Avoiding indoctrination by music theory

Got my first synthesizer and wanting to learn to play basic chunes by ear. Apparently this involves lots of practice and learning scales and intervals and other things. So I want to learn those I guess

But I don't want to become indoctrinated by traditional western musical theory and have my future potential music making abilities tainted or boxed in by it

Is this a real concern, oh god what do I do. I love smashing the keys until I find something cool and just going along with it but this is not practical for learning already existing songs

Learn music theory stuffs or go without?

I also have this issue where when I'm trying to convert a tune from memory onto the keys, I find one that seems like it works but it's just "off" a tiny bit somehow. It's close but just not there. Then when I look up a tutorial or the actual notes for the song, the ones the person do are completely different from what I did and sound almost the same, like way off, but far enough apart where it's like wtf, that is perfect and mine was shit. But mine was fine before I heard that other one

I wouldn't be afraid of theory. Learning the basics can really open up doors, musically. And you can always digress and detune your synth so you don't know what notes your playing, and play outside of a scale just like someone who doesn't know theory

Learning other tunes by ear is a great way to become a better player and musician. It doesn't require knowledge of any scales or theory, it simply trains your ears, which can never be bad.

Edit: That being said, a lot of electronic musicians would improve their music greatly by learning some new tonalities and by using some larger intervals. I hear a lot of melodic stuff that is just hopeless diatonic noodling up and down the major or minor scale.

Awesome thanks. I fully admit I know next to nothing about this, I only played a flute back in elementary school (lol)

Comment I have in mind by rdj about how jungle or dnb producers or whoever made cool shit until they started learning what they were doing - so it begs the question: can learning what you are doing hold you back and should it be avoided. But I guess not

  On 9/2/2015 at 7:02 AM, Danny O Flannagin said:

I wouldn't be afraid of theory. Learning the basics can really open up doors, musically. And you can always digress and detune your synth so you don't know what notes your playing, and play outside of a scale just like someone who doesn't know theory

yeah. I mean, it is like saying I have 2 hands but I prefer using only one for crucial stuff but i can use the other for other noncrucial stuff (right now I don't have hands tho)

Music theory will only teach you some "helpful" stuff, so don't be afraid.

It's simple. Use theory for ideas, don't write from theory. if it sounds like crap to your ears, it's probably crap, EVEN if it is spelling words on paper.

put tunes you like into the ableton midi extractor and see how they structure their chords. theory is fun, extensive, useful, and boring all at once.

  On 9/2/2015 at 7:10 AM, Zeffolia said:

Awesome thanks. I fully admit I know next to nothing about this, I only played a flute back in elementary school (lol)

 

Comment I have in mind by rdj about how jungle or dnb producers or whoever made cool shit until they started learning what they were doing - so it begs the question: can learning what you are doing hold you back and should it be avoided. But I guess not

Good question. I think there's no real answer other than that it depends. What drives you in making music. If your head is full of music that needs to get made, why bother studying theory? And if you're searching for ways to improve your musical language, to be better at expressing yourself musically, you can do that by studying music. There is no clear cut answer here. Just be crystal clear toward yourself on the why part. If you got a why, you can go ahead and try.

It can only help you. I noticed a clear improvement on how much time I have to spend fucking about to get something done.

hahah! indoctrination from theory. Ridiculous. You should be grateful to let some music theory lift you up from your tonal primitivity. Once you a get a sense for what is really going on with diatonicism, you can break every rule. But if you know no rules, you break none. You are just retard with sticks in mud drawing pictures of castles.

plus: most of what you intrinsically 'understand works' is theory. really it's just gradually figuring out the formal approaches to what your 'ear' already knows.

lol that's like saying you don't want to learn what traffic signals and street signs mean so they don't potentially hinder your driving ability

eat a pussy for inspiration.

  On 9/2/2015 at 9:51 AM, usagi said:

eat a pussy for inspiration.

get a bike

no, but theory actually allows to do you more unusual-sounding stuff, just don't get too wanky and prog rock-like.

even stuff that's totally canonical in terms of harmony such as steve reich's music for 18 musicians can sound interesting and idm

  On 9/2/2015 at 9:01 AM, Salvatorin said:

hahah! indoctrination from theory. Ridiculous. You should be grateful to let some music theory lift you up from your tonal primitivity. Once you a get a sense for what is really going on with diatonicism, you can break every rule. But if you know no rules, you break none. You are just retard with sticks in mud drawing pictures of castles.

 

plus: most of what you intrinsically 'understand works' is theory. really it's just gradually figuring out the formal approaches to what your 'ear' already knows.

this!

I don't even think I scratch the surface of music theory; I know enough to get by but when I listen to some fucked up jazz fusion stuff I just realise how little I actually know. Some of that stuff can get super idm, yet it's still able to be analysed in terms of the chord structures/scales/modes used.

  On 9/2/2015 at 10:02 AM, poblequadrat said:

just don't get too wanky and prog rock-like.

nah, idm needs more prog influences :D

Just remember that theory evolved out of practice, not the other way around. Theory is a system for explaining what was already being done and can be a useful shortcut, but it's not some kind of natural law; most human cultures for most of history have had completely different systems. Most of the stuff that a particuar culture's theory describes is specific to that culture. If you didn't grow up (or at least spend a lot of time immersed in the traditional music of) in northern India I doubt you would notice if a specific raga was played at the wrong time of day, for example. European music theory is no different. It's useful but it's not definitive or universal.

Some basic acoustics theory (overtone series and stuff like that), n the other hand, can go a long way toward explaining the things that people tend to just physically respond to across different cultures and periods of history, and is really good to learn a bit about, but even then it's just another tool you can use or not.

All of this stuff can be helpful for getting you to break out of your usual approach and try different things, though, and they're a cheaper way to do it than getting a new piece of gear. Just don't take them too seriously (or if you do, take them SO seriously that it becomes your thing).

  On 9/2/2015 at 8:29 AM, Braintree said:

It can only help you.

Counterpoint: pretty much every formally schooled blues guitarist that ever lived. Context is everything.

Music Theory is (or at least should be) descriptive, not prescriptive.

It should act merely as a tool to serve your goals, not a tool that determines your goals.

Virtually all criticism of Music Theory stem from the assumption that it's a dogma, a set of rules to be followed.

But I think its real value is in understanding the music that has come before.

  On 9/2/2015 at 3:43 PM, RSP said:

 

  On 9/2/2015 at 8:29 AM, Braintree said:

It can only help you.

 

Counterpoint: pretty much every formally schooled blues guitarist that ever lived. Context is everything.

 

pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

  On 9/2/2015 at 4:16 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Music Theory is (or at least should be) descriptive, not prescriptive.

It should act merely as a tool to serve your goals, not a tool that determines your goals.

 

 

 

Virtually all criticism of Music Theory stem from the assumption that it's a dogma, a set of rules to be followed.

But I think its real value is in understanding the music that has come before.

YES, thank you for saying this way more concisely than I did.

The problem that happens a lot is when APPLICATION of music theory stems from the assumption that it's a dogma, and that happens a lot (although I might be oversensitive to it because of how long I lived near Berklee in Boston - if you ever need to be convinced that plenty of people who actually make musc see theory as a set of rules to be followed I recommend spending a week around there). I also think that at a certain point some people tend to invest s much effort in to learning theory that they lose perspective, kind of like how people who expend a huge amount of effort training technique on an instrument often end up playing very conservatively (but precisely).

Having both technical skill (in composition, musicianship or whatever) AND vision is the best, but if forced to choose I'd pick the incompetent visionary every time.

  On 9/2/2015 at 4:21 PM, poblequadrat said:

 

  On 9/2/2015 at 3:43 PM, RSP said:

 

  On 9/2/2015 at 8:29 AM, Braintree said:

It can only help you.

 

 

Counterpoint: pretty much every formally schooled blues guitarist that ever lived. Context is everything.

 

 

pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

 

I would posit that such "formally schooled blues guitarists" are not suffering on account of too much information, or too much understanding. Rather, I think the disease that plagues "overeducated" musicians is a loss of perspective.

This loss of perspective, it seems to me, is a matter of a preoccupation with the micro (e.g. notes, scales, etc) at the cost of the macro (e.g. vibe, emotion). This is partly a problem with the schooling itself: the emphasis is heavy on the nuts and bolts, but thin on "what does this music do?"

But also, players themselves have a responsibility to not lose the plot. A common phenomenon is that someone will listen to (say) John Coltrane, they will be deeply moved by his music, they will study his lines, and they will come out the other end playing Coltrane licks instead of trying to conjur the emotional power of his music that drew them in to begin with.

The rhubato intro to Coltrane's "Spiritual" is literally just minor pentatics over a minor chord. If you simply analyze the notes, you won't really learn anything. It is very much the "holism vs reductionism" thing where you eat some chocolate, find that it tastes amazing, and so you analyze its chemical makeup thinking you will learn something useful. As with over-schooled blues musicians, you are analyzing it on the wrong level. You will now probably go out into the world, play minor pentatonics over a minor chord, and think that you are evoking the same magic that Coltrane did.

  On 9/2/2015 at 4:29 PM, RSP said:

 

  On 9/2/2015 at 4:16 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Music Theory is (or at least should be) descriptive, not prescriptive.

It should act merely as a tool to serve your goals, not a tool that determines your goals.

 

 

 

Virtually all criticism of Music Theory stem from the assumption that it's a dogma, a set of rules to be followed.

But I think its real value is in understanding the music that has come before.

YES, thank you for saying this way more concisely than I did.

 

 

The problem that happens a lot is when APPLICATION of music theory stems from the assumption that it's a dogma, and that happens a lot (although I might be oversensitive to it because of how long I lived near Berklee in Boston - if you ever need to be convinced that plenty of people who actually make musc see theory as a set of rules to be followed I recommend spending a week around there). I also think that at a certain point some people tend to invest s much effort in to learning theory that they lose perspective, kind of like how people who expend a huge amount of effort training technique on an instrument often end up playing very conservatively (but precisely).

 

Having both technical skill (in composition, musicianship or whatever) AND vision is the best, but if forced to choose I'd pick the incompetent visionary every time.

I studied composition and production at Berklee. I'd never go back and give up that experience. That said, yes it is very possible to get stuck in following rules... Why wouldn't you... You spend years learning those rules and there is a compulsion to apply what you dedicate your time to.

I didn't feel like my music got good though, until a few years after I graduated and I started not thinking about it... The music was second nature and I let my ears guide me. Theory was always there if I needed to go back and understand what I just played in a context that I could then structure and develop. Or if I was out of ideas, I had a palate of structures to start from.

The majority of popular music that was ever written, involved little to no "formal" training. I never wanted to be an academic musician, but I have an equally strong technically minded counterpoint to my creative side that wants to understand how things work.

It took me awhile to realize that part of the joy of music is not understanding... But feeling. I've heard great pieces of music and analyzed them expecting some technical epiphany. What I find is that it is often simple and/or inexplicable. How can this sound so good, be so moving, and be so simple (or have no obvious reason for its greatness)? That's not answerable... It's because the artist tapped into an idea and emotion... And that takes looking inside yourself. There is no rule or formula for that. It's being part of a musical and cultural dialog that you converse within. That's what music is... Conversation. An inarticulate person can still have a deep intuition or idea, and stumble when they try to put it into words, but that is not to say they did not have that idea. For example, you can express a sense of anger with "there is a seething rage within my soul"... Or you can scream "fuck!" Both kind of get the idea across... But both have their place and appropriateness. Sometimes screaming fuck gets the point across better. Sometimes articulating it with more descriptive words is best.

That's the point... There is no right way... Only your way... And if you're honest in what you say, it doesn't matter how you say it.

Just be truthful.

you need an aesthetic vision but that doesn't discredit the usefulness of theory/technique nor does it give credit to the obscurantism of the blessed individual with a colourful or "earthy" background. i mean, the blues example is mega fucking pretentious

BUT i agree 100% that an aesthetic vision is always much more important than technical knowledge and comes before it. le corbusier, a/p smithson, van eyck, miralles are light years ahead of the eco-architects of today who brag about how efficient they are but make absolutely stupid buildings and still have the chutzpah to criticise modernist architecture while taking pride in not wanting to demolish old buildings/propose new forms of urban design, as if not wanting change was a measure of good sense

work hard and have something to say or better yet a Cause, basically

  On 9/2/2015 at 12:39 PM, modey said:

 

  On 9/2/2015 at 9:01 AM, Salvatorin said:

hahah! indoctrination from theory. Ridiculous. You should be grateful to let some music theory lift you up from your tonal primitivity. Once you a get a sense for what is really going on with diatonicism, you can break every rule. But if you know no rules, you break none. You are just retard with sticks in mud drawing pictures of castles.

 

plus: most of what you intrinsically 'understand works' is theory. really it's just gradually figuring out the formal approaches to what your 'ear' already knows.

this!

 

I don't even think I scratch the surface of music theory; I know enough to get by but when I listen to some fucked up jazz fusion stuff I just realise how little I actually know. Some of that stuff can get super idm, yet it's still able to be analysed in terms of the chord structures/scales/modes used.

  On 9/2/2015 at 10:02 AM, poblequadrat said:

just don't get too wanky and prog rock-like.

nah, idm needs more prog influences :D

 

chapman_stick.syx :>

  On 9/2/2015 at 6:04 PM, poblequadrat said:

you need an aesthetic vision but that doesn't discredit the usefulness of theory/technique nor does it give credit to the obscurantism of the blessed individual with a colourful or "earthy" background. i mean, the blues example is mega fucking pretentious

 

BUT i agree 100% that an aesthetic vision is always much more important than technical knowledge and comes before it. le corbusier, a/p smithson, van eyck, miralles are light years ahead of the eco-architects of today who brag about how efficient they are but make absolutely stupid buildings and still have the chutzpah to criticise modernist architecture while taking pride in not wanting to demolish old buildings/propose new forms of urban design, as if not wanting change was a measure of good sense

 

work hard and have something to say or better yet a Cause, basically

"the blues example is mega fucking pretentious"

says the dude who then proceeds to name-check a bunch of obscure architects

Learning music theory was one of the most insightful, practical and inspirational things I have learned in regards to production. The rumour that stilted and rigid thinking results from learning music theory from it is a myth unless you are a huge uncreative autistic. I can see people who go deep into it overrelying on it but thats more for people who dedicate their lives to it. Its a tool that complements my other skills and techniques. A lot of the theory was stuff that I already learned intuitively from years of experience, but having it shown to me in a different perspective and answering questions that I had asked myself when I was younger about music.

Nothing can replace raw creativity from making weird melodies but the theory has a lot of useful applications and can assist you rather than dictate to you what to write. For instance: when you are wanting to perform with other people and improvise on the spot easier, learning how to find new scales and modes with some simple math, and having a deeper understanding of why some notes sound good together and some don't. Like others said, avoiding it in fear of learning something "bad" is not only needlessly crippling yourself and skill level, but also can have the opposite affect and cripple your creativity in the long run too.