I know many people who will say "No, of course not. Theory can only be used for good" but I've talked to other people who state otherwise. Could it be that if we study theory hard, we leave less space for creativity?

1. You read music theory. You're learning about composition technique such as counterpoint and modulation. You notice how your compositions become progressively better the more you learn music theory, and you're starting to create more advanced pieces that you didn't know you could do. However, studying other masterpieces, you notice how far beyond great they are, and you start to think that your music is nothing compared to them.

2. You don't read music theory. You're totally self-taught, and you don't really care reading about composition technique. You don't use any rules or borders, and you leave 100% up to your creativity. You will eventually achieve the same knowledge (to a certaint point) as the one who reads theory, but in a much slower pace. Your first compositions are ridiculously bad, and you get alot of bad critique by fellow composers. You, on the other hand, don't think your own pieces are bad. In fact, you think they are pretty good, and you see a lot of potential in your work.

Is it common sense to accept that you will never be as good as you wished you'd be (1), and that it's ignorant to believe you're going to be something one day (2).

Or is it the other way around? - It's unnecessary and condecending to think you're bad compared to your idols, and that it's vital to believe in yourself, and think you actually ARE better than your idols, but just haven't gotten there yet.

Meh, I guess you all are like this right now: :huh: but does this all make sense?

I think it may be. I don't know a thing beyond the basics, and my compositions are as original as ever. It scares me to think of what would happen if I learned.

I think theory might be somewhat of a creative block if you try to take in too much all at once, but after a while, things just fit together so well like a jigsaw puzzle that I can't imagine how musical history would have been if those revered as "The Masters" were to turn their cheek when they heard the word theory.

I think that much of musical theory may be regarded as trivial or obsolete or just downright moot, but I think that a dying attitude about it is that through gives you a solid, almost mathematical framework to craft while true greatness can be achieved through following and observing "the rules" and looking for loopholes in which you can <insert creativity here>, so to speak. After all, does anyone here truly believe that Johann Sebastian Bach held so dearly to the dying rules of counterpoint and (in turn) fugue out of ignorance -- and that he would have been more prolific or profound without them? He was deemed old-fashioned and too orthodox in his composition by his contemporaries, but 255 years later, we finally recognize his vast contribution to musical history and (at least in my opinion) genius.

@ Gnomish- Bach didnt really follow "the rules" that much- have you studied any of his chorales in music theory? some of them do exactly what theory examiners would mark you down for doing.

For the discussion in general, I think its true that those who dont do theory are less critical of their own compositions, simply because they have no firm idea of what not to do. But yeah, it does block creativity and stop you learning certain pieces, eg my friend is a genius at music theory yet cant play anything by composers such as debussy because it sounds "wrong" to him- and he always gets irritated that his compositions sound too much like Mozart...

I suppose it's each to their own- i havent done anything beyond what you have to do in the UK before you can take the higher music practical exams, but im happy with most of my compositions, and although i welcome all criticism, as long as i like my compositions, thats all that matters to me.

For the discussion in general, I think its true that those who dont do theory are less critical of their own compositions, simply because they have no firm idea of what not to do.

I agree. Most great composers start their career like all of us, we want to create music. We have that burning desire. Practise leads to music theory, music theory leads to disappointment, disappointment leads to bad compositions, bad compositions lead to the dark side. :vader:

anyways, I agree on the stuff you said there ~

I wonder where taste comes in.

I can explain why Mozart is a great composer using music theory; yet I find most of his pieces annoying. Those at I don't find annoying, I find boring. I doubt there's enough theory in the world to change that. I can learn to appreciate the genius... from afar.

What music theory did for me in the past was:

- Help me understand certain concepts. For example, I'm not a natural at rhythm. I never saw a difference between 2/4 and 4/4, or 3/4 and 6/8. Took me a long time to grasp the concept of beat, and I doubt I could have done so without reading up on theory (there are precious few musicians around me; and I'm not serious enough to actually pay for lessons).

- Help me see patterns in my composing and therefore give me ideas what to vary. For example, I've noticed that I'm a fan of "receding bass-lines", and by paying more attention to the bass-line, I could improve the variety in my compositions.

However, knowing more music theory has had no impact at all on my attitude towards my own music (most of it I consider "fluff").

And I think the concepts of music theory shouldn't be used to create rules; they should be used to create tool-sets (trial and error is a nice method, I'd like to think).

Everybody knows what they like to listen to, after all.

And I think the concepts of music theory shouldn't be used to create rules; they should be used to create tool-sets (trial and error is a nice method, I'd like to think).

I think this is the perfect explanation! We all need balance in our composition. Just as I have said earlier, ALWAYS be creative and be true to your OWN style. Never try to just copy someone's work in a composition. (If it is an "arrangment," I do not consider this a true composition) Though music theory may be important, it is NOT the core of composition!

I only know very basic things, I'm self-taught, and it's true, I love my songs. But I don't see anything wrong with thinking this way.

Confidence can get you a long way, and I do think theory kinda blocks out your creativity...

Music Theory can be good, but only if used in moderation... There are particular things that you should keep in mind; just as a courtesy to others (Musical form, Keysigns (Have you ever tried to play a piece with 4 sharps and 2 double sharps?.. It's no fun), Rules of Instrumentation), but to follow it to the book to the bullet is an absoulte no.

Music is a living entity that can be understood by many. Slowly music is moving from a coservative point-of-view to a more flexible point-of-view; noting the recent acceptance of disonant tones, semi-tones, and entire new music systems (eastern and a modified western system that I cannot remember the name).

Personal story time!!!!

I tried to compose a piece of music following absoultly no rules and got crap. I approched my teacher and asked what I should do to make it sound a little better. Quickly he explained to me that I had left out the moving note of chords (3rd or 9th) and that created a void in sound. Simply by going through and adding a 3rd every so often, gave the piece another dimention of feeling.

I then started to study Music Theory and wished to learn how to do things properly. What convinced me to do this was the powerful affect the 3rd did in my first piece; if I did things properly in the entire piece, how would the piece sound then? After one year of study, I learned basic chord progression, Modes, Modulants (sp?), rules and limits of instuments, and the basics of the Western Tonal System. I sat down and tried to compose another piece. And, low and behold... it sounded like crap again. The only diffrence it made was that the literature written on the page was politically correct, and boaring(sp?).

Then an idea poped into my head when siting in jazz band rehearsal. The teacher explained to us that so long as you follow the chord progression, you can play any note you want: the basics of improvision, but to always follow a basic pattern was a no. You need to add some notes that sound wrong in order to give the notes you play right a powerful affect. I began to explore further into music and its rules. Eventually I discovered you didn't always have to include the first, thrid, fifth, or eigth to formulate a chord. You can even build up chords like a 2-#3-6 and create a psudo sustained chord. It may not sound that very good, but it is indeed a sustan chord.

I believe that by slightly bending Theory rules, you can make a piece that sounds out from the rest, and satasfactory to others; though they do not agree with all the factors.

The wise man says:


Is it creativity block to learn the alphabet?

I think my attitude towards music theory has been a bit childish (check my signature). I'll definitely consider learning it.

Well, that's the thing . . knowing the alphabet (and grammar) gives you the foundation to write. Then you can combine the letters in billions of ways to come up with whatever you want. But if you didn't know the alphabet, then you wouldn't be able to organize your thoughts. Same with composing and knowing music theory . . so no, knowing music theory isn't a creativity block, at least, that's how I see it :heh:

*belongs to the second category* I don't think it's necessary to know a lot of music theory to write good songs. As for me, I only know the very basics, like chord names and cadences... the thing is, I don't use them :P I compose how I think it sounds best and what fits the mood of the song (or story), not because I read somewhere that %$/&%$ in combination with %$&%& sounds good.

I think this is the perfect explanation! We all need balance in our composition. Just as I have said earlier, ALWAYS be creative and be true to your OWN style. Never try to just copy someone's work in a composition. (If it is an "arrangment," I do not consider this a true composition) Though music theory may be important, it is NOT the core of composition!
Have to disagree on this one. Do you mean with copying someone, making an arrangement or trying to mimic someone's style? Well, either way you need your OWN creativity to do so. I listen to my favorite songs and artists (Yuki Kajiura ftw!) everyday, because I WANT to be influenced by their great works. Everyone is influenced by other artist's music, I'm sure Yuki Kajiura also was influenced by other composers and tried to create songs like her idols would and what's wrong with it? Music is to please the ear and you like the music of your favorite band/group/artist best, so why not trying to get some of their good aspects into your own style to create your own interpretation of good music...
Messy essay about my point of view, hope someone understood this :)

beethoven was always one to break the rules when he composed, but his music wasconsidered so harsh that it would eat instruments souls.

I think I fit into category 2. In school I am THE Theory Queen, but when it comes to making comositions, I just let my creative juices write for me, then make the adjustments wherever possible.

Has anyone read "The Elements of Style?" It's for writing in language, but I think it's applicable here too. The "rules" are essentially just guidelines. And basic theory is founded scientifically by wavelengths and whatever. So, I think it's helpful.

I just don't compare myself to the masters. It's far too depressing. I enjoy their work and try to learn from it, but I never compare myself to them. I mean, there's no comparison.

I very loosely apply theory to carry myself from creative stroke to stroke. I think that's what it's best for. And I think my compositions sound pretty original. I definitely borrow techniques I like, but I don't think I'm mimicking people.

bottom line: we all COULD reach the same level of composition, it all depends on how fast you want to learn by someone giving it to you on a dish (theory) or learning yourself (without theory). Also, it all really depends on the individual's learning curve.

for arrangements and compositions. Find somewhere to start at least from either one and build from there. no rush.

you were inspired to inspire others.

Has anyone read "The Elements of Style?" It's for writing in language, but I think it's applicable here too. The "rules" are essentially just guidelines. And basic theory is founded scientifically by wavelengths and whatever. So, I think it's helpful.

"Elements of Style" is actually pushing a particular style. Jane Austen, for one, wouldn't fare well at all under their "rules". They want you to sound like a bold frontiersman, to maximise clarity and always say straight what you want. If your "natural" voice is compatible with them you'll find the book useful; if it isn't you'll either ignore it, or it will ruin your style. Handle the book with care.

It may sound like the above paragraph has little to do with the topic at hand; but my advise is, examine so called "rules" closely where you encounter them; there may be an underlying assumption about what you should want to do that doesn't agree with what you actually want to do.

Of course, there are some statements no-one's likely to contest. ("It's easier to write a sad song in a minor key than in a major key.")

I don't know if I agree with Archangel. I don't think an in-depth study of theory is exactly being fed from a silver platter.

EDIT:
Yeah, The Elements of Style is really good for begining writers, and the masters don't need it. The book can teach you how to simply and effectively express yourself. Like theory. Lots of the master composers totally ignore the "rules" a lot of the time. But for the beginner, it's kind of ridiculous to think that you're going to start out writing like Shakespeare, so you need somewhere to start. And after tremendous amounts of practice, you can break away from the established to reach greater levels of expression.

EDIT:
Yeah, The Elements of Style is really good for begining writers, and the masters don't need it. The book can teach you how to simply and effectively express yourself. Like theory. Lots of the master composers totally ignore the "rules" a lot of the time. But for the beginner, it's kind of ridiculous to think that you're going to start out writing like Shakespeare, so you need somewhere to start. And after tremendous amounts of practice, you can break away from the established to reach greater levels of expression.

Actually, I'd say it's a good book for the intermediate writer, who knows the basics and has a bit of an idea on what he's doing. For example, the book is horrendous on the use of the passive voice. Basically they just say, "Don't use it." (They do add a disclaimer in a section entitled "Use the active voice.") Which can be more harmful than useful. If I was teaching a "writing class", I'd look for better, more comprehensive and more objective material.

The book shouldn't have been called "Elements of style", but "The elements of the style we happen to like".

One disclaimer, though: I just remembered, I've only read the Strunk version, that's available online for free here (http://www.bartleby.com/141/). Possibly, White has added some improvements I'm not aware of. In that case, I've been arguing out of ignorance... for which I would apologize.

***

So, basically, don't believe people when they say "Don't do that!", but listen when they say "If you do that, you'll achieve that effect."

"Elements of Style" is actually good in what it says. But it's bad in what it omits.

It's pretty much the same book with White's revisions. He added a chapter or two and took some stuff out and added better examples. But it's not too entirely different.

Hmm... i don't fit either of those descriptions very well. O_O I'm completely self taught (minus the one year of high school theory which really only gave me names for concepts that I figured out on my own and led me to discover that I have absolute pitch) and I commited to music about four years ago. I am already at the high end of piano prowess and serve as my choir's substitute accompanimist, so I might just be very fortunate to have this much musical ability. >_>

As for the question of creativity, Theory has actually helped me be more comfortable with dissonance, thus allowing a much wider array of whimsy to be implemented. Even more so helpful are my major musical influences (Uematsu, Elfman, Williams, Kondo, and Webber), because they know how to escape from key in such a way that has a magical effect on me and perhaps others. ^^;;

I guess I could say I'm self-taught (at least a little) Since I've never taken a music theory I don't know the proper names for certain chords and all that other stuff... but now that I read this thread... I was wondering how much do you need to know about music in order to carry out as a career? Do people care if you have never taken a music theory class? Or does that make you more powerful?

In order to really be successful at a music career, I would assume that you would have at least a trifle bit of formal experience under your belt; However, there is always those people who look for actual talent as opposed to the lifeless idiots who go strictly by the book. >_< After all, you have to know the rules before you can bend or break them properly, at least that was what I was taught by my theory theory teacher. >_> She says that I have made the transition from amateur to musical genius. *coughs*

Hmm... i don't fit either of those descriptions very well. O_O I'm completely self taught (minus the one year of high school theory which really only gave me names for concepts that I figured out on my own and led me to discover that I have absolute pitch) and I commited to music about four years ago. I am already at the high end of piano prowess and serve as my choir's substitute accompanimist, so I might just be very fortunate to have this much musical ability. >_>

As for the question of creativity, Theory has actually helped me be more comfortable with dissonance, thus allowing a much wider array of whimsy to be implemented. Even more so helpful are my major musical influences (Uematsu, Elfman, Williams, Kondo, and Webber), because they know how to escape from key in such a way that has a magical effect on me and perhaps others. ^^;;

That is pretty much exactly my story. I took a year of theory in High School, read a whole lot about it, read a book on organs, became the organist at my church, and learned from my major influences. Mine are a little different from yours, but we overlap here and there.