Who incorporates music theory?

I think a point that a lot of people miss or simply don't understand is that the 12 tones/pitches/notes (whatever you choose to call them) that make up our chromatic scale are a man-made creation. That man specifically was a Greek philosopher and mathematician named Pythagoras. He discovered the ratio of frequencies that make up the western musical scale. However, there were some problems with the ratios between the notes and so later, in the 19th century, the equal tempered scale was created (also known as the "well tempered scale" although technically there is a difference between the two). What this means in plain english is that a series of notes played in one key, say C Major, will sound exactly the same in another key, say E Major, except that the overall pitch of the sequence will be higher or lower. But the relative distance between the notes is identical and therefore the feel/sound is exactly the same.

So, my point is that this is not a naturally occurring sequence of tones. There are hundreds if not thousands of tones within these 12 primary tones. Just play a fretless intrument, such as a cello, a violin or a fretless electric guitar/bass and you'll see how difficult it can be to only play one of these 12 tones.

How does this relate to creating music? Simply put, music theory is the instruction manual that teaches you how to use these 12 notes to create music. And since this equal tempered scale is man-made, it's not unlike a synthesizer, in that an instruction manual is required to get the most out of it in the shortest amount of time.

For example, every new synth comes with an instruction manual that tells you how to use it as well as general techniques for sound creation. Sure, you could figure most of it out on your own by just pressing buttons and listening to the results. After awhile you'll start to find certain combinations that work well for you and you'll feel like you have a good handle on the synth. But all you've really done is reinvent the wheel! Wouldn't it have been easier to just read the manual and be shown: This button selects which waveform the oscillator will use, the sine wave sounds like this because blah, blah and the square wave like this because blah, blah, etc. You get the picture.

The bottom line is that if you're a creative person, knowing music theory will definitely not hurt you and will actually help you immensely. However, if you're not innately creative, then music theory won't grant you creativity. Music theory provides you with the tools you need to create great music but it's still up to you to do the creating part. It's no different than expecting the new version of Cubase SX to take your music making to the next level. It can help make it easier but it won't provide the creativity for you, it's just a tool.

Sorry for being so long-winded but I think it's vital that people realize the importance of understanding how music works. Because music is such an amazing and beautiful thing, and the level of joy and solace it can provide for both the composer and the listener is truly astounding.

If you're interested in learning music theory, a really great course that I would highly recommend is offered online through Berklee College of Music (go to www.berkleemusic.com for details). And no I don't work for them, but I am a student. :)

Ojuzu
 
Last edited:
Thank you Ojuzu, for cutting through all the misunderstandings and misconceptions. I couldn't have said it nearly as well myself, but I agree with everything you've said. Some of these responses that say knowing theory will hinder you are frustrating to read, because I picture someone new reading them, and being influenced not to learn theory. That would be a shame, so I'm glad you've put some truth out there.
 
Ojuzu said:
I think a point that a lot of people miss or simply don't understand is that the 12 tones/pitches/notes (whatever you choose to call them) that make up our chromatic scale are a man-made creation. That man specifically was a Greek philosopher and mathematician named Pythagoras. He discovered the ratio of frequencies that make up the western musical scale. However, there were some problems with the ratios between the notes and so later, in the 19th century, the equal tempered scale was created (also known as the "well tempered scale" although technically there is a difference between the two). What this means in plain english is that a series of notes played in one key, say C Major, will sound exactly the same in another key, say E Major, except that the overall pitch of the sequence will be higher or lower. But the relative distance between the notes is identical and therefore the feel/sound is exactly the same.


Ojuzu

True
:cheers:

this thread have excellent information like your post.
I don't read music, but I discover the scales practicing, and you realize, little by little, how the pentagram, scales, and lots of theory are just intepretations of the human mind, it's a human need to steal concrete concepts from abstractions. They are incredible helpul, but they aren't the whole picture.
 
Why do those that don't know theory think that it will hinder your creativity? The most schooled musicians know when to break the rules. That's what makes your music unique. If everyone that knew theory played only what's taught, everyone's music would sound the same. Actually, part of learning theory is learning that breaking the rules is necessary.

Knowing what I know about music only helps me. When I want a particular sound I know exactly how to get it. Knowing the rules only serve as my foundation. How I apply those rules and when I break them create my sound.
 
Not having any music experience, and placing a person in front of a brand new Triton, is the equalivent of putting a White man in the middle of Africa without a Map
(exception to the rule, some people just have natural exploration skills, but they are far and few and chances are you arent one of them)

Wake up, all these people saying Music Theory is bad for your have been morphed by those before them waay to lazy to bother to study something they "love" so they can understand it and love it even more

Someone with Music Theory/Composition classes with a brand new Triton is like a White Man in the middle of Africa with a Landrover /w Navigation System, and a cell phone to call for help on incase of a problem

Knowing Music Theory doesn't limit you, You limit you, if your some snobby prick who sticks to the books, than its no fault of Music Theory,.

People are acting as if I can't wake up one morning and say ok I'm not following any rules today, I'm just going to bash buttons till I come up with something I like, and then I could then flip around and tell you why everything sounds the way it does

Regardless at the end point some people will arrive at better places than other even if they are mapless, just the Land Rover guy has alot more tools at hand, and will have a easier time
getting where he has to go

When you hit one key on your piano, you have just opened Music Theory Chapter 1- Tones, everything you do musicwise is linked to Music Theory, regardless if you know it or not
 
Iceburg, you've hit the nail on the head on a couple of fronts.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are too lazy and/or undisciplined to take the time and effort to really study music. I must admit that I was one of them for many years until I finally gave in and realized that my music would never reach it's full potential without more knowledge. And since I've gained this knowledge, the results have been even better than I could have possibly imagined.

Regarding the idea of breaking the rules, you're dead on. Sometimes I may choose to be completely "by the book" because maybe the genre or project I'm working on requires it.

For example, I wrote a very light and catchy house track the other day that's 100 percent diatonic and completely "by the book" in terms of Music Theory and compostional elements. And it sounds great because that's the way it "needed" to be written. If I had just chosen chords and notes at random without understanding their relationship it probably wouldn't have worked at all (barring lucky accidents, of course).

But there are other times when I saw, "Screw it!" and I just start creating in whatever way comes out. Usually, I end up having to clean it up a bit afterwards or sometimes it turns out that I've subconciously followed the "rules" even though my intentions were the opposite.

Experimentation is an essential part of writing music regardless of how much or little knowledge you have.

Ojuzu
 
Iceberg-Slim said:
Not having any music experience, and placing a person in front of a brand new Triton, is the equalivent of putting a White man in the middle of Africa without a Map
(exception to the rule, some people just have natural exploration skills, but they are far and few and chances are you arent one of them)


True. But a man without a map in desert dies, the Triton will develope some corrosion under your bed:D

I learned to use synths since my childhood without training, theory, and without speaking english. I didn't have tutorials, manuals, musician friends, money. I didn't read english.

And I discovered by myself each function of the unique synth I was using for about 3 years, an Ensoniq SQ'1.

The price: I spent twice the time learning. but the things U discover by yourself, you learn them better, because it was your personal commitment, your own exploration. Each time you discover something, you feel the happiest person in the world.
 
Bezo said:
Why do those that don't know theory think that it will hinder your creativity? The most schooled musicians know when to break the rules. That's what makes your music unique. If everyone that knew theory played only what's taught, everyone's music would sound the same. Actually, part of learning theory is learning that breaking the rules is necessary.

Knowing what I know about music only helps me. When I want a particular sound I know exactly how to get it. Knowing the rules only serve as my foundation. How I apply those rules and when I break them create my sound.

Now this is why my music is unique. I'm well educated but at the same time I'm gonna say that The technicalities of theory puts me in a box. Only because I'm a literal thinker. I'm gonna say again I'd rather execute what I feel without thinking or calculating anything (this is where understanding theory comes in). I've created pieces with a mathmatical matrix and won money but it was so formulated to me. I followed the rules without going outside the box.
i.e. I play the sax...and we use to have this saying after a song
"I made syrup pour out that horn"
But guess what the experssion wasn't written in the music.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that creativity dosen't come from Theory itself but the individual.
You have to add to theory; be creative with it 'cause that knowledge is limited till some one else discover something beyond those 12 tones. My own accomplishmensts are much more satisfying than dignifying the use of use of someone else's discovery.
 
Last edited:
no disrespect.. ur just boxed in because u dont have enough theory yet... its like saying Spanish makes u feel boxed in, when u only know like fifty words

response 2 original thread
 
HUH?

Sorry Charlie...Seven years was enough education. I can do a lot of things by the book... Wanna hear 'em? I can prove my knowledge. But I wanna prove my heart....I guess it's a chick thang.
It's quite hard to explain. It's kinda like Knowing Religion vs. Knowing God for your self. A Theolosian vs. Paul Peter and Simon.
 
One word: ECM.

That label puts out some ethnic stuff (ethnic to me, as an American) that uses chords like Dorian #4, and it sounds awesome. A lot of times I wondered the same thing -- how could I actually use this -- and that really opened my musical eyes.

I'd also argue that you use music theory in every song you create. It's funny to me to hear someone ask "do you use music theory in yuor songs", because I think you've got the wrong idea about theory....

Theory's in every piece of music. How? Let me rephrase: it's a way to explain music. And that's about it. It's really not much more than a labeling system. Sure, you learn that ii-V-I is the most common progression, but nowhere does it say you have to write like that. It's just the most common progression. For instance, what's the deal with sight-singing? Why use do-re-mi? Because they're labels -- it's like translating into English the language that you already understand.

To use a poor example, even Phil Collins from Genesis couldn't read music, yet he "used music theory" when creating songs - he just wouldn't be able to explain it to you.

I think it's a great attempt to quantify our ability as musicians. I also think it's cooler to worry about how you can add to theory or change it, rather than worrying about avoiding it.
 
miamisax said:
One word: ECM.



To use a poor example, even Phil Collins from Genesis couldn't read music, yet he "used music theory" when creating songs - he just wouldn't be able to explain it to you.


Phill Collins couldn't read music??????!!!!!!
And he's one of the greatest musicians ever....
;)
 
Before i read this forum I never really understood why I would get neptunes or timbaland tracks stuck in my head all the time. Till i read in another thread about how complicated chad gets with his melodies using all these complex progressions.

They sound very simple, but it would be hard to come up with that just by luck everytime. The neptunes drop consistent catchy but simple beats, some of them i don't like but for the most part they'll get my head noddin.

For example, one of my most favorite instrumentals is Supathug by Neptunes, the clav melody very catchy and really makes the beat what it is, does anyone know if it follows a certain scale?

I make beats,and i spend hours coming up with a melody by just tapping keys till i find a melody that sounds right and it gets frustrating and kills the whole process.

By the time i'm done laying down everything I'm tired of hearing the beat already and just wanna do something else(tapping keys till I get lucky again)

But i just realized that having a better understanding of music theory will help alleviate that. Because i get some get ideas for beats but i can't translate that emotion into my music, especially rnb tracks.

I'm looking more into music theory, studying chord progressions, inversions, etc.. and its been very helpful, but I still have a long way to go. But with music theory I think I can get where I want to be much quicker and probably go above and beyond my expecations.
 
For example, one of my most favorite instrumentals is Supathug by Neptunes, the clav melody very catchy and really makes the beat what it is, does anyone know if it follows a certain scale?
dont have the album, i probably should... if i could hear it once i could tell u. if i find out ill post the answer at Neptunes... a real question where we already disected this other neptunes joint.

I make beats,and i spend hours coming up with a melody by just tapping keys till i find a melody that sounds right and it gets frustrating and kills the whole process.

By the time i'm done laying down everything I'm tired of hearing the beat already and just wanna do something else(tapping keys till I get lucky again)

sounds real familiar, most of the other producers i work with started out on tables or a mic. they come with trax just as hot as mine, the process is just different. its great that ur keeping an open mind, man, nd im sure that youll get where u wanna b.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top