I was searching for another post of mine and came across this. I know this thread is old, but...
djtensai said:
Yeah I guess your right the people who are responsible for the best music must be exceptionally gifted. Specifically my problem with theory is that its not capable of addressing all the elements that make up music.
Huh? Can you be more specific? An example maybe? Other than an odd technique that a particular musician may have, I can't think of a sound that can't be expressed with theory. I'm very interested in an example if you have one.
djtensai said:
Its like science & math. While they are perfectly capable of describing our biological makeup, they fall short of describing humanity and the human spirit. I realize this sounds corny
I don't get the connection. Music theory is simply a language, like English or French, and is designed to define sounds. If there's an event that warrants a new word, it's put in the dictionary. "Internet" comes to mind.
If a musician comes up with a technique that can't be expained with theory, a new term is created.
djtensai said:
but what is more important when it comes to music, the fact that you avoided parallel fifths or used a perfect authentic cadence instead of a mere authentic one, or is it rather that you expressed some genuine feeling and emotion that your audience can connect with.
How does theory get in the way of expressing genuine feeling and emotion? In fact, knowing theory only makes it easier. If you're well versed, you'll know what chords sound sad, happy... you'll know how to creat & release tension, create excitment, establish moods.
djtensai said:
Maybe that human element fits under the heading of music philosophy which when combined with a good basis in theory might add up to a more holistic approach to music. But if I had to chose between the two fields I would definitely want an ability to grasp the latter. Unfortunatley in many acedemic enviornments only the theory is addressed and this often causes the creative potential of the students to stagnate.
The human element is just that. Human. It's up to the musician's creativity. Theory can't get in the way of that.
djtensai said:
One thing I remember clearly about theory is that Bach broke the 'rules' al the time. Our teacher told us he was alowed to but me must never try to even bend them. When I asked why he always said the same thing: "Because Bach is Better." Now I know the truth though. Its because they were his rules we were studying. So if you want to learn the "rules" of music why not make your own. Beethoven did, Lizt did, Chopin did, Picasso did....etc. etc.
You had a terrible teacher... or she was only teaching classical music, which is quite stagnent.
Music theory is not a set of rules. It's a language that helps communicate & describe sound. Nothing in theory says you have play particular chords or notes. It simply defines those sounds so they can be communicated. I could lay my hand blindly on a piano, and theory can explain what I played.
I think a lot of people with your opinion confuse diatonic theory with music theory as a whole. Diatonic theory tells you what notes are in a key, and what chords are diatonic to that key, ect. But there's nothing in music theory that says your music has to be diatonic. A typical jazz tune would look & sound crazy to someone that only knew diatonic theory because it would appear to break every "rule" they knew.