards” could be a lot better, they’re far from friendly or intuitive, quite the opposite. Someone decided a notes fourth interval would be 5 semitones apart, while the fifth is seven semitones… that’s illogical, doesn’t fit any pattern and creates a barrier that obfuscates the beautiful math behind music. Seems to me like “don’t question it, just learn it and shut up”.

As someone who speaks at least two languages, do you not see the parallels? Languages are riddled with inconsistencies and oftentimes very illogical. It speaks to how language evolved within and alongside our very own imperfect evolution, and shouldn't be judged as though it were handed down by some higher-power, as though it were perfect.

I was going to say the same thing, and the language we’re posting in right now is probably one of the worst culprits.

jwmmakerofmusic

@TheOriginalPaulB said:
We all know how to walk, right? We do it every day without conscious thought. What muscles are we using to manipulate which joints and in what order? A few of you may know enough anatomy to answer that question in detail, but the lack of anatomical knowledge doesn’t stop the rest of us walking, we’ve learned how to do right by trial, error and practice. The same with speaking. We learn to speak way before anyone tries to teach us grammar.

All you folks who compose and play music just based on what sounds right have something in your brain which is telling you if what you’re hearing ‘works’. Usually, that will conform to some principle of music theory because the theory was constructed after the fact to describe what is going on in the majority of music that we find listenable. You guys DO know music theory, but not in a form you have labels or diagrams for, it’s that part of you that tells you what you want to hear.

This sounds like me when I first started composing music for piano. I didn't know any music theory, but I sure utilised the heck out of the Alberti bass in a lot of my early works. 😂 That doesn't mean all of my piano pieces were good though. A lot was rubbish, but some of the pieces were gold, and there really was never an inbetween.

el_bo

@michael_m said:
I was going to say the same thing, and the language we’re posting in right now is probably one of the worst culprits.

Indeed! But nobody could deny that 'getting over it', and becoming fluent as possible in English can afford students a much richer cultural and artistic experience. Same with becoming fluent in the language of Spanish, and of music

michael_m

@el_bo said:

@michael_m said:
I was going to say the same thing, and the language we’re posting in right now is probably one of the worst culprits.

Indeed! But nobody could deny that 'getting over it', and becoming fluent as possible in English can afford students a much richer cultural and artistic experience. Same with becoming fluent in the language of Spanish, and of music

Yep, and complaining about how bad it is yet how difficult it would be to change the language to something that works better doesn’t get us anywhere either. Most people just get on and learn it if they want to communicate with others that know it.

el_bo

@michael_m said:

@el_bo said:

@michael_m said:
I was going to say the same thing, and the language we’re posting in right now is probably one of the worst culprits.

Indeed! But nobody could deny that 'getting over it', and becoming fluent as possible in English can afford students a much richer cultural and artistic experience. Same with becoming fluent in the language of Spanish, and of music

Yep, and complaining about how bad it is yet how difficult it would be to change the language to something that works better doesn’t get us anywhere either. Most people just get on and learn it if they want to communicate with others that know it.

But what constitutes "better", anyway? Musical theory, for all its foibles, is robust enough to not only allow composers to write the most complex of pieces, but to be able to communicate them in a manner that allows others to replicate the message perfectly (and with nary an audio-slow-downer app in sight ). Could it be improved upon? No doubt! but I still believe it'd take those that understand it at such depths to do so.

And with regard to the performance medium itself: While It'd be unfair to compare a piece specifically written for piano to a performance on a 'Push', I'd be interesting to hear arguments for how the layout of the Push would be superior in such a case.

u0421793

it’s not at all like learning a verbal language – that’s learned mostly from friends and other children your own age, all at one time all day every day until it works, and there’s virtually no theory involved until much later (if you weren’t ill that day and actually paid attention the day they did it)

music theory happens to one person at a time, a tiny amount per week or month, and with no comparison or interdependency with what others are up to

if you compare music theory to a verbal language, it’d be more like something like Esperanto or Interlingua, or maybe the Naʼvi language (in which a planet covered in quite highly diverse and divergently evolved blue bipedal humanoids which aren‘t mammals yet have tits can all miraculously understand each other because they only have one language somehow)

el_bo

@u0421793 said:
it’s not at all like learning a verbal language – that’s learned mostly from friends and other children your own age, all at one time all day every day until it works, and there’s virtually no theory involved until much later (if you weren’t ill that day and actually paid attention the day they did it)

music theory happens to one person at a time, a tiny amount per week or month, and with no comparison or interdependency with what others are up to

if you compare music theory to a verbal language, it’d be more like something like Esperanto or Interlingua, or maybe the Naʼvi language (in which a planet covered in quite highly diverse and divergently evolved blue bipedal humanoids which aren‘t mammals yet have tits can all miraculously understand each other because they only have one language somehow)

You've missed the very narrow and thread-specific context in which this point is being argued. The OP and you have gone to some length to demonstrate how music-theory as it currently stands flawed, inconsistent, illogical etc. I believe I specifically alluded to studying a second language. The only way to do it is to completely turn off the temptation to analyse, compare and contrast, and accept it on its own terms.

I believe the same can be said for someone trying to learn music at a later age. One needs to silence the chatter, and take it on its own terms. Of course, if I wait long enough you mght have completely revolutionised how music is communicated and taught. Until then, if I want to learn, i'll have to make do with the rubbish version

"music theory happens to one person at a time, a tiny amount per week or month, and with no comparison or interdependency with what others are up to"

For some, perhaps.But many who learn, do so in a classroom format, and have that theory reinforced playing for the school orchestra, singing for the choir etc.

espiegel123

While it is true that there notable great musicians that have little formal theory [but almost all of those have great ears and “know” the theory without having the names for what they know], it strikes me as odd that many that don’t know theory or have limited knowledge, make judgments about the utility of something (“music theory”) that they admittedly know little about.

It is different to say “I am getting along fine without knowing theory “ as opposed “theory wouldn’t add anything “, “theory would limit my creativity “, “theory is a bunch of rules” (it isn’t. the “rules” part is related to describing the elements of particular conventions, and anyone who really knows theory also knows that they aren’t strict rules that can’t be broken).

espiegel123

@u0421793 said:
it’s not at all like learning a verbal language – that’s learned mostly from friends and other children your own age, all at one time all day every day until it works, and there’s virtually no theory involved until much later (if you weren’t ill that day and actually paid attention the day they did it)

music theory happens to one person at a time, a tiny amount per week or month, and with no comparison or interdependency with what others are up to

if you compare music theory to a verbal language, it’d be more like something like Esperanto or Interlingua, or maybe the Naʼvi language (in which a planet covered in quite highly diverse and divergently evolved blue bipedal humanoids which aren‘t mammals yet have tits can all miraculously understand each other because they only have one language somehow)

I think musical “theory” and convention is more like language than you think (and some evolutionary biologists think that language and music may be related to the same brain structures…some suspect that “music” development happened first).

All the elements of one’s culture’s music get picked up subconsciously and without effort through exposure. People learn and recognize the idiosyncrasies and idioms that make up their culture’s current music without formal training…just like language. Formal grammar training isn’t needed to learn a language…people become fluent n the language that surrounds them during their formative years with no training.

People learn the “rules” (“theory”) of their native tongue even if they don’t learn the names for them. whether educated or not, people recognize when someone speaks their language non-idiomatically. Music is very much the same.

el_bo

@espiegel123 said:

@u0421793 said:
it’s not at all like learning a verbal language – that’s learned mostly from friends and other children your own age, all at one time all day every day until it works, and there’s virtually no theory involved until much later (if you weren’t ill that day and actually paid attention the day they did it)

music theory happens to one person at a time, a tiny amount per week or month, and with no comparison or interdependency with what others are up to

if you compare music theory to a verbal language, it’d be more like something like Esperanto or Interlingua, or maybe the Naʼvi language (in which a planet covered in quite highly diverse and divergently evolved blue bipedal humanoids which aren‘t mammals yet have tits can all miraculously understand each other because they only have one language somehow)

I think musical “theory” and convention is more like language than you think (and some evolutionary biologists think that language and music may be related to the same brain structures…some suspect that “music” development happened first).

All the elements of one’s culture’s music get picked up subconsciously and without effort through exposure. People learn and recognize the idiosyncrasies and idioms that make up their culture’s current music without formal training…just like language. Formal grammar training isn’t needed to learn a language…people become fluent n the language that surrounds them during their formative years with no training.

People learn the “rules” (“theory”) of their native tongue even if they don’t learn the names for them. whether educated or not, people recognize when someone speaks their language non-idiomatically. Music is very much the same.

Nice!

Lady_App_titude

I'm basically self taught, but I took some guitar lessons in like 7th grade. I had a teacher who took an unusual approach and started teaching us theory and composition before anything else. I knew theory before I could play a chord. If I new two chords, I was composing a song with those two chords. To me, theory is almost more important than technique. If you are interested in being a composer, that is. It's not at all difficult. You could pick up the basics in a couple of hours. It's not like math or something. You're not "solving" anything. It's just a matter of learning some terms for things. Things that you already know by hearing them. Now you have words to describe them. And concepts for how things relate to one another. Like relative major and relative minor. C major and A minor at the same key. So if you're working on a song in C major and want to know where to go for the next section, A minor is a logical choice.

As for those push button devices with all the grids of buttons, I wouldn't have a clue what to do with those things!

McD

Most music theory comes after some new music is created that defies traditional practice.

The music of J Dilla inspires academics to define his techniques into new music theory.

We could apply theory analysis to the work of anyone here.

Taking the academic route prepares someone for conducting this type of analysis.

But the act of creation often does think in these ways… it’s a dance between the creator and the sound producing tools.

espiegel123

@McD said:
Most music theory comes after some new music is created that defies traditional practice.

I disagree. I think you are conflating academic analysis and changes in practice. Both are aspects of what we call "music theory" (which is a misnomer)

The music of J Dilla inspires academics to define his techniques into new music theory.

We could apply theory analysis to the work of anyone here.

Taking the academic route prepares someone for conducting this type of analysis.

Theory is not necessarily an academic route. A musician consciously choosing to use a chord that isn't expected is using theory even if they don't know the formal language. Miles Davis writing down a sequence of chords that shouldn't work together and telling Bill Evans to write a melody is theory.

This is the same as in language. Whether anyone has formally learned grammar, we use it to make decisions about how to express ourselves. Music theory is like that. It is sort of the grammar of music (kinda, sorta)

McD

@espiegel123 said:

@McD said:
Most music theory comes after some new music is created that defies traditional practice.

I disagree. I think you are conflating academic analysis and changes in practice. Both are aspects of what we call "music theory" (which is a misnomer)

The music of J Dilla inspires academics to define his techniques into new music theory.

We could apply theory analysis to the work of anyone here.

Taking the academic route prepares someone for conducting this type of analysis.

Theory is not necessarily an academic route. A musician consciously choosing to use a chord that isn't expected is using theory even if they don't know the formal language. Miles Davis writing down a sequence of chords that shouldn't work together and telling Bill Evans to write a melody is theory.

This is the same as in language. Whether anyone has formally learned grammar, we use it to make decisions about how to express ourselves. Music theory is like that. It is sort of the grammar of music (kinda, sorta)

I think you are referencing compositional approaches that are used after a body of theory has been established. My thought is that someone like Stravinski creates the “Rite of Spring” breaking a lot of traditions in the process and then it’s analyszed and those new compositional approaches find their way into the work of those that follow the innovator.

Miles was an innovator that lead to thousands of students drilling all the modes for improvisations against modal chord sequences. The modal style become a trend that crossed over to the early work of Herbie Hancock who took over the piano role in the most influential Miles Quintet.

Miles is pretty famous for telling everyone that would listen to just throw away the theory and listen:
“There are no wrong notes in jazz: only notes in the wrong places.” Of course, if you are stuck in a pre-Miles mode of listening then he’s playing a lot of wrong notes as judged by your internal critic.

espiegel123

I disagree. You are treating one aspect of music theory as being ALLof music theory ..l just like people sometimes treat the formal conventions of academic written English taught as "grammar" in school with what a linguist considers grammar which is the living changing relationships that make up all grammar.

Also, don't confuse Miles saying to throw away theory with a belief that theory wasn't a valuable thing to have under your belt. He encouraged people he played with to know theory...even if he wanted them to be free and unencumbered by it. You can't throw something away if you never had it.

Danny_Mammy

Miles and those cats knew their theory.

espiegel123

True story. Tony Williams was one of the greatest jazz drummers of all time. When he played with Miles , Miles frequently told him that he should develop familiarity with the piano keyboard and learn theory (again: can't throw away what you don't know). Williams chose not to learn much at the time...much to his regret it turns out.

Somewhere between the late 1970's and early 1980s (long after he played with miles), he felt that he had hit a dead-end in terms of developing the music he heard in his head and communicating it to others and hired a trained composer to be his tutor.

Keep in mind that many great musicians that publicly eschew formal theory (like Joni Mitchell) often surround themselves with people that know it.

tahiche

@el_bo said:
I just went back to your first post, as I seemed to remember there was a feeling that you somehow wished you knew more (At least, you mentioned being ashamed at not knowing more). but after 5 pages, your posts read more like you want more confirmation to steer well clear. No problem with that, of course.

I guess you’re right and it’s a valid observation.

But if you do still have an interest in learning, is it really the imbalance of semitones between certain intervals that will derail your efforts?

I do still have interest but I keep encountering unnecessary hurdles in the form of conventions that I don’t find logical. And I’m sharing my struggle. Also must admit that I’ve been ignited by some smart comments here.

@espiegel123 That convention has some interesting quirks. Some of the quirks are the result of a melding of two different approaches: twelve note chromatic scales and seven note scales.

Thanks a lot for the explanation. If they had updated the naming when they incorporated the black key notes I’d Abe a lot happier.

espiegel123

@tahiche : maybe this might be helpful:

Try to ignore the word theory. It has implications and expectations that don’t apply.

Music has interesting patterns…just like art and language…but it isn’t subject to immutable rules…and isn’t hostage to language.

Just like mathematics and human language: the notation and vocabulary to talk about it has had multiple parallel developments based on expediency for certain contexts. For example, my son learned theory in choir and they started with solfège which is based on seven note scales. In that context thirds , fourths are logical. Once the kids are solid on solfège, they learn the piano keyboard and the 12 notes. The transition is not difficult and gives flexibility. You think about things using the approach relevant to the context.

You can break off the chunks that are useful and learn them one at a time as needed.

Don’t expect everything to be logical AND be intrigued by some of the cool patterns you discover over time.

u0421793

This is an interesting thread on some other site, has some answers to questions I had decades ago
(by which I mean I spent most of the 80s and 90s complaining to everyone that the keyboard should be renamed, the note we call C should be renamed to A, then go upwards and include the black notes so that the octave previously known as C instead goes A B C D E F G H I J K L – except nobody did anything about it)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=43624.0
mostly read the first post (obviously) and then skip the utter morons who can't read the question and go to post number 35

also look at post number 33, it’s tangentially interesting

---

Having said that, I still believe it’s entirely within the power of 21st century humanity to entirely throw out everything about extant music theory and start again better – throw out the keyboard and layout and make it not major-scale centric; throw out the names of the notes (for a start, avoid naming them after letters – we have emoji now); throw out the names of chords, do better; most of all throw out the utterly stupid stave notation

It can’t go on like it is forever, it’s bound to change for the better and be more meaningful in the future sometime – so if it is, we may as well do it now

el_bo

@tahiche said:
I do still have interest but I keep encountering unnecessary hurdles in the form of conventions that I don’t find logical. And I’m sharing my struggle.

I get it.

What I like about the courses I recommended earlier, is that the teacher (Max) spends time encouraging the importance of how to listen to music, suggesting various practices. One of them is to practice child-like listening. Essentially, the idea is to try to listen to music as we did as children, totally without prejudice and/or analysis...just to rediscover the pure joy of it all.
Along with another practice (I believe he calls it ear-stretching) where the intent ids to seek out 'challenging' music, or even music that we don't like, and to just listen in this same non-judgmental manner. In this wy, we can open ourselves to music in a way that we might have shut down, intentionally or not, over the years.

By extension, i think this is perhaps a good way to go about learning certain things as an adult i.e with child-like wonder - not letting over-analysis lead to paralysis. So what, if something seems illogical. Just try to apply it as it's given and see if you get results. Talk of logic can come later

I'm not saying this will work, but it's the only way i think it's gonna work for me.

And if you ever go back to thinking that a thorough grounding in music theory will strip you rlife of musical joy, pull up another Jacob Collier video

michael_m

@espiegel123 said:
Also, don't confuse Miles saying to throw away theory with a belief that theory wasn't a valuable thing to have under your belt. He encouraged people he played with to know theory...even if he wanted them to be free and unencumbered by it. You can't throw something away if you never had it.

Similarly with Bird, but he was specific in approach and said something along the lines of learn the theory, learn your instrument, then forget all that shit and just play.

TheOriginalPaulB

espiegel123

@michael_m said:

@espiegel123 said:
Also, don't confuse Miles saying to throw away theory with a belief that theory wasn't a valuable thing to have under your belt. He encouraged people he played with to know theory...even if he wanted them to be free and unencumbered by it. You can't throw something away if you never had it.

Similarly with Bird, but he was specific in approach and said something along the lines of learn the theory, learn your instrument, then forget all that shit and just play.

Yeah - btw, not long ago I heard a recording of Bird being interviewed about his practice and warm-up regimen. As free and swinging as his playing was, he was very disciplined and had a lot of classical music knowledge under his belt.

michael_m

@espiegel123 said:

@michael_m said:

@espiegel123 said:
Also, don't confuse Miles saying to throw away theory with a belief that theory wasn't a valuable thing to have under your belt. He encouraged people he played with to know theory...even if he wanted them to be free and unencumbered by it. You can't throw something away if you never had it.

Similarly with Bird, but he was specific in approach and said something along the lines of learn the theory, learn your instrument, then forget all that shit and just play.

Yeah - btw, not long ago I heard a recording of Bird being interviewed about his practice and warm-up regimen. As free and swinging as his playing was, he was very disciplined and had a lot of classical music knowledge under his belt.

He would apparently set himself difficult tasks too, like learning a piece in its original key, then transpose it to every other key around the circle of fifths as he practiced it.

It’s also quite incredible to hear him on records like ‘Lover Man’, where he was so drunk that he had to have someone hold him up while he played. Not his best recording, but considering he was too drunk to stand…

tahiche

@u0421793 said:
This is an interesting thread on some other site, has some answers to questions I had decades ago
(by which I mean I spent most of the 80s and 90s complaining to everyone that the keyboard should be renamed, the note we call C should be renamed to A, then go upwards and include the black notes so that the octave previously known as C instead goes A B C D E F G H I J K L – except nobody did anything about it)

In Spain we do the “do re mi fa sol la si” naming so I’m always doing some sort of automatic translation, I see a “G” and turn it to “sol”. I also have to translate any interval stuff, which is usually explained on a piano, into guitar frets. Lost in translation.

Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr

@u0421793 said:
This is an interesting thread on some other site, has some answers to questions I had decades ago
(by which I mean I spent most of the 80s and 90s complaining to everyone that the keyboard should be renamed, the note we call C should be renamed to A, then go upwards and include the black notes so that the octave previously known as C instead goes A B C D E F G H I J K L – except nobody did anything about it)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=43624.0
mostly read the first post (obviously) and then skip the utter morons who can't read the question and go to post number 35

also look at post number 33, it’s tangentially interesting

---

Having said that, I still believe it’s entirely within the power of 21st century humanity to entirely throw out everything about extant music theory and start again better – throw out the keyboard and layout and make it not major-scale centric; throw out the names of the notes (for a start, avoid naming them after letters – we have emoji now); throw out the names of chords, do better; most of all throw out the utterly stupid stave notation

It can’t go on like it is forever, it’s bound to change for the better and be more meaningful in the future sometime – so if it is, we may as well do it now

Some good ideas here. Renaming the notes after emojis sounds like a great way to reach the kids today, and they are our future.

NoiseHorse

@el_bo said:

@NoiseHorse said:
I’m a former Band geek: scholarship, jazz band, site reading, transpose on site, perfect pitch, all that. Music theory for me is nice if I need it. But when I’m writing a song I just hit a note and then hit then next one that sounds nice etc. I know it’ll end up in a key and a mode and a rhythm but not by design.

That's how I compose. i just start by throwing some shape down on the keyboard, manipulate it so it sounds nice, then go from there. However, I wonder (in your case) how much you're able to escape the influence your learning has had i.e can you unlearn...unsee?

Even if it isn't obvious at the time, you've forged neural pathways and built certain foundations around certain core principals and skills. So even if you aren't consciously tapping into some set rules or patterns, are you sure they aren't influencing you in any way? Not saying that you aren't the final arbiter of what sounds good; more that the options that appear for you will only be apparent because of your previous study and abilities.

I’m sure my music education creeps in. When I finish a song I can definitely analyze it with a music theory perspective. But if I ever start out with a music theory type plan or structure, it always cheapens the process for me. Like if an architect designed the Grand Canyon.

u0421793

@tahiche said:

@u0421793 said:
This is an interesting thread on some other site, has some answers to questions I had decades ago
(by which I mean I spent most of the 80s and 90s complaining to everyone that the keyboard should be renamed, the note we call C should be renamed to A, then go upwards and include the black notes so that the octave previously known as C instead goes A B C D E F G H I J K L – except nobody did anything about it)

In Spain we do the “do re mi fa sol la si” naming so I’m always doing some sort of automatic translation, I see a “G” and turn it to “sol”. I also have to translate any interval stuff, which is usually explained on a piano, into guitar frets. Lost in translation.

Is Do a specific note, then? I thought it was the first note of a scale no matter where you start it

purpan2

@u0421793 said:

@tahiche said:

@u0421793 said:
This is an interesting thread on some other site, has some answers to questions I had decades ago
(by which I mean I spent most of the 80s and 90s complaining to everyone that the keyboard should be renamed, the note we call C should be renamed to A, then go upwards and include the black notes so that the octave previously known as C instead goes A B C D E F G H I J K L – except nobody did anything about it)

In Spain we do the “do re mi fa sol la si” naming so I’m always doing some sort of automatic translation, I see a “G” and turn it to “sol”. I also have to translate any interval stuff, which is usually explained on a piano, into guitar frets. Lost in translation.

Is Do a specific note, then? I thought it was the first note of a scale no matter where you start it

It can be, but then again, it mightn’t be.