Does one need music theory to write music like ___________?

[YellowJacket]

I happened upon Misha Mansoor in these Guitar Center high gain amp demos (All the heads had such terrible tones dialed in) and I thought his riffs sounded cool so I looked up his band. Definitely creative but I got sick of hearing drop A open string power chords in every song. The whole album was in A which really began to grate on me by the end. While it is an album problem, I don't think there is any issue with the individual tunes. It was a good listen overall and I think Periphery is an up and coming band. I was impressed enough to add them to my facebook which brings us to this:

I saw this conversation show up on my facebukke so I decided to interject:

The exchange that sparked the whole debate was this:
http://www.formspring.me/iambulb/q/320416655257648709?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=shareanswer


"I remember taking one of my harmony courses in university. I asked the Theory Prof how I was able to write piano music 'in the style of' the 18th century Music without taking theory classes. He told me I had played so much Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, etc., that I already was able to understand and speak their language, if not as fluently.

Theory is not a recipe for making music nor is it a prescription for creativity. Music theory is the GRAMMAR of music; it serves much the same purpose to understand music as grammar does to explain the relationship between words used during discourse. Your 'ear' can tell you what sounds cool and what sounds lame, but music theory can be used as a tool to explain 'what' it is that sounds cool which allows a musician to understand and recreate that 'cool' thing in many settings. I think it is sad that many guitarists erroneously believe the music theory is an arcane incantation which miraculously endues one with creativity.
It is silly (and an academic exercise) to try and use music theory to deconstruct and then try to reverse engineer someone else's art. It is much better to find one's own artistic path. Listen to lots of music and write what comes out when creating music.

On the flip side, it is silly to dismiss the liberating benefits of music theory in an act of immature pride. I'm the biggest proponent of writing that which sounds good but at the same time, I count my formal training as a huge boon. For a composer, music theory is not a recipe or a magical formula. Rather, can function as a mirror which one can use during the creative process. The different perspective gained by this goes a long way to helping write interesting music but one has to have creative ability in this area. Intellectual knowledge cannot replace this.
Understanding Music Theory can also provide a bigger palette of musical colours. Most rock bands only use Yellow, Red, and Blue when writing tunes. Metal guys typically use a few more interesting shades but learning theory can help one know how to mix paints even better. Basically, if one harnesses knowledge to create music, it has the potential to create much more interesting music when in the right hands. At any rate, I think many people would be surprised to discover that many of the 'rules' or 'tendencies' in music are things they already know. Theory puts a label on many of those things, at least at first. Only later, with harmony and counterpoint, are there new worlds to explore. In my opinion, counterpoint is much more useful for working with symphonic instruments than it is for rock.

Ultimately, use your ear and write what sounds good. I'd just add to pull out the theory when you get stuck!"


We'll see what happens when people read this.

When I mention music theory I often hear two viewpoints from most guitarists, both of which I think are wrong. 1) They think it's stupid and write it off. "HAHAHA, I don't need that junk! Look what I can do without it." 2) They think it will instantly make them a better musician. I saw work from several of my colleagues who wanted to compose. The sketches they showed me looked like theory exercises. Basically, either chorales or basic keyboard music with figured bass accompaniment.
Neither viewpoint is true. Music theory is a tool. It can be used as an analytic tool and as a creative tool. BUT, the creativity ultimately comes from the creator, in this case the artist.

For those of you who don't know, I'm studying music composition in university. Playing guitar (and all the other instruments I play) is really a hobby except that I get paid to teach. In my experience writing 'concert music' -which is the modern day equivalent of classical music- requires an advanced understanding of musical rhetoric. Rock music does not. This isn't to say one is better than the other but they are what they are and I love both! I also like doing both but I haven't written a rock tune in years =-(

 

[lesterpaul]

I played for yrs without really understanding what I was doing fully....after learning the intervals,modes,why chords are called those weird names,etc....i started making progress....that took me to playing over the changes/hitting chord tones....yes!...then the captivating world of voice leading-wow
-where it really helped me was the ol' I IV V -spicin' up the blues-the greats always seem to play sweet notes , and only repeat what needs repeating-I wanted to know WHAT those notes(intervals) were....when I figured out the chord dictated the scales,I knew where to go
...once you hit your "Steely Dan" phase of life, this stuff helps!!
Steve Morse said the same thing yrs ago-you will eventually find what you are looking for, but a little knowledge of harmony gets you there quicker!
..my 2 cents(which,today, are worth a nickel!!)

 

[RR]

I agree pretty much what you said.

It will definitely not hurt you to learn music theory. I was self taught. Learned by ear but knew just about every chords and what chords go good together. And started developing scales to chord progressions.

While attending junior college and before attending a University, I decided to get my AA degree. One of my missing course was let say in Group D. And Group D included a course in Music Theory. So I took that course. It sure help me understand the things that I taught myself.

Anyway, bottom line, between band members, there should be some communication. One time audition a guitarist for our band, I wrote out some chords, the guitarist looked at me and said: "I learned by ear. Just play the chord set and I'll catch on."

So I showed him the chord fingering and he has to look at every finger and which string its touching and which fret.

I reply: "But there will be times where you do an alternate chord position and not the same position."
He looked at my puzzled. Then he said to me: "Well I know this:"

Plays the pull-offs, hammer on of "Eruption". Then he plays Randy Rhodes "Crazy Train", Van Halen's "Ain't Talking About Love" ... :roll:

 

[Jackie]

I am really mad at myself because I went to music school and played piano for 6 years, and I didn't pay attention to it or give a crap about what was taught there. I played ok and my grades As and Bs but I never listened to chords and intervals, I just wanted to get it over with. I only played once a day to go through the songs but I never played them, practiced them, listened to them, APPLIED theory to practice. I didn't go "wow that major 6th before that A really sounds cool", which is something I do a lot now.

Now, when I have been playing guitar for 4 years, I can easily tell intervals apart and spot (more or less simple) chords etc., because I listen to the songs I like and learn them, then see what makes them special - I use theory to find what makes me raise my eyebrow and hopefully find some way to incorporate that element in my band's own metal originals.

One thing that makes guitarists shun music theory is learning patterns. It's cool to know the patterns for various scales and modes because you can literally play any scale/mode starting on any note you wish, but I think it's more useful in the long run to know which notes (or intervals) make the pattern up so you can modify the pattern when the chord progression changes, use different modes mid-playing etc.

I think this statement is the most accurate:

Music theory is a tool.

I never write by thinking about theory, I write by ear, but if I'm in a pickle as to which chord/note to select, there's music theory to help me out!

Some intervals/chords/progressions sound happy, some sound sad, some evil, some mysterious, others epic,... I think music theory is indeed a tool helps you recognize the notes behind those feelings, allowing you to navigate them and write music that is not one-dimensional.

 

[YellowJacket]

Wow, some great discussion here!

I think that Music theory is a misused and misunderstood concept, especially in the guitar world. When used to practice, patterns (scales and arpeggios) are not theory so much as they are a technique exercise. They are basically a distillation of the building blocks of music which can be used to train the musician to know what notes to play while writing music. Learning the notes on the fretboard is another part of this practice process.

Common Practice Theory:

When actually learn theory one first learns rudiments. This is the stage when people get frustrated. It is learning the basics of note and rhythm notation. Time signatures are talked about as well as staffs, clefs, accidentals, noteheads, etc. Then intervals are dealt with, size and quality, as well as the quality and relationship of triads as they relate to scales. (there are plenty more harmonies and scales, but common practice theory focuses on the music of 300 years ago)

Then there is harmony. This is when theory gets interesting and very useful. It explains different ways that chords can relate to one another. The pattern recognition can really help and artist examine the art much more critically. It is also useful to look at melodic construction, different types of phrasing, rhythmic profiles, etc. It also does a lot to teach where the sweet notes are in a melody and how to create melodies with shape and interest. Rudiments teaches one how to spell but harmony teaches one how to write. This is where the grammar begins and this is what I feel most musicians need if they wish to be professionals.

Counterpoint. This is the relationship between multiple melodies at once. It is a note against note approach to writing which is mostly appropriate to choral and symphonic writing. That being said, voice leading is a really critical skill for smooth transitions between chords. For voice leading, think of moving between chords with the least amount of motion possible. Voices move by 'step' instead of 'by leap'.

Atonal Theory: Don't want to discuss this much but it is important to state that the 'classical music' of the last 100 years is vastly different from what came before. This approach to music focuses specifically on all twelve pitches of the chromatic scale. Intervals are all described by their chromatic distance apart and every possible chord is sorted and named via entities called 'abstract pitch class sets'. Definitely useful but difficult to wrap one's head around at first.

Jazz Theory: I'm not terribly familiar with this practice but as I understand it, a majority of it is a renaming of theoretical concepts taken from prominent early 20th century composer such as Debussy, Ravel, etc. For example, the scale that Bela Bartok called the 'acoustic scale' is called the 'lydian dominant' scale by jazzers. Jazz theory specifically deals with the 'application' of these musical constructs within the rhetoric. i.e. Scales and chords are sorted based on what function they serve in a musical context. The chords are labeled based on what 'extension' of a triad they are and how the pitches are altered if they are altered, provided triadic harmonies are being discussed. Some jazz uses quartal or even other sonorities.

This is a very incomplete look at some different types of theory. I hope this is somewhat helpful to people.

 

[elvis]

It always makes me laugh when I hear people say that studying theory takes away from creativity. Kind of like how knowing the rules of the road makes NASCAR drivers lose races...

Places theory has made my life better:

Sitting in with a band on songs I don't know or know well: It helps to know what to expect, how to stay in key, how to add via harmony, rather than doubling.

Writing: When I get stuck, theory gives some great guidance for what would probably make sense, and also helps me find out how to get "outside" if that's where I want to go.

Improvising: Great for landing on your feet when you lose your place or get out of your comfort zone.

Improvising mindlessly: I can sound great, always in key, and save my brain cells for vocals, hitting on the girls in the front row, a phone call, or for killing with alcohol.

I think that a lot of the bad rap that theory has taken is because a lot of music teachers are horrible at teaching, and worse at teaching theory. And so BORING. No use of practical application, etc. Why would anyone want to memorize the cycle of fifths without some concrete way of using it? A good teacher doesn't just present material, they actively advocate its use with many examples and exercises. It would help if they had EVER composed something that wasn't just an exercise that they had done when they were learning theory.

In college I took a theory class from a professional symphony violinist. She would assign exercises, and I usually got poor grades on them (composition, harmonization, etc). That's fine. What would have been really cool is if she could have even ONCE explained WHY my work was poor, and what I might do to improve it.

I guess after writing this, I believe theory is useless without application. They have to be intimately connected, or the theory is without purpose. I would rather learn less, but actually be able to use it, then to learn lots, and have no clue.

 

[JCDenton6]

Great explanation and responses all around guys!
I wish I would've delved into music theory way sooner but it's never too late I suppose.

I'm jamming with 2 guitarists now (I'm on drums which is my main instrument) who are very accomplished in the classical style and have studied in music theory and all around stellar players.
I should really bunker down with them and further my guitar skills.

 

[YellowJacket]

Music theory is a lot of fun to study but I find what dissuades most people I talk to is having to go through rudiments first. It is very similar to learning how to read and spell and it can feel quite patronizing. Once you get past that, things become much more interesting and you can choose your specialty. In my opinion, Jazz theory would be very profitable for guitarists to learn. I'm going to have to study it at some point.
For now, I am fairly rooted in common practice harmony, counterpoint, and atonal theory.

 

[swbo101]

I started playing guitar when I was 8 years old. I’m in my mid 40’s now. After about a year and a half of struggling, I went for lessons. Didn’t understand much or more likely didn’t pay enough attention. I just wanted to play Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin. Quit lessons and self-taught for a few years. I got far, but some things were still a mystery for me. By my mid-teens I took 2 years to learn classical and jazz theory on my own. Again I got pretty far but, still some things were a mystery for me. Then I went back to lessons, had a great teacher (btw looked exactly like Zappa) who took those Jazz and Classical theory books I had and fully explained them to me. He also showed me how to apply this to rock and blues as well.
It’s been almost 30 years since those last lessons, but immediately after that my playing completely opened up. At this point, I can no longer tell you what mode or scale names (besides the basics) are, but they have become ingrained and part of my playing, second nature. However, I look back at that time as a turning point in my playing. It was fun learning, but I think it was because I was ready and willing to learn.
Everyone is different and will respond to learning in their own way. You just need to find that. Still it won’t hurt you, and most likely help in one way or another.

 

[MesallicA]

I am currently teaching myself Counterpoint and Fugue compositional styles with the help of Johann Joesph Fux's great books ofcourse.

For this style of music theory is essential. I would say it may almost be impossible to compose a fugue without any theory.

 

[dearlpitts]

playing for more than 30 yrs and learned some in my early days but have really learned alot more the last 3or 4-and yes it helps-but the most important thing still is just to play with feeling-soul?

 

[YellowJacket]

I am currently teaching myself Counterpoint and Fugue compositional styles with the help of Johann Joesph Fux's great books ofcourse.

For this style of music theory is essential. I would say it may almost be impossible to compose a fugue without any theory.

You are right. In this case, when imitating an old style you need the correct 'recipe' to recreate what was natural for those composers. The theory explains how they chose to organize their music. For my 16th cent. counterpoint course, we used the Jeppesen text. (Specifically studying Palestrina's music)

It is also important to note that counterpoint is as much a compositional skill (Like playing fast) as it is an exploration of musical grammar. It is especially useful when working for large instrumental forces (such as a choir or an orchestra) and less useful when doing something like playing in a rock band. Counterpoint is merely an approach to structuring multiple linear musical entities and it can be utilized however a composer wants.

 

[THTH]

Music theory never hurt anyone's playing that I've come across. It's also great to be able to communicate with other musicians using the correct terminology. The best musicians I've ever known were gifted and had great ears. They made everything look easy even if they didn't fully understand what they were doing. That is the real difference between good and great musicians/artists IMO. God given talent and great ears.