Too much music theory can seriously damage your musical health

[astroidmist]

My own music didnt really get anywhere until I let go of music theory and only used it when I really needed it. I also have met people who were naturally talented and could play anything by ear quite well. I told them to avoid music theory because i think it would hold them back and mess up their style. I do wish I knew SOME parts of music theory better, but that's the type people don't usually teach. They don't usually teach much about how to pick chord changes that work for downtempo electronic music. Theory is still caught up in classical and bs like that.

[decemberdusk]

Managed to learn "Happy Birthday" in about 10 seconds on guitar. I could do it quicker if I was trying to do it quick - 7 seconds maybe. You may mean to learn melody and harmony and play it on piano say. This would take longer for me as I'm deliberately unfamiliar with piano. (It can help with composing to not know what you are doing) This isn't much though - if you're familiar with piano you should be able to play it straight off with maybe the odd mistake.

A good test of composing is to be able to play a song straight off from being given a title by the audience. I saw Marvin Hamlish do this a few years ago. Not too hard but impressive to do this in front of a live audience. He was following some standard song patterns though which meant he only really needed to improvise the words and melody. I can certainly do this and it's not too hard. A much tougher test would be to be given a title and chords you must use. This means that you may have an unfamiliar harmony that you must put words and melody too. I'm sure I could do this too though but much more tricky.

Maybe there is a way of testing yourself. Flick a book open and the song must be about the first noun you come across. You can then use both the page numbers to generate the chords. I'll try this now...

That was an easy one. I got the word "evening" and the chords 1 5 6 7 which meant A, E, F, G, . The verse went AEGF repeat and I did a middle with the standardish FGrepeated. Think I went blank on one line and started laughing on another. I suppose with practice you should be able to make a song up on the spot given any 4 chords and a title.

I think the "Happy birthday test is more of a playing test. I'm sure music theory can help with that. I'm sure it may also help with my composing test too. The question for me though is; will it help you compose better if you study it deeply. I mean compose something good as opposed to just anything. For some maybe, but it may be more harmful for others.

I'll get to more serious comment in a bit but these test things are fun.

Happy birthday on the guitar in 10 seconds and 7 seconds if you tried harder? My God, an unparalleled accomplishment of EPIC proportions! Stop the press, who would need theory if you can perform such feats of natural musical talent as playing Happy Birthday on the guitar without even trying? Humor.

Can we please hear some of your music? I'd love to hear you apply all that you have been talking about to actual music... what you have been doing is only talking about your **THEORY** of what you believe about music composition and production... now put it into action. Ever since you began to talk about this knowledge and not needing music theory, I wanted to hear some of your tunes. The anticipation is building and I want to enjoy some of your "music theory-less" tunes to vibe with!

EMMAPEEL9, PLEASE POST A LINK TO YOUR ORIGINAL MUSIC!

This is about the 10th time I've asked without a response about a link. What say you Emmapeel9?

[stillfunkin]

My own music didnt really get anywhere until I let go of music theory and only used it when I really needed it. I also have met people who were naturally talented and could play anything by ear quite well. I told them to avoid music theory because i think it would hold them back and mess up their style. I do wish I knew SOME parts of music theory better, but that's the type people don't usually teach. They don't usually teach much about how to pick chord changes that work for downtempo electronic music. Theory is still caught up in classical and bs like that.

the biggest problem with threads like this is individuals do not have a clue what music theory is and how to use it...

i will start with...

calculus is not taught in the first grade because you need to learn to add and substract to multiply and divide... i will repeat... calculus is not taught in the first grade because you need to learn adding and substracting to multiply and divide

with that being said... music theory is something you learn from chapter 1 and go forward from there... you cant understand chapters 1, 5, 15 and think you know music theory... you just know chapters 1, 5, 15... period...

if your first day of learning music theory does not start with learning where middle "C" is on the staff you are off to a poor start... if you do not know what the treble clef is or what it is called the "G" clef... your foundation of learning music theory is weak... simple as that... what ever your instrument is... if you do not know the finger of scales... your theory is weak...

a few questions for this poster...

on the keys which finger do you start "F#" chromatic scale with? how about "F#" major scale? because that is knowing theory and then applying it...

next point... can you play "Autumn Leaves"? 90% of all modern music comes from the chord progression of "Autumn Leaves"... take any 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 chords in a row from "Autumn Leaves" you will have a popular chord progression...

now... the key to this is to be able to play "Autumn Leaves" in every key signature with the correct scales (modes, major pentatonic, minor pentatonic, blues, jazz blues, etc) over it...

where the "true" skills/talent come in is the cadence of the harmony and the syncopation of the melody... sitting on a solid groove...

as i listen to "your" sound cloud page... no disrepect... but nothing sticks out... you have over powering drum track... with whole notes pads/strings pads... with an arp on top... it does not take much skill to do that... yes... it is musically sounded because you are in key... but nothing that jumps off the page... no music theory is needed for that... it is not like "wow... that is a nice key change in that song"...

again... music theory is like a light switch... you either know or you dont... yes... there are some who went to their first music theory and learned what middle "C" is or only could understand chapter 1, 5, 15... but i would not consider that knowing music theory... actually... they know what middle "C" is and the information in chapter 1, 5, 15...

this is just my opinion and nothing carved in stone...

so... this begs the question... how could someone say music theory is a waste when he/she does not know music theory or only familiar with chapter 1, 5, 15? it does not make any sense... again... it takes time and effect to learn, practice and apply music theory... it is called playing your "dues"... most individuals do not put forth the effect... and IT IS EASIER TO SAY MUSIC THEORY IS A WASTE WHEN IT TAKES "ACTUALLY" WORK TO LEARN IT... in other words... the easy way out...

[Salem Beats]

i will start with...

calculus is not taught in the first grade because you need to learn to add and substract to multiply and divide... i will repeat... calculus is not taught in the first grade because you need to learn adding and substracting to multiply and divide

I'm gonna offer that I learned to divide long before I could really subtract very well. My mom sent me to my room with no videogames as a punishment back when I was in the 1st grade. The only thing of any interest remaining in the room was a math book I picked up on a whim, and I really enjoyed the symbolic representations of division. I got it. Those 15 minutes led to 2 years of getting to feel smarter than everyone else.

Subtraction, on the other hand, was never modeled for me. My teachers taught it as a memorization task, rather than using models to represent why X - Z = Y.
"9 minus 5 is 4. Don't ask why, just remember it using flashcards", they would say.
That's the way math was from that point on, and I never learned to enjoy math again since the time I discovered division on my own.

As a parallel, Music Theory can suck the fun out of making music in a similar way if it just feels like memorization without a practical application to what you're currently interested in. Maybe if they showed me the basics of Calculus and all of the nifty things you could represent by using it (and maybe even tried to teach me some very elementary concepts behind it), I would've been interested enough in math to continue passionately pursuing it?

---------- Post added at 07:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 AM ----------

Happy birthday on the guitar in 10 seconds and 7 seconds if you tried harder? My God, an unparalleled accomplishment of EPIC proportions! Stop the press, who would need theory if you can perform such feats of natural musical talent as playing Happy Birthday on the guitar without even trying? Humor.

I already showed you. This:

[stillfunkin]

I'm gonna offer that I learned to divide long before I could really subtract very well. My mom sent me to my room with no videogames as a punishment back when I was in the 1st grade. The only thing of any interest remaining in the room was a math book I picked up on a whim, and I really enjoyed the symbolic representations of division. I got it. Those 15 minutes led to 2 years of getting to feel smarter than everyone else.

my point is the princples of division comes from substaction... now... if you learn to divide before you learn to substract... how did you do long division(i.e. 2458765 divided by 345)... where substaction is use... if 1 + 1 = 2 something does not sound right there... just saying...

remembering 4 divided by 2 is one thing... but they teach subtraction first because who is going to remember what 2458765 divided by 345 is... so, that begs the question... were you learning to divide or just remember some "basic" equations... because substraction is "very" instrumental to dividing...

As a parallel, Music Theory can suck the fun out of making music in a similar way if it just feels like memorization without a practical application to what you're currently interested in.

it depends on the individual... learning music theory was very rewarding for... i agree... learning all those definitions and practicing does "suck"... the day all that stuff came together was "very" rewarding... the "fun" comes in from "applying" the theory...

Maybe if they showed me the basics of Calculus and all of the nifty things you could represent by using it (and maybe even tried to teach me some very elementary concepts behind it), I would've been interested enough in math to continue passionately pursuing it?

its funny you write this... because learning math and music theory are simular... there are definitions one must learn... then "practice" using those definitions... and third "applying" those definitions... there are just some individuals that do not excell in formal education... i.e. like some one who did not go to college telling a college graduate... "just because you went to college does not mean you are going to get a better job"... in "most" cases the college graduate does get a better job...

bottom line... there is beauty in "effort"...

---------- Post added at 08:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 AM ----------

EMMAPEEL9, PLEASE POST A LINK TO YOUR ORIGINAL MUSIC!

This is about the 10th time I've asked without a response about a link. What say you Emmapeel9?

i would bet my last dollar that EMMAPEEL9 could play the 5th of Beethoven backwards... just pick the guitar up and just start playing it... no practice... no sheet music... without listening to it first... or anything...

[Emmapeel9]

My own music didnt really get anywhere until I let go of music theory and only used it when I really needed it. I also have met people who were naturally talented and could play anything by ear quite well. I told them to avoid music theory because i think it would hold them back and mess up their style. I do wish I knew SOME parts of music theory better, but that's the type people don't usually teach. They don't usually teach much about how to pick chord changes that work for downtempo electronic music. Theory is still caught up in classical and bs like that.

There are some theoretical things that are useful to me, but I just don't want to learn all of it. The above post is more with my experience of things and it should be that you should be able to learn what is useful to you, without learning things you don't need and which might take you off track. Teachers should understand this too and I hope that some of them do.

Music is a bit different from calculus or some other endeavours. As I've said; you can get young children coming up with complete songs without help. This is not the case with something like calculus. You don't get children working out calculus without first going through a procedure.

Why can children come up with music like this? Is it an in-built natural knowledge of music theory or something else?

[Salem Beats]

There are some theoretical things that are useful to me, but I just don't want to learn all of it. The above post is more with my experience of things and it should be that you should be able to learn what is useful to you, without learning things you don't need and which might take you off track. Teachers should understand this too and I hope that some of them do.

Music is a bit different from calculus or some other endeavours. As I've said; you can get young children coming up with complete songs without help. This is not the case with something like calculus. You don't get children working out calculus without first going through a procedure.

Why can children come up with music like this? Is it an in-built natural knowledge of music theory or something else?

Your belief (and subsequent comparison) seems to be based on a sense of what's going on in the music world, and an apparent disregard for what's going on in the math world:



I can agree with you that there are musical prodigies, but I cannot agree that they somehow acheieve their results without "going through a procedure". Perhaps you're trying to express something that your words are not communicating properly, because every musical prodigy I've seen on Youtube or read about in history books has gone through some sort of procedure.

I would also like to note that you're comparing apples to oranges when you compare "Calculus" with "Complete Songs". Calculus is a specific discipline of mathematics, and "Complete Songs" (along with the implied assumption that these are decent songs) is a vague concept.
A better comparison would be "Complete Songs" to "Excellent Mathematical Procedures". I'm willing to wager that if you try to teach a kid a specific discipline of music (learning to play Beethoven's 5th, for example), you will suddenly realize the importance of procedure.

Finally, don't take this as a personal attack. I'm hoping to give you some of my own perspective to enhance your awareness.

[stillfunkin]

Music is a bit different from calculus or some other endeavours.

you are wrong again... there is tons of information on the relationship between music and mathematics...

learning both... requires... definition, practice and applying...

keep trying...

[Emmapeel9]

Your belief (and subsequent comparison) seems to be based on a sense of what's going on in the music world, and an apparent disregard for what's going on in the math world:



I can agree with you that there are musical prodigies, but I cannot agree that they somehow acheieve their results without "going through a procedure". Perhaps you're trying to express something that your words are not communicating properly, because every musical prodigy I've seen on Youtube or read about in history books has gone through some sort of procedure.

I would also like to note that you're comparing apples to oranges when you compare "Calculus" with "Complete Songs". Calculus is a specific discipline of mathematics, and "Complete Songs" (along with the implied assumption that these are decent songs) is a vague concept.
A better comparison would be "Complete Songs" to "Excellent Mathematical Procedures". I'm willing to wager that if you try to teach a kid a specific discipline of music (learning to play Beethoven's 5th, for example), you will suddenly realize the importance of procedure.

Finally, don't take this as a personal attack. I'm hoping to give you some of my own perspective to enhance your awareness.

I was writing my own music at 6 without any sort of procedure and I don't think I'm alone. You do get prodigies that seem to be good at a lot of things and I think that these people may be who you are watching on youtube - a sort of multi-talented prodigy. I wasn't this though. I'm still trying to work it out.

Young children do learn to speak and form language on their own without any help so maybe it is just something like this. Instead the musical child will pick up sounds and pattern and then form that into their own music in a similar way. Maybe this is not so special either and most people could do this to some extent when young.

I do know the type of prodigy you mean and maybe in that case they were helped in music through learning other endeavours. But there is certainly children that can make music without any procedure and it may not be such a surprising thing. It may come in a similar way to how language comes.

---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 PM ----------

you are wrong again... there is tons of information on the relationship between music and mathematics...

learning both... requires... definition, practice and applying...

keep trying...

Can you explain how children can come up with compositions whilst knowing nothing about mathamatics?

Sorry, missed your post while I was writing.

[Salem Beats]

I was writing my own music at 6 without any sort of procedure and I don't think I'm alone. You do get prodigies that seem to be good at a lot of things and I think that these people may be who you are watching on youtube - a sort of multi-talented prodigy. I wasn't this though. I'm still trying to work it out.

Young children do learn to speak and form language on their own without any help so maybe it is just something like this. Instead the musical child will pick up sounds and pattern and then form that into their own music in a similar way. Maybe this is not so special either and most people could do this to some extent when young.

I do know the type of prodigy you mean and maybe in that case they were helped in music through learning other endeavours. But there is certainly children that can make music without any procedure and it may not be such a surprising thing. It may come in a similar way to how language comes.

Writing itself is a procedure, is it not? If it is, then aren't you practicing a procedure simply by writing your music?

Your procedure might not have come from studying others, but you may have come to conclusions similar to theirs independently (i.e., "in parallel"), right?

Language also follows a procedure. So does walking. I'm really just perplexed by your sense of "lack of procedure". Perhaps your application of procedure is totally imperceptible to your conscious mind? Maybe your point has something to do with the difference between applying a procedure and being consciously aware of applying that procedure -- walking is a procedure that I'm not usually all that conscious of, until somebody tells me that I'm walking in a funny way. Then, suddenly, I become aware of my procedure of walking, in spite of the fact that I've been applying a procedure the entire time.