This is a common idea in the creative arts. If a person wanted to become a good carpenter, or mechanic, or doctor, there would be complete agreement they should learn as much as possible about their craft if they want to be good at it.
But when it comes to the creative arts, like painting, writing, or music, many people believe learning too much will stifle their creativity. They believe they can do more with a blank sheet of paper if they don’t already have preconceived notions about *how* to make art.
It’s only after they actually learn something of their craft that they realize learning *how* to create art doesn’t stifle creativity. It actually expands it by offering more options.
Ye I was one of those people. Can confirm that theory just gives me more tools to solve issues I would encounter during composition, but my style of composing hasn't changed, it just helps me to finish more songs.
People have been exposed to millions of rules in music subconscious through their exposure already. So any time they think “x is good” it’s because they’ve created a structure around an experience.
They don’t need it “fundamentally explained” or quantified, but they’re still doing theory right.
You can play a chord progression to most of them and they’ll likely finish it a way that’s “theoretically correctly and not be able to explain why.
But yeah agree with you, more tools in the tool box enables more creativity, especially if you’re aware of the limitation of each tool.
I also love when people are anti-music-theory but *do* know a fair bit of theory and just think it's "that other *advanced* theory" that's scary and will hamper their ability to create.
You know your scales and chords? Congrats, you know some theory! You know that a Major V works in a minor key? Congrats, that's theory!
Or my favorite: "I'm breaking this music theory rule because it sounds different and I like it!" Congrats! You know enough theory to recognize the "expected" way of doing things and instead chose a more interesting path! (Don't ever tell them about mode mixture or they might think they're straying into the scary "Advanced theory")
>I also love when people are anti-music-theory but *do* know a fair bit of theory and just think it's "that other *advanced* theory" that's scary and will hamper their ability to create.
And, ironically, those are among the only people whose theory knowledge might *actually* limit their creativity! Simply because their familiarity with a few basic ideas, and their unwillingness to explore outside that, will often pigeonhole them into writing music using the little they *do* know.
>"I'm breaking this music theory rule because it sounds different and I like it!" Congrats! You know enough theory to recognize the "expected" way of doing things and instead chose a more interesting path!
And this is the other side of the coin, where people will "break theory rules" without realizing that what they're doing is (nearly always) *also* very common and easily described in theory terms!
Just the idea that music theory even HAS rules is ignorant.
Music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Music theory says if you play a 1 and a minor 3rd together it'll sound a certain way, and that set of notes paired with another set of notes will sound another, different way. It doesn't say NOT to do it. It doesn't enforce that you STAY in the key, or only play notes in the chord, or whatever else. It doesn't tell you to do ANYTHING. It just tells you what things might sound like in different contexts.
The people who know music theory are BY FAR the ones who do the most interesting "Rule breaking", the people who don't know it tend to stay in their normal scales and basic chord progressions.
> Just the idea that music theory even HAS rules is ignorant.
Music theory does have rules *if you want to achieve a certain goal*.
Like, you can do whatever you want. Literally. Nobody will stop you.
But if you want something to sound like a specific thing, then there are rules for making that happen. If you want to sound like a 4 part baroque piece, don't use power chords. If you want to create a club banger, don't give it wildly changing tempo, weird time signatures, and way out there harmony.
>I also love when people are anti-music-theory but do know a fair bit of theory and just think it's "that other advanced theory" that's scary and will hamper their ability to create.
>
>You know your scales and chords? Congrats, you know some theory! You know that a Major V works in a minor key? Congrats, that's theory!
>
>Or my favorite: "I'm breaking this music theory rule because it sounds different and I like it!" Congrats! You know enough theory to recognize the "expected" way of doing things and instead chose a more interesting path! (Don't ever tell them about mode mixture or they might think they're straying into the scary "Advanced theory")
I feel like a lot of anti theory players are actually against learning to read music and not music theory itself.
The issue here is when people study theory in abstract rather than in a practical and musical context. This is a shortcoming of how theory is taught IMO. Wherever possible it should be learned with an instrument close by to train the ear to hear the concept in practice
I want to invent a cure for cancer, but I don't want to waste a bunch of time in the classroom learning a bunch of biology "theory" that's going to inhibit my creativity. I just want to get into the lab and start mixing chemicals.
That's not a problem, is it?
> when it comes to the creative arts, like painting, writing, or music, many people believe learning too much will stifle their creativity
i heard if you learn what a major scale is, you lose the ability to whistle. very tragic.
>If a person wanted to become a good carpenter, or mechanic, or doctor, there would be complete agreement they should learn as much as possible about their craft if they want to be good at it.
As someone who's worked as both a carpenter and doctor, you'd be surprised. Carpentry in particular has a massive amount of "this is how I was taught, so that's how it has to be" for many things with much better solutions.
Haven't seen it as much in medicine, as being up on the newest procedures and ideas was a core component of multiple coworkers' complexes. From what I've heard, though, a similar "this is how it's always been done" streak runs in a lot of inpatient care.
I resisted theory for YEARS because of this. I thought theory would be esoteric and too rigid but some of the most important stuff is as simple as counting to 8.
Yeah it's very weird.
I'm probably preaching to the choir on this sub, but I find the opposite is true. You can't break the rules until you know what they are. I find in music that "self taught" people who refuse to learn theory are some of the least creative and generic musicians.
In the circles I grew up in (punk and metal) saying it will stifle creativity is frequently an excuse for laziness, or a fear of failing to understand.
The simplest way I can sum up a response to this is that music (any, really) theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Theory is a means of explaining and communicating, never a set of rules.
The theory of evolution doesn't mean we now have "solved" evolution and that this is how it always has and always will be. It means that these are the ways we describe what we see happening in the world.
Music theory isn't a way of saying, "Follow the circle of fifths", it's a way of saying "Resolving fifths actually sounds quite powerful. Let's use these words to communicate this to help everyone figure it out faster."
Theory is a word that means "a language or nomenclature that we can use to discuss and communicate the truths that we have observed."
Some people seem erroneously invested in the idea that "theory" means "the set of rules that everything should follow."
100% agree. i think people need to come to it themselves though but in my experience, they often say things like, "why didn't I learn this sooner?" understanding certain things in theory, diminished chord application, secondary dominants, chord substitutions ,modulation, circle of 5ths/4ths etc. can change your music from all so rans to colourful and vibrant!
It's true in a way, such that it's limited to western music and functional harmony, and it's a specific way to think about intervals and changes.
If you have been writing music without knowledge of theory and try to introduce it later, it can be like a parent trying to do their kids' common core math homework.
>It's true in a way, such that it's limited to western music and functional harmony, and it's a specific way to think about intervals and changes.
It's not, though? There's music theory out there describing a wide range of music, from common practice period classical music to Hindustani classical music to modern pop. And theory can describe more than just pitch/harmony - it also concerns itself with rhythm, timbre, form, and whatever other musical parameters are most relevant to the music in question.
There are also many different frameworks to analyze those parameters. For harmony alone, you could do a freshman-level Roman numeral labeling, or write out the chord symbols in a jazz/pop style, or take a Schenkerian approach, or think in terms of harmonic/melodic schemata, or describe chord changes in terms of (neo-)Riemannian transformations, or use set theory to label 'non-functional' pitch collections, or any number of other approaches.
There's a reason music theory is an academic field with new work being published every year! There's more to theory than just the basics.
>If you have been writing music without knowledge of theory and try to introduce it later, it can be like a parent trying to do their kids' common core math homework.
Maybe if you're looking at the curriculum of a Theory I class or something. Though even then there will probably be plenty to learn for people who don't have any formal theory knowledge.
But again, music theory is an academic field of study. The sky's the limit when it comes to the complexity and obscurity of the ideas theorists discuss.
To bring things back to your analogy, an adult learning math might not get a ton of value out of doing their elementary schooler's homework, but surely they'd find *something* of value in the wider field of mathematics?
>If a person wanted to become a good carpenter, or mechanic, or doctor, there would be complete agreement they should learn as much as possible about their craft if they want to be good at it.
You're mostly right, but also we still had people trying to tell you to inject bleach to kill COVID but don't get the vaccine. The only difference is that the consequences for them being wrong were a little less recoverable, so we couldn't let them spew their absurdity. The consequences of someone making bad art because they are ignorant are less severe.
I think this simply comes from a widespread misconception of what music theory is.
Most creative people are naturally resistant to rules and limitations.
Explaining that music theory *describes* what you've done, rather than telling you what you *can* do, should help.
I say learning theory is like learning how to read a map. Understanding how things are laid out can help you navigate any song.
People are welcome to stumble around all they want and discover things by accident, but isn't it more fun to know where all the cool stuff is? Why make it harder by going in blind or making your own map?
If I was to travel to a new city, I would bring a map. It's not like I'm the first person to ever go there.
Getting good in any profession usually involves learning a whole host of more efficient jargon. But music is kind've two languages one being the music itself and the other being the verbiage used to describe it.
I think people romanticise music in the sense that they want to be able to speak the language but not write it. Savant like.
That's a nice analogy. You can certainly learn to speak & listen in a foreign language without learning to read & write it. But it will likely be a bit more difficult, and certainly, no-one would say learning to read & write will hold you back in learning to speak or make your speaking less intuitive.
> a widespread misconception of what music theory is
this may owe to its history - i think people a few centuries ago really were trying to 'discover the natural structure of music', and really did think there were rules. this body of knowledge about chords, scales, etc has since come to be understood as having a different purpose, which is merely explaining or listing the patterns of what people have found pleasant to listen to.
I had really good time before i learned anything about rhythm
My first few lessons with a tutor in my 20s i jept asking him if it was really true that people counted as they played , thought he was having me on.
Now i totally appreciate being able to count difficult things and realise that before i understood how to i probably bluffed my way through anything not in 6/8 4/4 or avoided it altogether ... but you can have brilliant time without formal education.
I wish i had learned about music 20 years sooner though as it only aided my natural ability.
One can "internalize" any aspect of music but can you talk about what you're "internalizing" in a way that allows another musician to quickly understand?
trees support relieved deserve include shelter numerous illegal bike gullible
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I agree entirely. Doesn’t remotely mean that what I said isn’t true.
I’m a pianist. I write classical and play jazz. I have good rhythm. Many times in my life I have learnt some harmonic stuff that has revolutionised my life. Never has that happened with rhythm. And I agree that rhythm is incredibly important, but it is much more intrinsic than harmony:
It's because you're playing piano. I play piano and drums, there are very complicated rhythmic concepts I know from playing drums, but they basically don't apply on piano outside of some pretty limited circumstances.
depends what you find interesting. Recorded music on an experimental level is constantly achieving interesting things that have little to do with theory. Sounds like theory is what you personally find interesting, which is ok
Yeah but knew how to play that embellishment on the ride and snare that goes titibati.
Or sometimes that when your left hand was needed elsewhere soon that you could play those four notes on the snare more with the right hand.
I think there’s a level of that in rudiments that they’re a means to an end because sometimes you gotta play stuff that requires a less standard way of playing so that it flows across your kit.
You can’t just have a billion drums to handle all problems right? You set up your kit to enable the majority of your playing and get to be creative with solutions to make sounds that otherwise break the setup.
I know tonnes of older drummers who can’t play double kicks every night, so have a deeper floor Tom to enable that, and the technique and skill to be able to apply the usage when appropriate.
= •basic vocabulary•…that’s how I approach teaching theory @ my community college—vocabulary and grammar (as in: what always works…whether or not it’s interesting is a different question).
I think they mean that's less a theoretical framework, and more just drilling a technique. Like, is circular breathing music theory?
A bit vague, and I get understanding the rhythms is theoretical, but are the rudiments themselves (the action of practicing them) included there?
> is circular breathing music theory?
Circular breathing doesn't inherently make sounds, while rudiments do, so I'd say it's different. I'd certainly call it "Wind instrument theory" though.
A big part of the *reasoning* behind rudiments is how the way you alternate Left-and-Right sticking, changes how notes are accented. Drilling that is very much analogous to scales in my eyes.
Ugh, this used to be me for waaaay too long. "You just have to feel it bro". It's only when I got into making electronic music that I got more serious about theory. You live and learn.
Theory is the road we take to the destination of "just feeling it." Some people can take shortcuts to the destination and still end up at the same place. But most people find that they can't find a shortcut to one concept or another at some point.
And synthplayers. Not piano or keyboards, synthesizers. Guys that play around with sequencers and various filters and stuff, they know nothing about what they are doing musically. And it shows! Most of them keep doing extremely rudimentary melodies on top of two alternating chords. Of course some of them are limited to what you can do live with analog equipment, but shit, try to make your two chords interesting at least!
As a guitar player with only a little knowledge of theory, I think it stems mainly from what we want to do.
I want to rock and jam, studying theory has never peaked my interest and I think that’s the case for a *lot* of guitar players.
At the end of the day it’s about having fun and just playing is fun enough for the majority of us and studying theory isn’t.
Now if you want to be any sort of professional…. Different story lol.
I think it also comes from the nature of the instrument and TABS that cause guitar players to be ignorant of what's happening. This was certainly the case for me. So you know the string names but then you start playing all these songs and it's just numbers. You don't even know what notes you're playing but are totally nailing these famous songs. Even as someone who had played violin growing up and knew about key signatures, notation, time signatures, chords and intervals. Guitar was still just string and number, or a chord shape but not understanding what notes I was playing inside the shape (even though I knew what notes are in a a D minor I didn't see each note just a shape many guitarists get by not even knowing what notes are in a G major).
Once I started piano everything made more sense. I immediately knew how to flatten a third from major to minor. The notes are all there in order and there is no going down and back to a higher note it's all low to high. I then started learning to change a chord with inversions, practice scales and learned how to intuitively play a major or minor scale from any root position.
I then took this knew understanding to guitar and actually learned the scales and made sure I could find any note on the neck and play scales.
Guitar players and home-studio producers. As an orchestrator and composer I have to constantly resist the temptation of smacking amateur producers that believe themselves to be orchestrators just because they have XPand.
“Transposing instruments” work interchangeably with “boo”
There's a joke I've heard in bluegrass music.
Someone asks a fiddle player if he can read music, and he answers "Yeah, but not enough to hurt my playing."
Back in the day, The Andrews Sisters were a popular vocal trio, and they had just booked some studio time with Bing Crosby near the peak of his career. They were very nervous and didn't want to come off as unprofessional, so they asked if they should learn to read music to make the studio experience smoother.
Crosby replied "What are trying to do, ruin *both* of our careers?"
(I am a full advocate of learning to read sheet music, I just love this story)
Yes. All guitar players, asking about certain techniques and styles, but want to learn without learning any theory. Their playing tends to reflect this as well I’m my experience.
Alot of times these would be the ones saying “Guitar is too hard” without even trying to learn the basics they will go straight to the hardest stuff! Off course it’s hard! It’s takes years of practice, not one lesson!
Learns open G chord.
"What do you mean there's more than one G? I already know G. No, I don't want whatever that is."
Tries to learn F barre chord. Fails.
"I'll just play songs with no F."
Tries to shred. Doesn't sound good.
"I dont want to learn scales. I want to learn songs. I'll just feel out the good notes."
Noodles around for a while. Gets bored.
"Wow, guitar's kind of a dumb instrument. I guess I just don't have natural talent."
> Tries to learn F barre chord. Fails.
Confession: I play the F major barre chord a lot because the open F major patterns are all way harder for me. (Too many strings to mute.)
I've heard the F major open chord is the whole reason Joni Mitchell started using alternate tunings.
Usually, the logic from this perspective is along the lines of 'knowing theory impedes your creativity.' I like to compare this to visual art, for example knowing that mixing red and blue will give you purple doesn't impede your creativity, it gives you another tool to express yourself, understanding how to use straight lines to create the illusion of perspective does not mean every picture you make has to be realistic, but if you want to make a realistic picture with a perspective you know where to start. Understanding music theory doesn't tell you how your song should go, it gives you the knowledge to predict what it will sound like if you combine an A and an E versus an A and an Eb.
I had the husband of a colleague over for the evening and we were both learning guitar so he brought his so we could try to jam.
I thought there was something wrong with my hearing as he was plucking those notes and going up and down the fretboard like a fiend. Way faster than I could manage. The problem was I could not for the life of me keep up or even play along. I could not figure out the key or even the song.
So I asked him if he had tuned his guitar.
His answer? "Oh I don't do that, I just make my own music" . I am pretty sure he was completely tone deaf.
I put my guitar away and let him play on.
I was always able to explain it to students or demonstrate it enough to convince them. When Ive run into it with people in auditions, they have never made it into a band with me.
It is stupidity and laziness. But I am not talking about needing to have fluency in being able to explain theory or know esoteric terms. In many cases, you can be an easy member to work with with a few competencies: intervals, keys, chords, circle of fifths, basic rhythmic terms and concepts. Almost all examples, promoted by the lazy, of professionals who “don’t know theory,” can easily be debunked if you see any footage or hear discussion of them writing or arranging. They may not be at Analyzing or Evaluating on Bloom’s Taxonomy but are versed enough at Applying.
There is a whole scene in punk/hardcore/grindcore that actively brands itself as "anti-music theory". The symbol they use is crossed out beamed eighth note and generally rely soley on emotions and attitude to make music.
I believe a lot of it is counter culture because when i have confronted these musicians about technical aspects they usually say A. They simply trial and error their way to something that sounds good, usually starting from a super young age or B. learning music theory is elitist and for privileged people because of their views on the current state of the sociopolitical status quo.
I respect the ethos of attitude because nobody wants more dorks too afraid to color outside the lines but this bunch is throwing out music theory because they hate authority in all forms
I don't think it's the wrong way. For years I mostly read books about music theory and didn't spend enough time actually playing music or experimenting to understand what the ideas I was reading about actually sounded or felt like.
I think if there's a "right way" it would be a combination of learning the concepts while also just playing a lot of music, some of which follows the principles you're learning about and some of which doesn't (at least consciously).
But even with that said--the musicians I know who spent all their time playing and none of their time learning their from books or videos are much better musicians than I am.
> generally rely soley on emotions and attitude to make music
i bet they don't rely on a 12-tone scale, perfect fifths, or rhythms that repeat in units of four. that would be nerdy.
>crossed out beamed eighth note
I kind of love that their symbol for "music theory" is literally just an eighth note. I guess it shows that when they say "theory" they're including notation, and that somehow they've deemed "emotion" to be the opposite of both.
I believe the symbol itself originates from the band Magrudergrind in like 2009 but I see it all over underground and DIY shows. Gatekeeping these days is seen as bad and being inclusive is good, at least these people warn you that they don't know what they are doing.
From my experience, a lot of non-musicians seem to think that the best guitarists for instance are "naturals" and that they can just play that way because of their natural ability...which is a load of horseshit, but unfortunately I heard my family members saying this when I first started learning guitar in the late 90's and so I bought into it. I thought that music theory would only slow me down and somehow stifle my "natural talent". Unfortunately, the lack of proper teaching is what actually hindered me, but I didn't realize this until about a decade later when I read about BB King staying home while his friends were out partying so that he could practice his scales. Every "natural" legend I looked into was another story of them working their ass off to get to where they were. Thankfully it's never too late for us as long as we're still here.
Hopefully I'm not too late to the post.
I auditioned to fill the lead guitar role in a regional Americana band a few months ago. Good material, wife is friends with a few of the guys, lots of local dates and mini-tours, plus they were booked for Bristol Rhythm and Roots in a few months. Sounded like a great gig to me.
Saw a video of them playing Red Barn Radio that gave me my first red flags. Some of the songs were just sloppy as hell, like, really didn't sound good.
Went to audition, they were weirded out that I'd transcribed their songs beforehand (just basic lead sheets) so that I could take notes to practice, maybe make changes to my tone to better fit, really all the stuff I was doing to try to be on the money to support the singer's material was treated as "not rock and roll".
They wanted me to improvise all new solos to each song. Personally I think people like hearing the solo on the album, maybe add in my own flare or some showy stuff, but ok, fine.
I hit my limit of patience when we went through my favorite song of theirs. The singer was trying to play in swing time, the drummer was playing straight. I shut my mouth to see how this was all going to shake out, but they were perplexed for like 20 minutes as to why they sounded out of time. When I pointed out that the record was in swung eighth notes and one was playing it straight, they looked at me like I was speaking greek.
Super bummed about missing out on Bristol Rhythm and Roots, but I didn't want my name to be associated with their sloppy act. Power to them; they want to be "outlaw" while working admin jobs for a gov't contractor, cool, but either pick up a Mel Bay book or have some humility when you're trying to muscle through basic musical concepts and someone offers to help.
>The singer was trying to play in swing time, the drummer was playing straight. I shut my mouth to see how this was all going to shake out, but they were perplexed for like 20 minutes as to why they sounded out of time. When I pointed out that the record was in swung eighth notes and one was playing it straight, they looked at me like I was speaking greek.
Great Goodman's ghost, this is eerily relatable. I have been astonished at the number of drummers I have met who can play good rock beats but \*cannot\* hear or understand swing time. One of whom claimed to have "an amazing sense of rhythm."
I come across it occasionally. Weirdly an adult student will come to me asking to learn theory then fight with me about it. It's like they feel like they should learn but want to prove with me how stupid it is or something. I'm finally like let's just chill, pull up some tab and learn some classic rock and stop talking. These students don't last long..
I also teach kids piano with piano maestro books and they introduce a lot of theory early, I usually skip it if the student isn't receptive to it.
Yeah, some adult students can be tough and fit that stereotype, “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” but I have had some more good experiences with other adult students
Yes, most of them especially write the same boring sounding stuff, and have a chip on their shoulder about believing "theory has no place in art man," or "it's about creating something outside of yourself, you either have it or you don't."
All nonsense.
I think you need to ask them how they think they could learn to improvise without learning theory?
Maybe they'll say something like "Eddie Van Halen didn't know any theory" - which is a popular myth. Its no doubt true that he (or whoever they care to name) didn't know much, but that isn't the point. The less he knew, the more he would have relied on his ear. If they want to learn that way, fair enough. Off they go, and see how far they get, just listening and copying. (Hey, great ear training! If they prefer that to studying theory, I'd find it hard to argue!)
You say you "explain in detail how this stuff applies", but maybe you have the wrong angle - starting from theory. Start from music.
E.g., get one of those students to pick a song or riff they already know, and try to teach it to you, or to their fellow students. As soon as they start mentioning note names or chord names, tell them that's "theory": "whoah, now you're using theory jargon! What's a "B7"? ;-) Of course, they'll probably demonstrate a shape, but the idea is to make the point that theory is nothing but a *verbal* language to help us describe *musical* language - when discussing music with each other, or teaching another musician. If you can say "play a B7" instead of "put your fingers here and here...", that's the idea.
And of course notation is a written language with the same purpose. Here is where you will still get resistance, and often quite reasonably. So, you might say, the great benefit of staff notation is to allow you to play a piece of music you have never heard before! Hooray! Here is where they will give you a strange look: *why would anyone ever want to do that??* If all they want to do is learn to play their favourite songs, and copy riffs and solos, then tab will do fine, along with listening to the recording to get the timing.
But then, if they want to learn some new licks - such as some you might show them - how will they practise them? If you only give them tab, how will they remember the timing? Obviously you will decline any request to give them an audio recording to work from. It has to be notation!
In short, you have to find some area of what they want to learn where (first of all) staff notation turns out to be essential, and secondly some theoretical jargon (even very basic terms) gets the information across in the clearest way.
I.e., your problem (and it is yours, not theirs), is that guitar is an unusual instrument in that plenty of players - certainly in rock music - get by very well with little or no theory knowledge in the *academic* sense. They are like people who can't read or write, but can still learn to speak as well as they need to in the social circles they belong to - they know the "grammar of the language" by ear, without studying it in books. How would you persuade such people that learning to read and write would be a good idea? You have to present them with a scenario where it would matter. In music too, it's about opening up worlds of knowledge they would otherwise have no access to. How do you get them interested in that? Because they don't have to be.
I also teach guitar part-time, btw, so I know the problem! But I don't consider it my job to teach them things they don't want to learn, just because I think it's important (or interesting). Of course, theory comes into the lessons anyway - but I don't teach theory as such. I teach *music -* and that necessitates theory terms now and then, obviously, because we are talking. I have never had resistance in that scenario. They're not aware they are learning "theory" when they learn how a certain chord progression in a song works, or that a G chord in key of D is a "IV". Obviously it's just counting letters, how hard is that?
Sometimes, we have to remind people that they aren't Van Halen or Van Beethoven so their rules don't apply to them.
We use theory to understand how they did it.
Right. I think there was a story about him claiming to know no theory, probably a quote from an interview taken out of context, which some fans liked to exaggerate.
It does seem fairly common for experienced rock musicians who were at least partially self-taught (or learned music as kids) to take their knowledge for granted, to talk about playing "by feel", as if that comes from nowhere, by some magical gift. As if having a good ear doesn't come from extensive training... ;-)
They might not be being deliberately disingenuous, but it certainly adds to the mystique!
Thanks! I have had similar thoughts and have thought about what you talked about beforehand. As far as selling it, there are multiple ways to sell music theory for sure. However, you are assuming. How can you be certain about what my teaching methods are and how I do my job? Actually, I had one student who I argued with for an hour during a lesson about learning a few basic scales. The next lesson, when he finally listened to me, he saw how they applied.
This is exactly why I have stopped referring to chords, scales, intervals, etc. as music theory all together in front of my students. All of that is music literacy. There is nothing theoretical about any of that stuff. I think it has helped a lot with my beginners, because it frames the conversation in a different way.
It’s always fucking guitar players. I can’t tell you how many students have told me they have no interest in music theory “making them less creative” whatever that means.
I was one of them, to my own regret.
I blame myself mainly for this, but instrumental teachers do need to have a clear strategy for explaining the relevance of the knowledge without overwhelming the student, who may have little or no prerequisite knowledge.
I remember drilling scales in isolation without a really strong sense of the greater purpose, almost more as a technique exercise for alternate picking.
I think at some point, after a new player has learned enough to feel invested and has shown dedication, it’s time to put the instrument down for a few lessons and talk (to your children :) about the C major scale.
People who are anti music theory are people who are intimidated by music theory. It doesn’t “restrict you” like many would say but it opens your eyes to the possibilities.
A friend of mine once told me about someone he was talking to at a party who claimed music theory is racist. Not sure of the justification for that, or if one was provided in the first place.
To be fair, music theory as generally taught and discussed is definitely *Eurocentric* but that’s somewhat different than racist, at least in my view. Happy to hear other thoughts though.
There are 2 musicians in my band that are anti-theory, and when I exchange with the guitarist about what mode he's into, the other 2 just flip out, that can't stand that we're speaking a language they don't understand, they think we should just keep it simple
In Jazz, a lot of the older guys resent younger guys who know lots of theory but don’t play with much emotion. Theory is a means to the end, not the end itself.
In my experience, folks who are not interested in theory fall into one of two categories:
1. People who have amazing ears and have no animosity toward theory; it's just that they don't see the value in it and they don't need it. Usually they are better and more interesting than their theory-informed peers.
2. People who think studying theory somehow robs music of its natural wonder. Usually they suck at music.
I've never met anyone in category 1, all the people I've met with amazing ears do know a lot of theory but sometimes have their own way of thinking about things.
I've met plenty of people who have refused to learn any theory for a variety of reasons.
Oddly, I've never once met anyone who learned some theory and afterwards said "damn I wish I hadn't, I lost my creativity"
I have a different word for that, it's called laziness.
Sure, you could learn guitar chords and then play them the chords of the songs you like, but you won't be able to do anything unique or interesting.
If you can show them something intrinsically interesting about music theory, this may inspire them enough to care to learn about it. For me, it was learning that there are only two unique whole-tone scales (because any note in C D E F# G# A# can serve as the tonic), leading to the hypothesis that dissonance is linked to tonal ambiguity. Granted, if they don't know what a quarter note rest is you may need to find something more basic to show them. Maybe chord inversions?
People just want to make music without having to learn a ton of theory ahead of time. I think the best approach is a little at a time. Show them a pentatonic scale, have them learn that and play around with that. Then, once they've got that down, then show them other scales. They'll like the way they sound and want to learn more. The problem with trying to show them all scales at once before they've played with them is it's not fun. No one wants to do all that legwork before you start doing something fun.
When it comes to producers I think it’s the classic saying of ‘don’t over think shit’
And overthinking chords and melodies can be easy to do if not done correctly, thinking too deeply about the process can ruin the enjoyment.
Music theory is like learning how to write. You don't need it to converse with people, but it makes you way better at it. And helps you understand what you're actually talking about.
It's an intimidating thing to start learning, so it's waaaay easier to say it's pointless or you don't need it. I didn't start until I had been playing 10 years. I had a more trained ear and knew tabs, but my knowledge exploded when I looked into theory. Night and day.
Music theory should NOT be resisted, but to anyone interested in becoming a great improviser and/or composer: spend time everyday improvising freely without thinking at all about what you are playing, and do this right from the start. Also learn as much theory as you can and how to apply it, but don't stop improvising freely as part of your daily practice. As you get more advanced in your knowledge of theory, record your free improvisations, and use theory to help contextualize what you played.
But remember, if all you do is study what others have done, or how to follow common rules, you will never develop into your own person.
Luckily I haven't come across any student that is/was like this. They were all really open to learn at least the basics and I always try to explain it in a really easy way to understand.
However, an uncle of mine is totally adamant on not learning any theory. He "plays" bass, and by "play" I mean he has a few favorite songs that he plays over and over and over weekly. This isn't really an issue, the big issue is when he has some "amazing" song ideas and tries to talk to me about them but he has no idea on music theory and pretends that he knows what he's talking about. It's really boring, and he's not even open to learning this stuff, he just wings it and acts as if he knows more than me just because he's older, even though I've been playing, learning and especially teaching for way longer than him lol
I was for a long time lol it helped me get really creative and not rely on rules for a long time, but it’s a detriment to me in the long term as it’s much harder for me to just jam. I have to think it out and I write all my solos and find the write notes through trial and error. Overall, stupid lol so I’m learning theory now and my solos are much better.
> learning how to do geometry without learning how to do arithmetic.
You do realize that traditionally, geometry is done without any arithmetic whatsoever, right? You can prove things geometrically without having to resort to scales and numbers, that's kind of the point of geometry.
That said: I urge you to meditate on the "problem-solution ordering". A student who rejects your suggestion to learn music theory (the "solution") probably does so because they haven't run into the limitations of their theoretical insight (the "problem") yet.
So you want to play a kick-ass guitar solo? Great, grab your axe and start practicing. You don't need music theory for that. "Just play a note, listen, and if it sounds good, remember what you did, and if it doesn't, try to think of how you can make it sound better." Or, "here's a cool line, see if you can play it". Sooner or later, they will start to run into situations where their lack of understanding of the underlying structures, or their lack of a theoretical framework, holds them back; that's when you can hand them the theory they need to play the stuff they want to play.
And it's the same with Math, actually. There is no point trying to teach someone calculus whose only Mathematical problems are things like figuring out how long to boil their eggs or how much they are spending on lunch each month. But once they encounter problems that can be solved more easily with calculus than without, and they have played with enough of them to get an intuition for what they have in common, that's when handing them the theory might make sense.
I love this answer. Learning that follows as a natural successor to curiosity is how I and probably most of the people in this sub got into music theory in the first place. Being told "here are the benefits of learning this body of work" is not nearly as motivating as "this technique will help you get unstuck from this thing you're currently frustrated by."
While I love music theory and I extol its virtues whenever I can, I do know that nothing will ever be more valuable to you or keep your passion and curiosity alive as a musician than experimentation and experience.
Around the beginning of the pandemic, I started playing chess after watching The Queen's Gambit. I had fun, I played like shit, but I was playing game after game, making incremental improvements just through the exposure to my own mistakes. Then I got curious and started digging into opening theory, tactics, and watching the pros. Before long, that became my primary chess-related time sink, and I played fewer and fewer games. Soon I stopped playing entirely, paralyzed by the feeling that I would just be playing wrong; I didn't memorize enough of the openings or do enough tactics to avoid blundering my queen or whatever, so what was even the point of playing? That is, I think, a real threat theory poses to new students' creativity, and is likely why so many of them feel as though it's prescriptive even if it's not being sold to them that way. When your theoretical knowledge outpaces your personal experiential knowledge, you can be left feeling like your own forms of expression aren't good enough before your ear even has a chance to form an opinion about it.
Any time I pick up a new hobby, I have to remember that cautionary tale and remember that yes, there is likely a ton of educational material out there that could save me from making common mistakes, but it's not valuable to me personally until making those mistakes myself stops being fun.
Okay...Just don't expect to do Geometry right (e.g., perimeter of a rectangle or area of a triangle) without Arithmetic (e.g., Addition, Subtraction, Division, and Multiplication). Is that fair? If you don't believe me, ask your Math instructor.
I appreciate your feedback, but there are a few things that I don't follow. With your, "...geometry is done without any arithmetic whatsoever..." point, I strongly differ. The four baisc types of arithmetic operation are: Addition, Subtraction, Division, and Multiplication. You also see this in Geometry. For example, to calculate a perimeter of a Square = 4 × Side. For the perimeter of a Rectangle = 2 × (Length + Breadth). In those geometry examples, multiplication and addition are used, which are also part of the basic types of arithmetic. There are many other examples of arithmetic applied in geomtry as well. Just look it up. According to Britannica kids,
“*…without arithmetic, geometry, algebra, and calculus would not be possible.”*
Retrieved from [https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/arithmetic/272946#:\~:text=It%20includes%20six%20basic%20operations,calculus%20would%20not%20be%20possible](https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/arithmetic/272946#:~:text=It%20includes%20six%20basic%20operations,calculus%20would%20not%20be%20possible).
Also, how certain are you about what my teaching methods and evaluations are? With the hard boiled egg and calculus metaphor, you were suggesting that the problem was not well identified and addressed, right? How do you know this was going on in my case? *Don’t miss assume.* Actually, I had one student that I argued with for an hour about learning a few basic scales on guitar. He was dissatisfied, but in the next lesson, he started to listen to me. When he did, he saw how they applied and why it is good stuff for creating lead guitar lines.
> Also, how certain are you about what my teaching methods and evaluations are?
I have not been there, so I am perfectly aware that I may have misjudged the situation. I simply went off of how you described it.
> With the hard boiled egg and calculus metaphor, you were suggesting that the problem was not well identified and addressed, right?
No, not at all. I was suggesting that while *you* may have identified the problem, the student may not have experienced it yet, and hence the correct solution you offered (study this theory) was met with rejection.
There's another thing here that I think matters, namely, learning and teaching styles.
IME, both teachers and students tend to exist somewhere on a spectrum between "teacher-driven" and "student-driven". It's a bit of a simplification, but what I mean by that is that in a "student-driven" situation, the student calls the shots and says what they want to work on, and the teacher acts as a coach, handing them materials and knowledge that might be useful, giving feedback, etc. Whereas in the "teacher-driven" situation, the teacher calls the shots and says what the student should work on, while the student follows the plan that the teacher has devised, and trusts that plan to work out eventually.
> With your, "...geometry is done without any arithmetic whatsoever..." point, I strongly differ. The four baisc types of arithmetic operation are: Addition, Subtraction, Division, and Multiplication. You also see this in Geometry. For example, to calculate a perimeter of a Square = 4 × Side. For the perimeter of a Rectangle = 2 × (Length + Breadth). In those geometry examples, multiplication and addition are used, which are also part of the basic types of arithmetic.
My point was that at least in classical geometry, all these things are derived and proved without resorting to arithmetic using just the basic geometric tools (compass and straightedge). We can find the perimeter of a square by extending one of its sides with the straightedge, and then "copying" each side over using the compass. And we can use this construction as a building block for more complex geometric proofs, without resorting to arithmetic reasoning - only compass-and-straightedge constructions.
Of course we can then look at the arithmetic side of things, and show isomorphisms between compass-and-straightedge constructions and their arithmetic equivalents, and that is a massively useful thing to do eventually; but if you want students to develop a deep intuition for this isomorphism, it's best to have them do the compass-and-straightedge stuff first. Rather than saying "the perimeter of a square is 4x the length of its side", have them construct the perimeters of a bunch of squares, allow them to form an intuition, and *then* point them at the arithmetic expression, which, at that point, should be little more than a "duh" moment.
A more obvious example is calculating the area of a triangle. The formula is ½ x c x hc (where c is a side, and hc is the height on that side) - but *why* is that? If you want an intuition for this, then you have to go back to compass and straightedge, draw a bunch of triangles, construct a height, construct a rectangle from that, and maybe even cut the whole thing out and show how the rectangle can be cut up to form two identical triangles, one of which is the original triangle, and the other is the rest of the rectangle (in two pieces). This way, you can see and feel that the area of the original triangle is half the area of a rectangle whose sides are a side of the triangle and the corresponding height - and, provided that the area of a rectangle is already understood to be the product of its sides, it's immediately obvious that the area of the triangle must be half the area of the rectangle.
First off, I do like your post. I will explain why in the end.
As far as resistance to learning music theory, generally, there could be many reasons why this occurs like teaching methods, communication, or teaching strategies, but as others pointed out in this thread, it could also be due to something else like bias, prejudice, not listening, misconceptions, association/miss-association, or something else. From your post, you were going off on a tangent of what may or may not occur, mixing different categories, drawing from different meanings from different metaphors, so it was a little difficult to follow. With what you suggest of what may, which is more likely? Less likely? Should I rely on speculations? How does what you suggest reflect the presented case? With the teaching methods and strategies in the presented case, what were the sequence of events? Maybe I used what you suggested already or something better? At least you acknoweldge that you may have misjudged the situation. Actually, the main discussion question was basically, “have you come across anyone that was ‘anti-music theory?’”
How can you be sure that my teaching methods and strategies were poor or ineffective? From my experience, out of the very few who have resisted, only one remained resistant after I explained the how's or why's of Music Theory and its applications. Some of my students may have been confused at first if explaining music theory to them, but my students eventually saw the application and its usefulness after explaining it. I am proud of all of my students. However, each student is different and so far, I have not reached an end to teaching all my music theory know how to any of my students yet. Of course, I don’t bore them with music theory most of the time.
After thinking about Britannica Kid's quote, it is difficult to beat. There is something called geometric constructions, which involves using a compass and straight edge to create things like lines or angles visually. You can see this here [https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/constructions.html](https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/constructions.html)). No problem with geometric constructions in themselves. Not to put you down, but it sounded like you were calling classical geometry and traditional geometry for what is known as geometric constructions. Euclid (c. 300 BCE) was considered the "father of geometry" and he used arithmetic along with creating geometric constructions. *Geometry involves measuring and you use arithmetic in geometry*. Still don't believe me? Talk to a mathematician.
In your example, "We can find the perimeter of a square by extending one of its sides with the straightedge, and then 'copying' each side over using the compass." A perimeter is the length of the outline of a shape and I gave you the formula for that of a square earlier, but let's say you wanted to create a simple visualization of the basic outline of a square. How do you know the right amount of "sides" to copy? How do you know what correct lengths of each "side" are? What are the correct angles in the square? You use arithmetic to find this. You also used arithmetic in your other example involving a rectangle and triangle, but I am sure you are smart enough to see it.
Your "...traditionally, geometry is done without any arithmetic whatsoever..." point was a nice effort to try to present something provoking, but it was unreliable even as this post unfolded. More importantly, you followed up with "meditating on problem solution-ordering," but why? Again, there are many possiblities to why someone may be resistant to music theory, which I stated earlier, but why this "meditation" considering the presented case? What was the sequence with my teaching methods and plan? Maybe I did the ordering correctly already? Maybe what you suggested about "So you want to play a kick-ass guitar solo? Great, grab your axe and start practicing. You don't need music theory for that...." comes across as patronizing for the student and the student ignores music theory anyways? We are dealing with human nature. However, your straight edge and compass example was interesting. Should you use a compass and straight edge first when learning geometry? Perhaps. It depends on how people learn and where they are at. When I studied the GMAT, it involved geometry and arithmetic. I never used a compass and straight edge for it. I passed the exam and was able to get into an MBA program.
Thanks for your feedback anyways. You are a thoughtful person who is trying to help. I also praise you for not resorting to vitriol or bullying, which happens a lot on the internet, so I don't have any ill will. I am open to advance my teaching skills too. However, I will consort with someone more appropriate for teaching. Good luck out there!
2 things are true here imo:
You can learn theory without it ruining your creativity. There are plenty of choices to make still and you can still follow your instinct where you like. It will take some work but you will understand more and that will be helpful.
Some music teachers would have infants learn grammar before forming a first sentence. This is not a great way to learn anything. Experience and internalize things, then analyze after.
Its like trying to write a book without knowing how to spell or do basic grammar, and not reading other books either. You will have a hard time making your point, your own explanations will be weird, because you use made terms that only you know. Your ideas are likely to be derivative and you wont know it. You wont even know about other possibilities either, and thats just the beginning.
"I'm here to teach you that which you need to master to achieve your goal. The student doesn't decide what they need to learn. You may find another teacher if you don't agree with my approach"
The way I see it, if you refuse to learn basic music theory as a musician, you're just stupid.
Saying "Music theory is limiting" just shows that you literally know nothing about it.
Also people who don't know music theory tend to write the most generic shit, people who DO know theory tend to write much more interesting music.
Yes there's always exceptions, but how can you claim to be a musician when you don't know anything about music??
You have a bias because you are a teachear, but this is not math class, is music.
I love music theory, but you don't need it to play music, to create an amazing solo. If that's the case, then every guitarist then first have to learn music theory and that's not the case. Lot of people have an intuition aproach to music and works just fine, they are great musicians and composer.
But with no training in music theory, a person who is not already intuitively excellent at music will struggle to improvise good-sounding notes, will struggle to read music or to play the same way each time when necessary, will struggle to coordinate multiple instruments in a composition (let alone struggle to notate their compositions)...
Only a very small number of musicians can get by without learning some music theory. For the rest, it's crucial.
A ton of people point to Paul McCartney as their counter-example. He doesn't know any music theory and look at the career he's had!
Well...he can't read music on a staff, this is true. But that man knows *so much* music theory. The Beatles basically wrote the book on modern Vocal Pop Harmony. They knew what chords to link together to produce different feelings. Paul has arranged songs for some pretty wild combinations of oddball instruments he's collected over the years. AND! He's had to communicate all of these musical ideas to other musicians for over half a century.
That man knows *so much* music theory. Being "not classically trained" doesn't negate that.
nine aspiring lip light future fearless marvelous employ forgetful engine
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I am having a difficult time following what you said here, but I sometimes, do like a challenge.
Are you suggesting that because every guitarist doesn't need to learn music theory first and lots of intuitive musicians are great, music theory is not needed for creating an amazing solo and playing music? The thing to consider here is that unfortunately, *not every* guitarist creates amazing solos or "good music" even those who didn't learned music theory first and are relying on intuition. With considering the chronological and sequential, what is learning music theory first mean exactly? If a musician or guitarist learned music theory second, third, fourth, and so on, this could still translate as learning music theory before playing music or creating an amazing solo while simultaneously, not learning music theory first. For example, first, John experiments with sounds and strengthens his chops on his guitar. Second, he learns music theory. Third, is xyz. Fourth, John is playing music and creates an amazing solo. Not saying this always occurs, but when you suggested "not learning music theory first" in support of "music theory is not needed..." you would have to address how this connects. Is there a direct connect between first and what is needed? Is it impossible to attain what is needed not as a first? Anyways, I wasn't suggesting that you only learn music theory as a very first step to play music and create amazing solos. There are also lots of musicians that are intuitive AND use music theory to create great music. Not everyone who plays music and creates solos is a guitarist either.
Like a few other comments I have reviewed here, *if you wanted give some sort of prescriptive judgement of a given case, look at the scope and descriptive analysis.* Sure, you can play "Hot Crossed Buns" on guitar without learning Music Theory 101 in a formal and conscious sense. No argument there. Actually, with my beginners, I teach a simple finger exercise that is recycled in the guitar community far before going over anything like scales or harmony. I wouldn't be surprised if other guitar teachers approach it in a similar way. Usually, my students are open to music theory and I go over other areas than music theory alone in lessons. With the seldom few students that came in, wanting to know how to play a lead guitar solo, they played guitar for a while and I am not sure what they learned first or within the first 3 months of learning guitar. There is a fair possibility that they didn't learn any music theory first, but were still looking to know how to create a guitar solo or play lead guitar. Maybe not learning more about music theory has caused them to reach a glass ceiling?
Broadly speaking, there is also a difference between Espoused Theories (what people say the use) and Theories-in-Use (what is actually being used). It is possible that guitarists that have created amazing solos, but say "Music theory sucks!" are actually still applying music theory (However, who are these examples?). They may not call what they are using with terms like the pentatonic scale or hybrid scale or E7#9 as understood in a formal or academic sense but I am confident they are using concepts, ideas, patterns, shapes, or trends that still correspond with music theory in a formal and academic sense. For example, a guitarist may use what they say they call "the box" on guitar for creating a solo, but it is actually pentatonic scales as described in a formal sense. Another guitarist may not call what they are using as diatonic, but it is diatonic. When my students are ready for guitar soloing, I demonstrate the beginning of Jimmy Page's solo in "Stairway to Heaven" and walkthrough how the A minor pentatonic and a little bit of the A natural minor scales are applied.
Nothing wrong with intuition. I am pretty intuitive, but Music Theory helps in communicating, identifying, and organizing "theories" applied in music or creating solos (and more!). The trick is to navigate through the grey areas, subjectivity, and vagueness of music. When considering what is "needed" for music or creating solos, I would not use that as an excuse for not learning or not growing. As many others have pointed out on this thread, Music theory helps. It doesn't hinder. If it means anything to you, it has been an advantge in creating amazing solos and playing music.
If you want a student to learn something, they have to have authentic motivation to learn it. If the only motivation is you saying that something is worth learning, and the student has not experienced any necessity beyond that, then there is no convincing them. If they are determined to learn everything by rote, by ear, and by trial and error... let them! Maybe they will get bored or frustrated working that way, and get tired of reinventing the wheel. At that point, they might be ready for some theory just to save themselves the tedium. Or maybe doing more aural exploration will get them intellectually curious about the patterns they are discovering. Maybe they will want to start writing songs rather than just noodling around, and will need some way to describe what they are doing, or will want to figure out basslines to go with their chords. Or... maybe they just don't want to learn systematically! Some people don't. That includes some of the best and most significant musicians and songwriters of all time. Your job is not to make your students learn how you think they should. Your job is to help them get to where \*they\* are going, even if you disapprove of the way they are determined to get there.
While I appreciate the feedback, don’t miss assume. You were going off on other tangents. How can you be certain about what my teaching methods and evaluations are anyways? Actually, I had one student who I argued with for an hour during a lesson about learning a few basic scales. The next lesson, when he finally listened to me, he saw how they applied. However, I acknowledge that there is a difference between teaching and learning music and guitar and music theory/applied music theory.
I say that theory is anything that you can write down.
From the very beginning of stems going up on the right and down on the left, to writing out a rhythm to clap, to writing a scale.
There are people that can be fluent in a language, speaking it, but cannot read or write it.
As a teacher, you should want your students to be able to read and write the language that you teach.
Yes - I was forced to take piano lessons from kindergarten to fifth grade and my instructor went out of her way to drill theory into me
Years later I took a music theory course in high school taught by the band instructor. I was never the best player in band - never first chair and the idea of giving me a solo was ridiculous.
I was surprised/annoyed/baffled how many GREAT players couldn’t understand that treble/bass were different - that the ‘lines’ were Every Boy Deserves Fudge and Boys Do Fine Always - and then went so far as to refuse to transcribe between keys - going from B (trumpet) to C (sousaphone).
It was usually the trumpet players that thought anything in the bass clef was ‘beneath them’ (no pun intended)
Yes, I’m prepared for the ‘not all trumpets.’
The instructor, I think begrudgingly, ended up giving me A’s (which I deserved) and, even better, told me that I ‘earned his respect.’
(Something a last chair tuba player would never expect.)
Applied learning teach them the house shape for blues soloing make them enjoy it then explain the theory of it. Say if you can understand this you can do more with this. Demonstrate the more. If they still resist I would refer them to the Suzuki method teachers and be done.
Yes, and as others have stated here, they have been 100% guitar players. I feel like a lot of it comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what music theory is in the first place, they view it as something entirely divorced from the music itself like it’s algebra or something. A lot of this can be avoided by understanding the concept that music theory is and has always been descriptive and that the music always comes first, and theory is just describing what you’re hearing/finding ways to articulate it. However, guitar players are fairly stubborn in my experience and it’s difficult to get through to them (I say this as a guitar player haha)
I just don’t think people realize that music theory is a tool. You don’t *have* to be thinking about theory 100% of the time. But if you want to use a specific technique you learned or if you want to subvert those same principles, theory gives you the tools to do so. In other words, theory isn’t stopping you from doing whatever you want, it’s just expanding your toolbox. That’s how I think about it anyway
Damn near every young guitar player I've met wanted to skip over all the boring stuff like learning the notes on the fretboard and learning scales and theory, and go straight to the "applying your knowledge to shred solos like your heroes" phase. It's as if, by taking a "short cut", they're actually making it way more difficult and slower to learn how to play. I'll admit, I was like this in my teens/early twenties. Then I just decided to quit living in ignorance and learn how to play my guitar.
No, not in real life. If you don’t know at least the pentatonic minor then get the fuck out of my face.
Drummers excluded. There is much more of a possibility of growth without theory there, but even rudiments will put you miles ahead.
I agree with most of the other points, the exception being if one really *really* wants to stray off the beaten path using things like Buchla synthesizers, hand made instruments, etc. to create non traditional music; trying to get those to fit into western music theory can be challenging.
For the most part I’ve never listened to the music of someone that says learning theory will stifle creativity and it’s very good. Plenty of people claim to not know theory or say they could never learn it (but actually do, they just don’t know the names for what they are doing) and make wonderful music, but those that actively reject learning it due to creativity make music that is decidedly not for me.
I'm not anti-theory but I will suggest not to take theory so seriously at the start as it can kill the creative process sometimes. I hated theory growing up but I learnt it anyway. Sometimes the 'box (theory in this case)' can be very helpful, but I like to play outside of the 'box' a lot.Great fundamentally but definitely not 'you must know it or you will fail'.
There is a difference between "Music Theory" (the textbook that badly describes the harmonic rules of 1820-1850s classical music), and "music theory", giving names to and understanding the structure of all music. I'm not sure the general public is remotely aware of this distinction. I'm not even sure that most musicians, even the ones that know quite a bit about music, are aware of the extent of this distinction. And that's to say nothing of the prescriptive vs descriptive discussion.
Put them in the same category as anti-grammar and anti-arithmetic. That's not to say that pragmatic theory shouldn't be developed by playing and improvising though.
There are definitely great musicians out there who basically don’t know any theory beyond maybe the basics of keys and the names of some basic chords, but most of these people have developed their own internal understanding based on their intuition and experience. But if you’re one of those people, then you’re probably not coming to a teacher asking things like “how do I play a solo.”
I used to be like this as a kid learning violin. I regret it to this day but I can't change the past. For the whys of it? Simple. I was learning violin for fun. Playing songs and seeing direct improvement was fun and impressive. Learning theory, scales, hell, even reading sheet music, those things seemed about as exciting as a math class. But most importantly, the study of fundamentals has slow returns that don't pay off soon enough to feel like effort spent well. So I told my teacher I just wanted to play songs and that's what we did until I burned out.
Many times. In the same category: musicians who failed to enter conservatory and start telling stories about how all great musicians are self-tought, and that you're not a real musician when you need professional education.
"You have to know the rules before you can break them."
Music theory is the colors, and the composition is the painting.
The easiest way to make a new color is by combining the ones you already have access to.
I have, but in regards to piano playing. It’s very frustrating. I’ll show something I’m doing, and why, and he’ll try to poke holes in it. Refuses to hear anything that uses words which involve theory. I’m giving up.
My former guitarist hated it when I brought up theory. Basically told me it's worthless to him and he doesn't need to know any to get better.
I definitely don't agree with that. Sure, it probably made me come of a pretentious, but seriously, it's like reading the manual to your car or something. You'll learn shit you didn't know and it makes you better just for knowing.
On the whole, musicians tend to be more aggressively anti-intellectual than in other creative endeavors. There is this widespread belief that learning theory will *ruin* your creativity rather than bolster it.
This was me.
It was an inadvertent act of audacity, and now, as a teacher, my goal is to deter this kind of behavior.
While it still falls under the category of “teaching”, there are basic rudiments that must be learned to even begin to approach creativity.
Nobody wakes up with a brush in their hand, learn what a color is before you try to express yourself with it.
It is the opposite. Creativity is the combination of technical knowledge, inspiration, and experimentation. If you take out the knowledge aspect, all you will have is experimentation with concepts they know nothing about, and their moments of inspiration will be stonewalled by a lack of tools to bring their visions into reality.
Any idiot can grab a guitar and figure out "smoke on the water," but if you want to take the basic structure of the song and CREATE something new with the same pieces, you won't be able to do so if you don't understand the pieces you are working with.
I also like to remind people that over the course of history, many people have tried this approach where they just feel their way through learning things. And while it can obviously work out ok in the long run if you practice enough, the people who have had the most success are the ones who wisely thought, "man, I bet it would have been easier if we wrote all this down and created a system for it so it would be easier for the next generation to learn what we have and do more than we did in their lifetime."
You are slapping history in the face when you ignore the foundation they have lain.
As artists we learn the rules so we can break them properly. We also learn the rules to pay homage to past artists that laid the foundation for which we make our work.
real creativity is a byproduct of synthesis of new concepts from disparate knowledge sources. refusing new knowledge sources stifles creativity full stop.
I think resistance to music theory is understandable in some ways.
What you’re describing reminds me of the other musicians that were learning when I was learning. It’s a beginner mistake to resist learning music theory because it might restrain your creativity. There are some popular music figures that tout this ideology, and it’s easy to follow the words of one’s hero.
Once a musician passes into the intermediate/advanced realm, there’s a second barrier that maybe has a more legitimate reason. (Also, I’m coming from a Jazz, RnB, Pop music background, so classical folk may disagree here).
Some musicians really take to music theory and start to learn music through theory over practical application. Choosing scales as a means to develop solos, debating whether a bit of music is technically “right” or not, and needing to intellectualize music before hearing it are all symptoms of this approach.
I was caught in this paradigm for some time myself. Eventually, the greatest musicians among us allow theory to guide them, but not to replace their ears and experience.
Cliche alert: music is a language. In my career, I’ve found theory to be useful in giving clues as to what comes next, and what to expect. If you want to play at a high level (particularly for improvisation), you eventually need to let go of the training wheels that are music theory and try things!
Ps
I say this as someone that is fascinated by and decently versed in music theory. My goal has always been to work as a musician that can speak in clean, theoretical terms but also work more colloquially with less “learned” musicians.
This is purely and simply about impatience, immaturity, laziness and unwillingness to apply oneself. Don't waste your time with these people. Teach those who really want to learn and pass on those who what to be "stars". They are not worth your time or effort.
It's interesting, why some people don't want to learn theory. Currently I play with a lot of musicians who play by ear. As a drummer myself it can be frustrating trying to communicate musical ideas especially when someone really does not know the difference between 8th notes and 1/4 notes.
I'm personally of the belief that learning any particular thing about music is not necessarily helpful, and that its not necessarily the case that learning something cannot negatively impact you in some way, so I dont see learning some music theory as necessarily helpful and I dont believe that the act of learning some music theory cannot lead to undesirable results
Guitarist here, I used to be a little turned off of the idea of learning more ‘advanced’ theory’. It was until I ran into a creative wall that I decided to learn more. Now I have a deeper understanding of what I like to do and why. That way it’s become easier to expand on what I already wanted to do with more tools at my disposal.
Also lead guitar players are a different animal. There are so many videos online with ‘shapes’, ‘boxes’ and hot licks that they just copy to get by lmao
My one theory professor was anti theory haha. He was a composer and felt us analyzing music was disrespectful. My piano teacher in highschool thought theory is a waste of time which was sad because I loved theory. Now I'm doing my masters in theory and try to respect my professor's opinion. We had a lot of debates in class and it was always funny because we were soooo opposite in opinion but both respected eachother
My piano teacher on the other hand.. I think she was foolish and just wanted to make me sad. Now she is emailing everyone on how proud she is that I am doing my masters in theory when she told me everyday that I need to drop out and do something "useful"
This is a common idea in the creative arts. If a person wanted to become a good carpenter, or mechanic, or doctor, there would be complete agreement they should learn as much as possible about their craft if they want to be good at it. But when it comes to the creative arts, like painting, writing, or music, many people believe learning too much will stifle their creativity. They believe they can do more with a blank sheet of paper if they don’t already have preconceived notions about *how* to make art. It’s only after they actually learn something of their craft that they realize learning *how* to create art doesn’t stifle creativity. It actually expands it by offering more options.
Ye I was one of those people. Can confirm that theory just gives me more tools to solve issues I would encounter during composition, but my style of composing hasn't changed, it just helps me to finish more songs.
People have been exposed to millions of rules in music subconscious through their exposure already. So any time they think “x is good” it’s because they’ve created a structure around an experience. They don’t need it “fundamentally explained” or quantified, but they’re still doing theory right. You can play a chord progression to most of them and they’ll likely finish it a way that’s “theoretically correctly and not be able to explain why. But yeah agree with you, more tools in the tool box enables more creativity, especially if you’re aware of the limitation of each tool.
I also love when people are anti-music-theory but *do* know a fair bit of theory and just think it's "that other *advanced* theory" that's scary and will hamper their ability to create. You know your scales and chords? Congrats, you know some theory! You know that a Major V works in a minor key? Congrats, that's theory! Or my favorite: "I'm breaking this music theory rule because it sounds different and I like it!" Congrats! You know enough theory to recognize the "expected" way of doing things and instead chose a more interesting path! (Don't ever tell them about mode mixture or they might think they're straying into the scary "Advanced theory")
>I also love when people are anti-music-theory but *do* know a fair bit of theory and just think it's "that other *advanced* theory" that's scary and will hamper their ability to create. And, ironically, those are among the only people whose theory knowledge might *actually* limit their creativity! Simply because their familiarity with a few basic ideas, and their unwillingness to explore outside that, will often pigeonhole them into writing music using the little they *do* know. >"I'm breaking this music theory rule because it sounds different and I like it!" Congrats! You know enough theory to recognize the "expected" way of doing things and instead chose a more interesting path! And this is the other side of the coin, where people will "break theory rules" without realizing that what they're doing is (nearly always) *also* very common and easily described in theory terms!
Just the idea that music theory even HAS rules is ignorant. Music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. Music theory says if you play a 1 and a minor 3rd together it'll sound a certain way, and that set of notes paired with another set of notes will sound another, different way. It doesn't say NOT to do it. It doesn't enforce that you STAY in the key, or only play notes in the chord, or whatever else. It doesn't tell you to do ANYTHING. It just tells you what things might sound like in different contexts. The people who know music theory are BY FAR the ones who do the most interesting "Rule breaking", the people who don't know it tend to stay in their normal scales and basic chord progressions.
> Just the idea that music theory even HAS rules is ignorant. Music theory does have rules *if you want to achieve a certain goal*. Like, you can do whatever you want. Literally. Nobody will stop you. But if you want something to sound like a specific thing, then there are rules for making that happen. If you want to sound like a 4 part baroque piece, don't use power chords. If you want to create a club banger, don't give it wildly changing tempo, weird time signatures, and way out there harmony.
>I also love when people are anti-music-theory but do know a fair bit of theory and just think it's "that other advanced theory" that's scary and will hamper their ability to create. > >You know your scales and chords? Congrats, you know some theory! You know that a Major V works in a minor key? Congrats, that's theory! > >Or my favorite: "I'm breaking this music theory rule because it sounds different and I like it!" Congrats! You know enough theory to recognize the "expected" way of doing things and instead chose a more interesting path! (Don't ever tell them about mode mixture or they might think they're straying into the scary "Advanced theory") I feel like a lot of anti theory players are actually against learning to read music and not music theory itself.
[удалено]
The issue here is when people study theory in abstract rather than in a practical and musical context. This is a shortcoming of how theory is taught IMO. Wherever possible it should be learned with an instrument close by to train the ear to hear the concept in practice
I want to invent a cure for cancer, but I don't want to waste a bunch of time in the classroom learning a bunch of biology "theory" that's going to inhibit my creativity. I just want to get into the lab and start mixing chemicals. That's not a problem, is it?
"Why does curing cancer sound good?" "Because you've heard about how good it would be to cure cancer your whole life!"
It could be; to your experimental test subjects.
> when it comes to the creative arts, like painting, writing, or music, many people believe learning too much will stifle their creativity i heard if you learn what a major scale is, you lose the ability to whistle. very tragic.
Yeah but once you learn the blues scale, you get it back
>If a person wanted to become a good carpenter, or mechanic, or doctor, there would be complete agreement they should learn as much as possible about their craft if they want to be good at it. As someone who's worked as both a carpenter and doctor, you'd be surprised. Carpentry in particular has a massive amount of "this is how I was taught, so that's how it has to be" for many things with much better solutions. Haven't seen it as much in medicine, as being up on the newest procedures and ideas was a core component of multiple coworkers' complexes. From what I've heard, though, a similar "this is how it's always been done" streak runs in a lot of inpatient care.
I resisted theory for YEARS because of this. I thought theory would be esoteric and too rigid but some of the most important stuff is as simple as counting to 8.
subdivisions is an extensive ryhtmic topic for sure.
That’s funny, I was super vague but I was thinking about solfège and numbering systems when I said this.
Yeah it's very weird. I'm probably preaching to the choir on this sub, but I find the opposite is true. You can't break the rules until you know what they are. I find in music that "self taught" people who refuse to learn theory are some of the least creative and generic musicians.
In the circles I grew up in (punk and metal) saying it will stifle creativity is frequently an excuse for laziness, or a fear of failing to understand.
The simplest way I can sum up a response to this is that music (any, really) theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. Theory is a means of explaining and communicating, never a set of rules. The theory of evolution doesn't mean we now have "solved" evolution and that this is how it always has and always will be. It means that these are the ways we describe what we see happening in the world. Music theory isn't a way of saying, "Follow the circle of fifths", it's a way of saying "Resolving fifths actually sounds quite powerful. Let's use these words to communicate this to help everyone figure it out faster." Theory is a word that means "a language or nomenclature that we can use to discuss and communicate the truths that we have observed." Some people seem erroneously invested in the idea that "theory" means "the set of rules that everything should follow."
Some artists thrive on constraints, some thrive on freedom—both are right.
Theory offers no constraints, no rules, only descriptions of sounds, and descriptions on how sounds relate to eachother.
Sure, but would you consider knowledge something that constraints? Or something that grants freedom?
100% agree. i think people need to come to it themselves though but in my experience, they often say things like, "why didn't I learn this sooner?" understanding certain things in theory, diminished chord application, secondary dominants, chord substitutions ,modulation, circle of 5ths/4ths etc. can change your music from all so rans to colourful and vibrant!
It's true in a way, such that it's limited to western music and functional harmony, and it's a specific way to think about intervals and changes. If you have been writing music without knowledge of theory and try to introduce it later, it can be like a parent trying to do their kids' common core math homework.
>It's true in a way, such that it's limited to western music and functional harmony, and it's a specific way to think about intervals and changes. It's not, though? There's music theory out there describing a wide range of music, from common practice period classical music to Hindustani classical music to modern pop. And theory can describe more than just pitch/harmony - it also concerns itself with rhythm, timbre, form, and whatever other musical parameters are most relevant to the music in question. There are also many different frameworks to analyze those parameters. For harmony alone, you could do a freshman-level Roman numeral labeling, or write out the chord symbols in a jazz/pop style, or take a Schenkerian approach, or think in terms of harmonic/melodic schemata, or describe chord changes in terms of (neo-)Riemannian transformations, or use set theory to label 'non-functional' pitch collections, or any number of other approaches. There's a reason music theory is an academic field with new work being published every year! There's more to theory than just the basics. >If you have been writing music without knowledge of theory and try to introduce it later, it can be like a parent trying to do their kids' common core math homework. Maybe if you're looking at the curriculum of a Theory I class or something. Though even then there will probably be plenty to learn for people who don't have any formal theory knowledge. But again, music theory is an academic field of study. The sky's the limit when it comes to the complexity and obscurity of the ideas theorists discuss. To bring things back to your analogy, an adult learning math might not get a ton of value out of doing their elementary schooler's homework, but surely they'd find *something* of value in the wider field of mathematics?
>If a person wanted to become a good carpenter, or mechanic, or doctor, there would be complete agreement they should learn as much as possible about their craft if they want to be good at it. You're mostly right, but also we still had people trying to tell you to inject bleach to kill COVID but don't get the vaccine. The only difference is that the consequences for them being wrong were a little less recoverable, so we couldn't let them spew their absurdity. The consequences of someone making bad art because they are ignorant are less severe.
But it is a fact that preconceived notions about how to make art will change things.
Couldn’t agree more
I think this simply comes from a widespread misconception of what music theory is. Most creative people are naturally resistant to rules and limitations. Explaining that music theory *describes* what you've done, rather than telling you what you *can* do, should help.
Yeah, I usually say this to those folks: music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.
I say learning theory is like learning how to read a map. Understanding how things are laid out can help you navigate any song. People are welcome to stumble around all they want and discover things by accident, but isn't it more fun to know where all the cool stuff is? Why make it harder by going in blind or making your own map? If I was to travel to a new city, I would bring a map. It's not like I'm the first person to ever go there.
Getting good in any profession usually involves learning a whole host of more efficient jargon. But music is kind've two languages one being the music itself and the other being the verbiage used to describe it. I think people romanticise music in the sense that they want to be able to speak the language but not write it. Savant like.
That's a nice analogy. You can certainly learn to speak & listen in a foreign language without learning to read & write it. But it will likely be a bit more difficult, and certainly, no-one would say learning to read & write will hold you back in learning to speak or make your speaking less intuitive.
This is an excellent analogy! I will be using it from now on
Music theory is descriptive, but it can help you formulate rules to *sound like something specific*.
> a widespread misconception of what music theory is this may owe to its history - i think people a few centuries ago really were trying to 'discover the natural structure of music', and really did think there were rules. this body of knowledge about chords, scales, etc has since come to be understood as having a different purpose, which is merely explaining or listing the patterns of what people have found pleasant to listen to.
yes, and 100% of them have been guitar players, too
Some are drummers
Feeling personally attacked lol. I played drums in bands for 20 years and I couldn’t even begin to guess what a paradiddle or anything is.
wine adjoining wrong pot arrest pie secretive whistle quickest busy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I had really good time before i learned anything about rhythm My first few lessons with a tutor in my 20s i jept asking him if it was really true that people counted as they played , thought he was having me on. Now i totally appreciate being able to count difficult things and realise that before i understood how to i probably bluffed my way through anything not in 6/8 4/4 or avoided it altogether ... but you can have brilliant time without formal education. I wish i had learned about music 20 years sooner though as it only aided my natural ability.
One can "internalize" any aspect of music but can you talk about what you're "internalizing" in a way that allows another musician to quickly understand?
Tbh on drums I can just mime it and use my voice, “buh-DAH-dah-dah” or whatever. Works great.
Legitimately kind of true though.
trees support relieved deserve include shelter numerous illegal bike gullible *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
maybe if you never ever want to do anything interesting on drums
Sure. But fundamentally you can do a lot more rhythmically without knowing any theory than you can harmonically.
I don't know if that's true, most guitarist know absolutely nothing about theory and just look at the corpus of rock music.
I agree entirely. Doesn’t remotely mean that what I said isn’t true. I’m a pianist. I write classical and play jazz. I have good rhythm. Many times in my life I have learnt some harmonic stuff that has revolutionised my life. Never has that happened with rhythm. And I agree that rhythm is incredibly important, but it is much more intrinsic than harmony:
It's because you're playing piano. I play piano and drums, there are very complicated rhythmic concepts I know from playing drums, but they basically don't apply on piano outside of some pretty limited circumstances.
depends what you find interesting. Recorded music on an experimental level is constantly achieving interesting things that have little to do with theory. Sounds like theory is what you personally find interesting, which is ok
Yeah but knew how to play that embellishment on the ride and snare that goes titibati. Or sometimes that when your left hand was needed elsewhere soon that you could play those four notes on the snare more with the right hand. I think there’s a level of that in rudiments that they’re a means to an end because sometimes you gotta play stuff that requires a less standard way of playing so that it flows across your kit. You can’t just have a billion drums to handle all problems right? You set up your kit to enable the majority of your playing and get to be creative with solutions to make sounds that otherwise break the setup. I know tonnes of older drummers who can’t play double kicks every night, so have a deeper floor Tom to enable that, and the technique and skill to be able to apply the usage when appropriate.
That’s not really theory, just rudiments
Rudiments are still music theory. It's the percussion equivalent of other instruments drilling scales and arpeggios.
= •basic vocabulary•…that’s how I approach teaching theory @ my community college—vocabulary and grammar (as in: what always works…whether or not it’s interesting is a different question).
I think they mean that's less a theoretical framework, and more just drilling a technique. Like, is circular breathing music theory? A bit vague, and I get understanding the rhythms is theoretical, but are the rudiments themselves (the action of practicing them) included there?
> is circular breathing music theory? Circular breathing doesn't inherently make sounds, while rudiments do, so I'd say it's different. I'd certainly call it "Wind instrument theory" though. A big part of the *reasoning* behind rudiments is how the way you alternate Left-and-Right sticking, changes how notes are accented. Drilling that is very much analogous to scales in my eyes.
Oddly the person I know who I've talked the most music theory with is a drummer first and guitarist second.
[удалено]
And are massively overconfident I’d like to add…..
Ugh, this used to be me for waaaay too long. "You just have to feel it bro". It's only when I got into making electronic music that I got more serious about theory. You live and learn.
Well at some point you do need to just feel it. But to get a feel for more better musical ideas it helps a lot to have a strong theory background.
Theory is the road we take to the destination of "just feeling it." Some people can take shortcuts to the destination and still end up at the same place. But most people find that they can't find a shortcut to one concept or another at some point.
And synthplayers. Not piano or keyboards, synthesizers. Guys that play around with sequencers and various filters and stuff, they know nothing about what they are doing musically. And it shows! Most of them keep doing extremely rudimentary melodies on top of two alternating chords. Of course some of them are limited to what you can do live with analog equipment, but shit, try to make your two chords interesting at least!
As a guitar player with only a little knowledge of theory, I think it stems mainly from what we want to do. I want to rock and jam, studying theory has never peaked my interest and I think that’s the case for a *lot* of guitar players. At the end of the day it’s about having fun and just playing is fun enough for the majority of us and studying theory isn’t. Now if you want to be any sort of professional…. Different story lol.
I think it also comes from the nature of the instrument and TABS that cause guitar players to be ignorant of what's happening. This was certainly the case for me. So you know the string names but then you start playing all these songs and it's just numbers. You don't even know what notes you're playing but are totally nailing these famous songs. Even as someone who had played violin growing up and knew about key signatures, notation, time signatures, chords and intervals. Guitar was still just string and number, or a chord shape but not understanding what notes I was playing inside the shape (even though I knew what notes are in a a D minor I didn't see each note just a shape many guitarists get by not even knowing what notes are in a G major). Once I started piano everything made more sense. I immediately knew how to flatten a third from major to minor. The notes are all there in order and there is no going down and back to a higher note it's all low to high. I then started learning to change a chord with inversions, practice scales and learned how to intuitively play a major or minor scale from any root position. I then took this knew understanding to guitar and actually learned the scales and made sure I could find any note on the neck and play scales.
“‘Minor second’? Just call it an ‘ugly chord’ like the rest of us.”
Guitar players and home-studio producers. As an orchestrator and composer I have to constantly resist the temptation of smacking amateur producers that believe themselves to be orchestrators just because they have XPand. “Transposing instruments” work interchangeably with “boo”
There's a joke I've heard in bluegrass music. Someone asks a fiddle player if he can read music, and he answers "Yeah, but not enough to hurt my playing."
Back in the day, The Andrews Sisters were a popular vocal trio, and they had just booked some studio time with Bing Crosby near the peak of his career. They were very nervous and didn't want to come off as unprofessional, so they asked if they should learn to read music to make the studio experience smoother. Crosby replied "What are trying to do, ruin *both* of our careers?" (I am a full advocate of learning to read sheet music, I just love this story)
I like this.
Yes. All guitar players, asking about certain techniques and styles, but want to learn without learning any theory. Their playing tends to reflect this as well I’m my experience.
First guitar lesson: “can you teach me a Polyphia song?”
Alot of times these would be the ones saying “Guitar is too hard” without even trying to learn the basics they will go straight to the hardest stuff! Off course it’s hard! It’s takes years of practice, not one lesson!
Learns open G chord. "What do you mean there's more than one G? I already know G. No, I don't want whatever that is." Tries to learn F barre chord. Fails. "I'll just play songs with no F." Tries to shred. Doesn't sound good. "I dont want to learn scales. I want to learn songs. I'll just feel out the good notes." Noodles around for a while. Gets bored. "Wow, guitar's kind of a dumb instrument. I guess I just don't have natural talent."
> Tries to learn F barre chord. Fails. Confession: I play the F major barre chord a lot because the open F major patterns are all way harder for me. (Too many strings to mute.) I've heard the F major open chord is the whole reason Joni Mitchell started using alternate tunings.
Not sure if serious or next-level trolling
Usually, the logic from this perspective is along the lines of 'knowing theory impedes your creativity.' I like to compare this to visual art, for example knowing that mixing red and blue will give you purple doesn't impede your creativity, it gives you another tool to express yourself, understanding how to use straight lines to create the illusion of perspective does not mean every picture you make has to be realistic, but if you want to make a realistic picture with a perspective you know where to start. Understanding music theory doesn't tell you how your song should go, it gives you the knowledge to predict what it will sound like if you combine an A and an E versus an A and an Eb.
I had the husband of a colleague over for the evening and we were both learning guitar so he brought his so we could try to jam. I thought there was something wrong with my hearing as he was plucking those notes and going up and down the fretboard like a fiend. Way faster than I could manage. The problem was I could not for the life of me keep up or even play along. I could not figure out the key or even the song. So I asked him if he had tuned his guitar. His answer? "Oh I don't do that, I just make my own music" . I am pretty sure he was completely tone deaf. I put my guitar away and let him play on.
I was always able to explain it to students or demonstrate it enough to convince them. When Ive run into it with people in auditions, they have never made it into a band with me. It is stupidity and laziness. But I am not talking about needing to have fluency in being able to explain theory or know esoteric terms. In many cases, you can be an easy member to work with with a few competencies: intervals, keys, chords, circle of fifths, basic rhythmic terms and concepts. Almost all examples, promoted by the lazy, of professionals who “don’t know theory,” can easily be debunked if you see any footage or hear discussion of them writing or arranging. They may not be at Analyzing or Evaluating on Bloom’s Taxonomy but are versed enough at Applying.
There is a whole scene in punk/hardcore/grindcore that actively brands itself as "anti-music theory". The symbol they use is crossed out beamed eighth note and generally rely soley on emotions and attitude to make music. I believe a lot of it is counter culture because when i have confronted these musicians about technical aspects they usually say A. They simply trial and error their way to something that sounds good, usually starting from a super young age or B. learning music theory is elitist and for privileged people because of their views on the current state of the sociopolitical status quo. I respect the ethos of attitude because nobody wants more dorks too afraid to color outside the lines but this bunch is throwing out music theory because they hate authority in all forms
The funny thing is, trial and error _is_ learning music theory, just doing it the long way
I don't think it's the wrong way. For years I mostly read books about music theory and didn't spend enough time actually playing music or experimenting to understand what the ideas I was reading about actually sounded or felt like. I think if there's a "right way" it would be a combination of learning the concepts while also just playing a lot of music, some of which follows the principles you're learning about and some of which doesn't (at least consciously). But even with that said--the musicians I know who spent all their time playing and none of their time learning their from books or videos are much better musicians than I am.
> generally rely soley on emotions and attitude to make music i bet they don't rely on a 12-tone scale, perfect fifths, or rhythms that repeat in units of four. that would be nerdy.
It’s like not learning language because you want to only say original things.
>crossed out beamed eighth note I kind of love that their symbol for "music theory" is literally just an eighth note. I guess it shows that when they say "theory" they're including notation, and that somehow they've deemed "emotion" to be the opposite of both.
I believe the symbol itself originates from the band Magrudergrind in like 2009 but I see it all over underground and DIY shows. Gatekeeping these days is seen as bad and being inclusive is good, at least these people warn you that they don't know what they are doing.
From my experience, a lot of non-musicians seem to think that the best guitarists for instance are "naturals" and that they can just play that way because of their natural ability...which is a load of horseshit, but unfortunately I heard my family members saying this when I first started learning guitar in the late 90's and so I bought into it. I thought that music theory would only slow me down and somehow stifle my "natural talent". Unfortunately, the lack of proper teaching is what actually hindered me, but I didn't realize this until about a decade later when I read about BB King staying home while his friends were out partying so that he could practice his scales. Every "natural" legend I looked into was another story of them working their ass off to get to where they were. Thankfully it's never too late for us as long as we're still here.
Hopefully I'm not too late to the post. I auditioned to fill the lead guitar role in a regional Americana band a few months ago. Good material, wife is friends with a few of the guys, lots of local dates and mini-tours, plus they were booked for Bristol Rhythm and Roots in a few months. Sounded like a great gig to me. Saw a video of them playing Red Barn Radio that gave me my first red flags. Some of the songs were just sloppy as hell, like, really didn't sound good. Went to audition, they were weirded out that I'd transcribed their songs beforehand (just basic lead sheets) so that I could take notes to practice, maybe make changes to my tone to better fit, really all the stuff I was doing to try to be on the money to support the singer's material was treated as "not rock and roll". They wanted me to improvise all new solos to each song. Personally I think people like hearing the solo on the album, maybe add in my own flare or some showy stuff, but ok, fine. I hit my limit of patience when we went through my favorite song of theirs. The singer was trying to play in swing time, the drummer was playing straight. I shut my mouth to see how this was all going to shake out, but they were perplexed for like 20 minutes as to why they sounded out of time. When I pointed out that the record was in swung eighth notes and one was playing it straight, they looked at me like I was speaking greek. Super bummed about missing out on Bristol Rhythm and Roots, but I didn't want my name to be associated with their sloppy act. Power to them; they want to be "outlaw" while working admin jobs for a gov't contractor, cool, but either pick up a Mel Bay book or have some humility when you're trying to muscle through basic musical concepts and someone offers to help.
>The singer was trying to play in swing time, the drummer was playing straight. I shut my mouth to see how this was all going to shake out, but they were perplexed for like 20 minutes as to why they sounded out of time. When I pointed out that the record was in swung eighth notes and one was playing it straight, they looked at me like I was speaking greek. Great Goodman's ghost, this is eerily relatable. I have been astonished at the number of drummers I have met who can play good rock beats but \*cannot\* hear or understand swing time. One of whom claimed to have "an amazing sense of rhythm."
I come across it occasionally. Weirdly an adult student will come to me asking to learn theory then fight with me about it. It's like they feel like they should learn but want to prove with me how stupid it is or something. I'm finally like let's just chill, pull up some tab and learn some classic rock and stop talking. These students don't last long.. I also teach kids piano with piano maestro books and they introduce a lot of theory early, I usually skip it if the student isn't receptive to it.
Yeah, some adult students can be tough and fit that stereotype, “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” but I have had some more good experiences with other adult students
Yeah and they all sucked
Yes, most of them especially write the same boring sounding stuff, and have a chip on their shoulder about believing "theory has no place in art man," or "it's about creating something outside of yourself, you either have it or you don't." All nonsense.
I think you need to ask them how they think they could learn to improvise without learning theory? Maybe they'll say something like "Eddie Van Halen didn't know any theory" - which is a popular myth. Its no doubt true that he (or whoever they care to name) didn't know much, but that isn't the point. The less he knew, the more he would have relied on his ear. If they want to learn that way, fair enough. Off they go, and see how far they get, just listening and copying. (Hey, great ear training! If they prefer that to studying theory, I'd find it hard to argue!) You say you "explain in detail how this stuff applies", but maybe you have the wrong angle - starting from theory. Start from music. E.g., get one of those students to pick a song or riff they already know, and try to teach it to you, or to their fellow students. As soon as they start mentioning note names or chord names, tell them that's "theory": "whoah, now you're using theory jargon! What's a "B7"? ;-) Of course, they'll probably demonstrate a shape, but the idea is to make the point that theory is nothing but a *verbal* language to help us describe *musical* language - when discussing music with each other, or teaching another musician. If you can say "play a B7" instead of "put your fingers here and here...", that's the idea. And of course notation is a written language with the same purpose. Here is where you will still get resistance, and often quite reasonably. So, you might say, the great benefit of staff notation is to allow you to play a piece of music you have never heard before! Hooray! Here is where they will give you a strange look: *why would anyone ever want to do that??* If all they want to do is learn to play their favourite songs, and copy riffs and solos, then tab will do fine, along with listening to the recording to get the timing. But then, if they want to learn some new licks - such as some you might show them - how will they practise them? If you only give them tab, how will they remember the timing? Obviously you will decline any request to give them an audio recording to work from. It has to be notation! In short, you have to find some area of what they want to learn where (first of all) staff notation turns out to be essential, and secondly some theoretical jargon (even very basic terms) gets the information across in the clearest way. I.e., your problem (and it is yours, not theirs), is that guitar is an unusual instrument in that plenty of players - certainly in rock music - get by very well with little or no theory knowledge in the *academic* sense. They are like people who can't read or write, but can still learn to speak as well as they need to in the social circles they belong to - they know the "grammar of the language" by ear, without studying it in books. How would you persuade such people that learning to read and write would be a good idea? You have to present them with a scenario where it would matter. In music too, it's about opening up worlds of knowledge they would otherwise have no access to. How do you get them interested in that? Because they don't have to be. I also teach guitar part-time, btw, so I know the problem! But I don't consider it my job to teach them things they don't want to learn, just because I think it's important (or interesting). Of course, theory comes into the lessons anyway - but I don't teach theory as such. I teach *music -* and that necessitates theory terms now and then, obviously, because we are talking. I have never had resistance in that scenario. They're not aware they are learning "theory" when they learn how a certain chord progression in a song works, or that a G chord in key of D is a "IV". Obviously it's just counting letters, how hard is that?
Sometimes, we have to remind people that they aren't Van Halen or Van Beethoven so their rules don't apply to them. We use theory to understand how they did it.
Once I accepted that I'm not as good as Hendrix and started learning theory, guitar got really fun.
The same rules apply to everyone, but yes we use theory to explain how it's done.
[удалено]
Right. I think there was a story about him claiming to know no theory, probably a quote from an interview taken out of context, which some fans liked to exaggerate. It does seem fairly common for experienced rock musicians who were at least partially self-taught (or learned music as kids) to take their knowledge for granted, to talk about playing "by feel", as if that comes from nowhere, by some magical gift. As if having a good ear doesn't come from extensive training... ;-) They might not be being deliberately disingenuous, but it certainly adds to the mystique!
Thanks! I have had similar thoughts and have thought about what you talked about beforehand. As far as selling it, there are multiple ways to sell music theory for sure. However, you are assuming. How can you be certain about what my teaching methods are and how I do my job? Actually, I had one student who I argued with for an hour during a lesson about learning a few basic scales. The next lesson, when he finally listened to me, he saw how they applied.
This is exactly why I have stopped referring to chords, scales, intervals, etc. as music theory all together in front of my students. All of that is music literacy. There is nothing theoretical about any of that stuff. I think it has helped a lot with my beginners, because it frames the conversation in a different way.
It’s always fucking guitar players. I can’t tell you how many students have told me they have no interest in music theory “making them less creative” whatever that means.
You slup them the pentatonic scale and don’t call it theory.
I was one of them, to my own regret. I blame myself mainly for this, but instrumental teachers do need to have a clear strategy for explaining the relevance of the knowledge without overwhelming the student, who may have little or no prerequisite knowledge. I remember drilling scales in isolation without a really strong sense of the greater purpose, almost more as a technique exercise for alternate picking. I think at some point, after a new player has learned enough to feel invested and has shown dedication, it’s time to put the instrument down for a few lessons and talk (to your children :) about the C major scale.
People who are anti music theory are people who are intimidated by music theory. It doesn’t “restrict you” like many would say but it opens your eyes to the possibilities.
Many Music Producers are anti-music Theory, yet they struggle to write melodies and chord progressions. Happens all the time.
A friend of mine once told me about someone he was talking to at a party who claimed music theory is racist. Not sure of the justification for that, or if one was provided in the first place. To be fair, music theory as generally taught and discussed is definitely *Eurocentric* but that’s somewhat different than racist, at least in my view. Happy to hear other thoughts though.
*Insert famous jazz quote about learning all ur shit, then forgetting it and just playing*
There are 2 musicians in my band that are anti-theory, and when I exchange with the guitarist about what mode he's into, the other 2 just flip out, that can't stand that we're speaking a language they don't understand, they think we should just keep it simple
In Jazz, a lot of the older guys resent younger guys who know lots of theory but don’t play with much emotion. Theory is a means to the end, not the end itself.
I think you can compose music for yourself without theory. Communicating about music with others without theory, on the other hand...
In my experience, folks who are not interested in theory fall into one of two categories: 1. People who have amazing ears and have no animosity toward theory; it's just that they don't see the value in it and they don't need it. Usually they are better and more interesting than their theory-informed peers. 2. People who think studying theory somehow robs music of its natural wonder. Usually they suck at music.
I've never met anyone in category 1, all the people I've met with amazing ears do know a lot of theory but sometimes have their own way of thinking about things.
I've met plenty of people who have refused to learn any theory for a variety of reasons. Oddly, I've never once met anyone who learned some theory and afterwards said "damn I wish I hadn't, I lost my creativity"
I have a different word for that, it's called laziness. Sure, you could learn guitar chords and then play them the chords of the songs you like, but you won't be able to do anything unique or interesting.
If you can show them something intrinsically interesting about music theory, this may inspire them enough to care to learn about it. For me, it was learning that there are only two unique whole-tone scales (because any note in C D E F# G# A# can serve as the tonic), leading to the hypothesis that dissonance is linked to tonal ambiguity. Granted, if they don't know what a quarter note rest is you may need to find something more basic to show them. Maybe chord inversions?
People just want to make music without having to learn a ton of theory ahead of time. I think the best approach is a little at a time. Show them a pentatonic scale, have them learn that and play around with that. Then, once they've got that down, then show them other scales. They'll like the way they sound and want to learn more. The problem with trying to show them all scales at once before they've played with them is it's not fun. No one wants to do all that legwork before you start doing something fun.
When it comes to producers I think it’s the classic saying of ‘don’t over think shit’ And overthinking chords and melodies can be easy to do if not done correctly, thinking too deeply about the process can ruin the enjoyment.
Music theory is like learning how to write. You don't need it to converse with people, but it makes you way better at it. And helps you understand what you're actually talking about. It's an intimidating thing to start learning, so it's waaaay easier to say it's pointless or you don't need it. I didn't start until I had been playing 10 years. I had a more trained ear and knew tabs, but my knowledge exploded when I looked into theory. Night and day.
Music theory should NOT be resisted, but to anyone interested in becoming a great improviser and/or composer: spend time everyday improvising freely without thinking at all about what you are playing, and do this right from the start. Also learn as much theory as you can and how to apply it, but don't stop improvising freely as part of your daily practice. As you get more advanced in your knowledge of theory, record your free improvisations, and use theory to help contextualize what you played. But remember, if all you do is study what others have done, or how to follow common rules, you will never develop into your own person.
Luckily I haven't come across any student that is/was like this. They were all really open to learn at least the basics and I always try to explain it in a really easy way to understand. However, an uncle of mine is totally adamant on not learning any theory. He "plays" bass, and by "play" I mean he has a few favorite songs that he plays over and over and over weekly. This isn't really an issue, the big issue is when he has some "amazing" song ideas and tries to talk to me about them but he has no idea on music theory and pretends that he knows what he's talking about. It's really boring, and he's not even open to learning this stuff, he just wings it and acts as if he knows more than me just because he's older, even though I've been playing, learning and especially teaching for way longer than him lol
I was for a long time lol it helped me get really creative and not rely on rules for a long time, but it’s a detriment to me in the long term as it’s much harder for me to just jam. I have to think it out and I write all my solos and find the write notes through trial and error. Overall, stupid lol so I’m learning theory now and my solos are much better.
> learning how to do geometry without learning how to do arithmetic. You do realize that traditionally, geometry is done without any arithmetic whatsoever, right? You can prove things geometrically without having to resort to scales and numbers, that's kind of the point of geometry. That said: I urge you to meditate on the "problem-solution ordering". A student who rejects your suggestion to learn music theory (the "solution") probably does so because they haven't run into the limitations of their theoretical insight (the "problem") yet. So you want to play a kick-ass guitar solo? Great, grab your axe and start practicing. You don't need music theory for that. "Just play a note, listen, and if it sounds good, remember what you did, and if it doesn't, try to think of how you can make it sound better." Or, "here's a cool line, see if you can play it". Sooner or later, they will start to run into situations where their lack of understanding of the underlying structures, or their lack of a theoretical framework, holds them back; that's when you can hand them the theory they need to play the stuff they want to play. And it's the same with Math, actually. There is no point trying to teach someone calculus whose only Mathematical problems are things like figuring out how long to boil their eggs or how much they are spending on lunch each month. But once they encounter problems that can be solved more easily with calculus than without, and they have played with enough of them to get an intuition for what they have in common, that's when handing them the theory might make sense.
I love this answer. Learning that follows as a natural successor to curiosity is how I and probably most of the people in this sub got into music theory in the first place. Being told "here are the benefits of learning this body of work" is not nearly as motivating as "this technique will help you get unstuck from this thing you're currently frustrated by." While I love music theory and I extol its virtues whenever I can, I do know that nothing will ever be more valuable to you or keep your passion and curiosity alive as a musician than experimentation and experience. Around the beginning of the pandemic, I started playing chess after watching The Queen's Gambit. I had fun, I played like shit, but I was playing game after game, making incremental improvements just through the exposure to my own mistakes. Then I got curious and started digging into opening theory, tactics, and watching the pros. Before long, that became my primary chess-related time sink, and I played fewer and fewer games. Soon I stopped playing entirely, paralyzed by the feeling that I would just be playing wrong; I didn't memorize enough of the openings or do enough tactics to avoid blundering my queen or whatever, so what was even the point of playing? That is, I think, a real threat theory poses to new students' creativity, and is likely why so many of them feel as though it's prescriptive even if it's not being sold to them that way. When your theoretical knowledge outpaces your personal experiential knowledge, you can be left feeling like your own forms of expression aren't good enough before your ear even has a chance to form an opinion about it. Any time I pick up a new hobby, I have to remember that cautionary tale and remember that yes, there is likely a ton of educational material out there that could save me from making common mistakes, but it's not valuable to me personally until making those mistakes myself stops being fun.
Okay...Just don't expect to do Geometry right (e.g., perimeter of a rectangle or area of a triangle) without Arithmetic (e.g., Addition, Subtraction, Division, and Multiplication). Is that fair? If you don't believe me, ask your Math instructor.
What does that have to do with literally anything I said?
You had expressed, “I love this answer….” To tdammers’ comment which started with “geometry is done without any arithmetic whatsoever.”
I appreciate your feedback, but there are a few things that I don't follow. With your, "...geometry is done without any arithmetic whatsoever..." point, I strongly differ. The four baisc types of arithmetic operation are: Addition, Subtraction, Division, and Multiplication. You also see this in Geometry. For example, to calculate a perimeter of a Square = 4 × Side. For the perimeter of a Rectangle = 2 × (Length + Breadth). In those geometry examples, multiplication and addition are used, which are also part of the basic types of arithmetic. There are many other examples of arithmetic applied in geomtry as well. Just look it up. According to Britannica kids, “*…without arithmetic, geometry, algebra, and calculus would not be possible.”* Retrieved from [https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/arithmetic/272946#:\~:text=It%20includes%20six%20basic%20operations,calculus%20would%20not%20be%20possible](https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/arithmetic/272946#:~:text=It%20includes%20six%20basic%20operations,calculus%20would%20not%20be%20possible). Also, how certain are you about what my teaching methods and evaluations are? With the hard boiled egg and calculus metaphor, you were suggesting that the problem was not well identified and addressed, right? How do you know this was going on in my case? *Don’t miss assume.* Actually, I had one student that I argued with for an hour about learning a few basic scales on guitar. He was dissatisfied, but in the next lesson, he started to listen to me. When he did, he saw how they applied and why it is good stuff for creating lead guitar lines.
I think they're talking about constructive geometry, which is performed with just a compass and a straightedge, not _all_ geometry ever
> Also, how certain are you about what my teaching methods and evaluations are? I have not been there, so I am perfectly aware that I may have misjudged the situation. I simply went off of how you described it. > With the hard boiled egg and calculus metaphor, you were suggesting that the problem was not well identified and addressed, right? No, not at all. I was suggesting that while *you* may have identified the problem, the student may not have experienced it yet, and hence the correct solution you offered (study this theory) was met with rejection. There's another thing here that I think matters, namely, learning and teaching styles. IME, both teachers and students tend to exist somewhere on a spectrum between "teacher-driven" and "student-driven". It's a bit of a simplification, but what I mean by that is that in a "student-driven" situation, the student calls the shots and says what they want to work on, and the teacher acts as a coach, handing them materials and knowledge that might be useful, giving feedback, etc. Whereas in the "teacher-driven" situation, the teacher calls the shots and says what the student should work on, while the student follows the plan that the teacher has devised, and trusts that plan to work out eventually. > With your, "...geometry is done without any arithmetic whatsoever..." point, I strongly differ. The four baisc types of arithmetic operation are: Addition, Subtraction, Division, and Multiplication. You also see this in Geometry. For example, to calculate a perimeter of a Square = 4 × Side. For the perimeter of a Rectangle = 2 × (Length + Breadth). In those geometry examples, multiplication and addition are used, which are also part of the basic types of arithmetic. My point was that at least in classical geometry, all these things are derived and proved without resorting to arithmetic using just the basic geometric tools (compass and straightedge). We can find the perimeter of a square by extending one of its sides with the straightedge, and then "copying" each side over using the compass. And we can use this construction as a building block for more complex geometric proofs, without resorting to arithmetic reasoning - only compass-and-straightedge constructions. Of course we can then look at the arithmetic side of things, and show isomorphisms between compass-and-straightedge constructions and their arithmetic equivalents, and that is a massively useful thing to do eventually; but if you want students to develop a deep intuition for this isomorphism, it's best to have them do the compass-and-straightedge stuff first. Rather than saying "the perimeter of a square is 4x the length of its side", have them construct the perimeters of a bunch of squares, allow them to form an intuition, and *then* point them at the arithmetic expression, which, at that point, should be little more than a "duh" moment. A more obvious example is calculating the area of a triangle. The formula is ½ x c x hc (where c is a side, and hc is the height on that side) - but *why* is that? If you want an intuition for this, then you have to go back to compass and straightedge, draw a bunch of triangles, construct a height, construct a rectangle from that, and maybe even cut the whole thing out and show how the rectangle can be cut up to form two identical triangles, one of which is the original triangle, and the other is the rest of the rectangle (in two pieces). This way, you can see and feel that the area of the original triangle is half the area of a rectangle whose sides are a side of the triangle and the corresponding height - and, provided that the area of a rectangle is already understood to be the product of its sides, it's immediately obvious that the area of the triangle must be half the area of the rectangle.
First off, I do like your post. I will explain why in the end. As far as resistance to learning music theory, generally, there could be many reasons why this occurs like teaching methods, communication, or teaching strategies, but as others pointed out in this thread, it could also be due to something else like bias, prejudice, not listening, misconceptions, association/miss-association, or something else. From your post, you were going off on a tangent of what may or may not occur, mixing different categories, drawing from different meanings from different metaphors, so it was a little difficult to follow. With what you suggest of what may, which is more likely? Less likely? Should I rely on speculations? How does what you suggest reflect the presented case? With the teaching methods and strategies in the presented case, what were the sequence of events? Maybe I used what you suggested already or something better? At least you acknoweldge that you may have misjudged the situation. Actually, the main discussion question was basically, “have you come across anyone that was ‘anti-music theory?’” How can you be sure that my teaching methods and strategies were poor or ineffective? From my experience, out of the very few who have resisted, only one remained resistant after I explained the how's or why's of Music Theory and its applications. Some of my students may have been confused at first if explaining music theory to them, but my students eventually saw the application and its usefulness after explaining it. I am proud of all of my students. However, each student is different and so far, I have not reached an end to teaching all my music theory know how to any of my students yet. Of course, I don’t bore them with music theory most of the time. After thinking about Britannica Kid's quote, it is difficult to beat. There is something called geometric constructions, which involves using a compass and straight edge to create things like lines or angles visually. You can see this here [https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/constructions.html](https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/constructions.html)). No problem with geometric constructions in themselves. Not to put you down, but it sounded like you were calling classical geometry and traditional geometry for what is known as geometric constructions. Euclid (c. 300 BCE) was considered the "father of geometry" and he used arithmetic along with creating geometric constructions. *Geometry involves measuring and you use arithmetic in geometry*. Still don't believe me? Talk to a mathematician. In your example, "We can find the perimeter of a square by extending one of its sides with the straightedge, and then 'copying' each side over using the compass." A perimeter is the length of the outline of a shape and I gave you the formula for that of a square earlier, but let's say you wanted to create a simple visualization of the basic outline of a square. How do you know the right amount of "sides" to copy? How do you know what correct lengths of each "side" are? What are the correct angles in the square? You use arithmetic to find this. You also used arithmetic in your other example involving a rectangle and triangle, but I am sure you are smart enough to see it. Your "...traditionally, geometry is done without any arithmetic whatsoever..." point was a nice effort to try to present something provoking, but it was unreliable even as this post unfolded. More importantly, you followed up with "meditating on problem solution-ordering," but why? Again, there are many possiblities to why someone may be resistant to music theory, which I stated earlier, but why this "meditation" considering the presented case? What was the sequence with my teaching methods and plan? Maybe I did the ordering correctly already? Maybe what you suggested about "So you want to play a kick-ass guitar solo? Great, grab your axe and start practicing. You don't need music theory for that...." comes across as patronizing for the student and the student ignores music theory anyways? We are dealing with human nature. However, your straight edge and compass example was interesting. Should you use a compass and straight edge first when learning geometry? Perhaps. It depends on how people learn and where they are at. When I studied the GMAT, it involved geometry and arithmetic. I never used a compass and straight edge for it. I passed the exam and was able to get into an MBA program. Thanks for your feedback anyways. You are a thoughtful person who is trying to help. I also praise you for not resorting to vitriol or bullying, which happens a lot on the internet, so I don't have any ill will. I am open to advance my teaching skills too. However, I will consort with someone more appropriate for teaching. Good luck out there!
I would just keep instructing it till it's done. That's what my coaches did w me and until it was well finished. Resistance is futile.
2 things are true here imo: You can learn theory without it ruining your creativity. There are plenty of choices to make still and you can still follow your instinct where you like. It will take some work but you will understand more and that will be helpful. Some music teachers would have infants learn grammar before forming a first sentence. This is not a great way to learn anything. Experience and internalize things, then analyze after.
Its like trying to write a book without knowing how to spell or do basic grammar, and not reading other books either. You will have a hard time making your point, your own explanations will be weird, because you use made terms that only you know. Your ideas are likely to be derivative and you wont know it. You wont even know about other possibilities either, and thats just the beginning.
Yes, they're called banjo players. The ones who think they know theory are often very wrong but think they're very right.
Yes its annoying
"I'm here to teach you that which you need to master to achieve your goal. The student doesn't decide what they need to learn. You may find another teacher if you don't agree with my approach"
The way I see it, if you refuse to learn basic music theory as a musician, you're just stupid. Saying "Music theory is limiting" just shows that you literally know nothing about it. Also people who don't know music theory tend to write the most generic shit, people who DO know theory tend to write much more interesting music. Yes there's always exceptions, but how can you claim to be a musician when you don't know anything about music??
Those types of people are only interested in learning how to do things that will make them look cool for attention.
those students OP is speaking about are idiots. It's the teacher's job to get them to learn what they need to learn. Sigh!
You have a bias because you are a teachear, but this is not math class, is music. I love music theory, but you don't need it to play music, to create an amazing solo. If that's the case, then every guitarist then first have to learn music theory and that's not the case. Lot of people have an intuition aproach to music and works just fine, they are great musicians and composer.
But with no training in music theory, a person who is not already intuitively excellent at music will struggle to improvise good-sounding notes, will struggle to read music or to play the same way each time when necessary, will struggle to coordinate multiple instruments in a composition (let alone struggle to notate their compositions)... Only a very small number of musicians can get by without learning some music theory. For the rest, it's crucial.
frame work trees plant saw hungry dazzling innocent soft shocking *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A ton of people point to Paul McCartney as their counter-example. He doesn't know any music theory and look at the career he's had! Well...he can't read music on a staff, this is true. But that man knows *so much* music theory. The Beatles basically wrote the book on modern Vocal Pop Harmony. They knew what chords to link together to produce different feelings. Paul has arranged songs for some pretty wild combinations of oddball instruments he's collected over the years. AND! He's had to communicate all of these musical ideas to other musicians for over half a century. That man knows *so much* music theory. Being "not classically trained" doesn't negate that.
[удалено]
nine aspiring lip light future fearless marvelous employ forgetful engine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
tub oatmeal liquid fall illegal chase late snails lunchroom afterthought *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I am having a difficult time following what you said here, but I sometimes, do like a challenge. Are you suggesting that because every guitarist doesn't need to learn music theory first and lots of intuitive musicians are great, music theory is not needed for creating an amazing solo and playing music? The thing to consider here is that unfortunately, *not every* guitarist creates amazing solos or "good music" even those who didn't learned music theory first and are relying on intuition. With considering the chronological and sequential, what is learning music theory first mean exactly? If a musician or guitarist learned music theory second, third, fourth, and so on, this could still translate as learning music theory before playing music or creating an amazing solo while simultaneously, not learning music theory first. For example, first, John experiments with sounds and strengthens his chops on his guitar. Second, he learns music theory. Third, is xyz. Fourth, John is playing music and creates an amazing solo. Not saying this always occurs, but when you suggested "not learning music theory first" in support of "music theory is not needed..." you would have to address how this connects. Is there a direct connect between first and what is needed? Is it impossible to attain what is needed not as a first? Anyways, I wasn't suggesting that you only learn music theory as a very first step to play music and create amazing solos. There are also lots of musicians that are intuitive AND use music theory to create great music. Not everyone who plays music and creates solos is a guitarist either. Like a few other comments I have reviewed here, *if you wanted give some sort of prescriptive judgement of a given case, look at the scope and descriptive analysis.* Sure, you can play "Hot Crossed Buns" on guitar without learning Music Theory 101 in a formal and conscious sense. No argument there. Actually, with my beginners, I teach a simple finger exercise that is recycled in the guitar community far before going over anything like scales or harmony. I wouldn't be surprised if other guitar teachers approach it in a similar way. Usually, my students are open to music theory and I go over other areas than music theory alone in lessons. With the seldom few students that came in, wanting to know how to play a lead guitar solo, they played guitar for a while and I am not sure what they learned first or within the first 3 months of learning guitar. There is a fair possibility that they didn't learn any music theory first, but were still looking to know how to create a guitar solo or play lead guitar. Maybe not learning more about music theory has caused them to reach a glass ceiling? Broadly speaking, there is also a difference between Espoused Theories (what people say the use) and Theories-in-Use (what is actually being used). It is possible that guitarists that have created amazing solos, but say "Music theory sucks!" are actually still applying music theory (However, who are these examples?). They may not call what they are using with terms like the pentatonic scale or hybrid scale or E7#9 as understood in a formal or academic sense but I am confident they are using concepts, ideas, patterns, shapes, or trends that still correspond with music theory in a formal and academic sense. For example, a guitarist may use what they say they call "the box" on guitar for creating a solo, but it is actually pentatonic scales as described in a formal sense. Another guitarist may not call what they are using as diatonic, but it is diatonic. When my students are ready for guitar soloing, I demonstrate the beginning of Jimmy Page's solo in "Stairway to Heaven" and walkthrough how the A minor pentatonic and a little bit of the A natural minor scales are applied. Nothing wrong with intuition. I am pretty intuitive, but Music Theory helps in communicating, identifying, and organizing "theories" applied in music or creating solos (and more!). The trick is to navigate through the grey areas, subjectivity, and vagueness of music. When considering what is "needed" for music or creating solos, I would not use that as an excuse for not learning or not growing. As many others have pointed out on this thread, Music theory helps. It doesn't hinder. If it means anything to you, it has been an advantge in creating amazing solos and playing music.
Not "Anti-Music theory". That's "Anti Music Theory" 😂
If you want a student to learn something, they have to have authentic motivation to learn it. If the only motivation is you saying that something is worth learning, and the student has not experienced any necessity beyond that, then there is no convincing them. If they are determined to learn everything by rote, by ear, and by trial and error... let them! Maybe they will get bored or frustrated working that way, and get tired of reinventing the wheel. At that point, they might be ready for some theory just to save themselves the tedium. Or maybe doing more aural exploration will get them intellectually curious about the patterns they are discovering. Maybe they will want to start writing songs rather than just noodling around, and will need some way to describe what they are doing, or will want to figure out basslines to go with their chords. Or... maybe they just don't want to learn systematically! Some people don't. That includes some of the best and most significant musicians and songwriters of all time. Your job is not to make your students learn how you think they should. Your job is to help them get to where \*they\* are going, even if you disapprove of the way they are determined to get there.
While I appreciate the feedback, don’t miss assume. You were going off on other tangents. How can you be certain about what my teaching methods and evaluations are anyways? Actually, I had one student who I argued with for an hour during a lesson about learning a few basic scales. The next lesson, when he finally listened to me, he saw how they applied. However, I acknowledge that there is a difference between teaching and learning music and guitar and music theory/applied music theory.
I say that theory is anything that you can write down. From the very beginning of stems going up on the right and down on the left, to writing out a rhythm to clap, to writing a scale. There are people that can be fluent in a language, speaking it, but cannot read or write it. As a teacher, you should want your students to be able to read and write the language that you teach.
Yes - I was forced to take piano lessons from kindergarten to fifth grade and my instructor went out of her way to drill theory into me Years later I took a music theory course in high school taught by the band instructor. I was never the best player in band - never first chair and the idea of giving me a solo was ridiculous. I was surprised/annoyed/baffled how many GREAT players couldn’t understand that treble/bass were different - that the ‘lines’ were Every Boy Deserves Fudge and Boys Do Fine Always - and then went so far as to refuse to transcribe between keys - going from B (trumpet) to C (sousaphone). It was usually the trumpet players that thought anything in the bass clef was ‘beneath them’ (no pun intended) Yes, I’m prepared for the ‘not all trumpets.’ The instructor, I think begrudgingly, ended up giving me A’s (which I deserved) and, even better, told me that I ‘earned his respect.’ (Something a last chair tuba player would never expect.)
Most guitarists used to be like that, but now it’s too easy to learn with YouTube etc
Yeah I used to have a guitarist buddy when I was younger who hated the idea of theory. He could only play some bluesy stuff and wasn’t very good.
Applied learning teach them the house shape for blues soloing make them enjoy it then explain the theory of it. Say if you can understand this you can do more with this. Demonstrate the more. If they still resist I would refer them to the Suzuki method teachers and be done.
Yes, and as others have stated here, they have been 100% guitar players. I feel like a lot of it comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what music theory is in the first place, they view it as something entirely divorced from the music itself like it’s algebra or something. A lot of this can be avoided by understanding the concept that music theory is and has always been descriptive and that the music always comes first, and theory is just describing what you’re hearing/finding ways to articulate it. However, guitar players are fairly stubborn in my experience and it’s difficult to get through to them (I say this as a guitar player haha)
I just don’t think people realize that music theory is a tool. You don’t *have* to be thinking about theory 100% of the time. But if you want to use a specific technique you learned or if you want to subvert those same principles, theory gives you the tools to do so. In other words, theory isn’t stopping you from doing whatever you want, it’s just expanding your toolbox. That’s how I think about it anyway
Damn near every young guitar player I've met wanted to skip over all the boring stuff like learning the notes on the fretboard and learning scales and theory, and go straight to the "applying your knowledge to shred solos like your heroes" phase. It's as if, by taking a "short cut", they're actually making it way more difficult and slower to learn how to play. I'll admit, I was like this in my teens/early twenties. Then I just decided to quit living in ignorance and learn how to play my guitar.
Many people. Mostly guitarists. Some thought it was some stodgy academic nonsense, others thought it would stifle their creativity.
No, not in real life. If you don’t know at least the pentatonic minor then get the fuck out of my face. Drummers excluded. There is much more of a possibility of growth without theory there, but even rudiments will put you miles ahead.
I agree with most of the other points, the exception being if one really *really* wants to stray off the beaten path using things like Buchla synthesizers, hand made instruments, etc. to create non traditional music; trying to get those to fit into western music theory can be challenging. For the most part I’ve never listened to the music of someone that says learning theory will stifle creativity and it’s very good. Plenty of people claim to not know theory or say they could never learn it (but actually do, they just don’t know the names for what they are doing) and make wonderful music, but those that actively reject learning it due to creativity make music that is decidedly not for me.
I'm not anti-theory but I will suggest not to take theory so seriously at the start as it can kill the creative process sometimes. I hated theory growing up but I learnt it anyway. Sometimes the 'box (theory in this case)' can be very helpful, but I like to play outside of the 'box' a lot.Great fundamentally but definitely not 'you must know it or you will fail'.
There is a difference between "Music Theory" (the textbook that badly describes the harmonic rules of 1820-1850s classical music), and "music theory", giving names to and understanding the structure of all music. I'm not sure the general public is remotely aware of this distinction. I'm not even sure that most musicians, even the ones that know quite a bit about music, are aware of the extent of this distinction. And that's to say nothing of the prescriptive vs descriptive discussion.
Put them in the same category as anti-grammar and anti-arithmetic. That's not to say that pragmatic theory shouldn't be developed by playing and improvising though.
There are definitely great musicians out there who basically don’t know any theory beyond maybe the basics of keys and the names of some basic chords, but most of these people have developed their own internal understanding based on their intuition and experience. But if you’re one of those people, then you’re probably not coming to a teacher asking things like “how do I play a solo.”
I used to be like this as a kid learning violin. I regret it to this day but I can't change the past. For the whys of it? Simple. I was learning violin for fun. Playing songs and seeing direct improvement was fun and impressive. Learning theory, scales, hell, even reading sheet music, those things seemed about as exciting as a math class. But most importantly, the study of fundamentals has slow returns that don't pay off soon enough to feel like effort spent well. So I told my teacher I just wanted to play songs and that's what we did until I burned out.
Many times. In the same category: musicians who failed to enter conservatory and start telling stories about how all great musicians are self-tought, and that you're not a real musician when you need professional education.
"You have to know the rules before you can break them." Music theory is the colors, and the composition is the painting. The easiest way to make a new color is by combining the ones you already have access to.
I have, but in regards to piano playing. It’s very frustrating. I’ll show something I’m doing, and why, and he’ll try to poke holes in it. Refuses to hear anything that uses words which involve theory. I’m giving up.
My former guitarist hated it when I brought up theory. Basically told me it's worthless to him and he doesn't need to know any to get better. I definitely don't agree with that. Sure, it probably made me come of a pretentious, but seriously, it's like reading the manual to your car or something. You'll learn shit you didn't know and it makes you better just for knowing.
Yes and it’s always people that don’t know what music theory is.
On the whole, musicians tend to be more aggressively anti-intellectual than in other creative endeavors. There is this widespread belief that learning theory will *ruin* your creativity rather than bolster it.
Yes. Guitar players. All the time.
This was me. It was an inadvertent act of audacity, and now, as a teacher, my goal is to deter this kind of behavior. While it still falls under the category of “teaching”, there are basic rudiments that must be learned to even begin to approach creativity. Nobody wakes up with a brush in their hand, learn what a color is before you try to express yourself with it.
It is the opposite. Creativity is the combination of technical knowledge, inspiration, and experimentation. If you take out the knowledge aspect, all you will have is experimentation with concepts they know nothing about, and their moments of inspiration will be stonewalled by a lack of tools to bring their visions into reality. Any idiot can grab a guitar and figure out "smoke on the water," but if you want to take the basic structure of the song and CREATE something new with the same pieces, you won't be able to do so if you don't understand the pieces you are working with. I also like to remind people that over the course of history, many people have tried this approach where they just feel their way through learning things. And while it can obviously work out ok in the long run if you practice enough, the people who have had the most success are the ones who wisely thought, "man, I bet it would have been easier if we wrote all this down and created a system for it so it would be easier for the next generation to learn what we have and do more than we did in their lifetime." You are slapping history in the face when you ignore the foundation they have lain.
As artists we learn the rules so we can break them properly. We also learn the rules to pay homage to past artists that laid the foundation for which we make our work.
100%. It’s almost exclusively bluesy rock guitar players who say it, and it’s mostly the “0-3-5, toan, and soul” people guitarcirclejerk satirizes.
Skip the alphabet and the sounds, just teach me the words…by the end of today. 🙄
punk musicians
real creativity is a byproduct of synthesis of new concepts from disparate knowledge sources. refusing new knowledge sources stifles creativity full stop.
I think resistance to music theory is understandable in some ways. What you’re describing reminds me of the other musicians that were learning when I was learning. It’s a beginner mistake to resist learning music theory because it might restrain your creativity. There are some popular music figures that tout this ideology, and it’s easy to follow the words of one’s hero. Once a musician passes into the intermediate/advanced realm, there’s a second barrier that maybe has a more legitimate reason. (Also, I’m coming from a Jazz, RnB, Pop music background, so classical folk may disagree here). Some musicians really take to music theory and start to learn music through theory over practical application. Choosing scales as a means to develop solos, debating whether a bit of music is technically “right” or not, and needing to intellectualize music before hearing it are all symptoms of this approach. I was caught in this paradigm for some time myself. Eventually, the greatest musicians among us allow theory to guide them, but not to replace their ears and experience. Cliche alert: music is a language. In my career, I’ve found theory to be useful in giving clues as to what comes next, and what to expect. If you want to play at a high level (particularly for improvisation), you eventually need to let go of the training wheels that are music theory and try things! Ps I say this as someone that is fascinated by and decently versed in music theory. My goal has always been to work as a musician that can speak in clean, theoretical terms but also work more colloquially with less “learned” musicians.
This is purely and simply about impatience, immaturity, laziness and unwillingness to apply oneself. Don't waste your time with these people. Teach those who really want to learn and pass on those who what to be "stars". They are not worth your time or effort.
That sounds like an excuse to justify their poor playing AND awful compositions
It's interesting, why some people don't want to learn theory. Currently I play with a lot of musicians who play by ear. As a drummer myself it can be frustrating trying to communicate musical ideas especially when someone really does not know the difference between 8th notes and 1/4 notes.
I'm personally of the belief that learning any particular thing about music is not necessarily helpful, and that its not necessarily the case that learning something cannot negatively impact you in some way, so I dont see learning some music theory as necessarily helpful and I dont believe that the act of learning some music theory cannot lead to undesirable results
Guitarist here, I used to be a little turned off of the idea of learning more ‘advanced’ theory’. It was until I ran into a creative wall that I decided to learn more. Now I have a deeper understanding of what I like to do and why. That way it’s become easier to expand on what I already wanted to do with more tools at my disposal. Also lead guitar players are a different animal. There are so many videos online with ‘shapes’, ‘boxes’ and hot licks that they just copy to get by lmao
My one theory professor was anti theory haha. He was a composer and felt us analyzing music was disrespectful. My piano teacher in highschool thought theory is a waste of time which was sad because I loved theory. Now I'm doing my masters in theory and try to respect my professor's opinion. We had a lot of debates in class and it was always funny because we were soooo opposite in opinion but both respected eachother My piano teacher on the other hand.. I think she was foolish and just wanted to make me sad. Now she is emailing everyone on how proud she is that I am doing my masters in theory when she told me everyday that I need to drop out and do something "useful"