Avoiding indoctrination by music theory

Do what I did: bone up on theory and then promptly forget it all via laziness.

Actually though, go for it, if nothing else it's good to discipline yourself a bit and, if you write down what you learn in a notebook you can dip in and out whenever you feel the need for it.

I found this really useful and incredibly accessible: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Theory-Computer-Musicians-Michael-Hewitt/dp/1598635034

I was able to get the ebook of it for free when I was a student, I'm sure you could find a pdf somewhere with a spot of nefarious googling.

^^ That is a very good beginners book. I have a paperback copy.

I would recommend David Cope's Techniques of the Contemporary Composer (here) for anyone who has a reasonable grasp on theory fundaments. Along with Godel Escher Bach and Mick Goodrick's The Advancing Guitarist it's the most important music text I've ever read.

It's essentially a comprehensive overlook of every technique used in the history of (western) music, from Bach-era counterpart to serialism to Bartok-era polytonality to minimalism to process music to anti-music (e.g. setting a piano on fire) to biomusic, and just about everything in between.

I think one major failing among us electronic musicians is that we tend not to take ourselves serious as composers. In contrast to our current discussion about over-educated musicians, I think we electronic musicians larely suffer from willful under-education. (I suspect this has something to do with "punk rock ethos.")

If every electronic musician alive studied only dynamics, voice-leading, and non-diatonic functional harmony for a month or two, the general quality of electronic music would improve drastically.

  On 9/2/2015 at 10:30 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Mick Goodrick's The Advancing Guitarist it's the most important music text I've ever read.

Nearly at the top of my to-read pile.

  On 9/2/2015 at 10:39 PM, psn said:

 

  On 9/2/2015 at 10:30 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Mick Goodrick's The Advancing Guitarist it's the most important music text I've ever read.

 

Nearly at the top of my to-read pile.

 

 

oh man

I can't even put into words how profoundly this book affected me

opened my eyes

without exaggeration I would 'chapterize' my musical life as 'pre-The Advancing Guitarist' and 'post-The Advancing Guitarist'

enjoy it, my friend

p.s.I forgot to mention Zen Guitar by Philip Toshio Sudo

it's a book about the 'macro' stuff

very fun to read

every chapter begins with a quote from a legendary guitarist, pertaining to the subject of the chapter

  On 9/2/2015 at 11:12 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 9/2/2015 at 10:39 PM, psn said:

 

  On 9/2/2015 at 10:30 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Mick Goodrick's The Advancing Guitarist it's the most important music text I've ever read.

 

Nearly at the top of my to-read pile.

 

 

 

oh man

I can't even put into words how profoundly this book affected me

opened my eyes

without exaggeration I would 'chapterize' my musical life as 'pre-The Advancing Guitarist' and 'post-The Advancing Guitarist'

enjoy it, my friend

 

 

p.s.I forgot to mention Zen Guitar by Philip Toshio Sudo

it's a book about the 'macro' stuff

very fun to read

every chapter begins with a quote from a legendary guitarist, pertaining to the subject of the chapter

 

the advancing guitarist is about just guitars? I'm intrigued

  On 9/2/2015 at 11:15 PM, logakght said:

 

  On 9/2/2015 at 11:12 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 9/2/2015 at 10:39 PM, psn said:

 

  On 9/2/2015 at 10:30 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Mick Goodrick's The Advancing Guitarist it's the most important music text I've ever read.

 

Nearly at the top of my to-read pile.

 

 

 

oh man

I can't even put into words how profoundly this book affected me

opened my eyes

without exaggeration I would 'chapterize' my musical life as 'pre-The Advancing Guitarist' and 'post-The Advancing Guitarist'

enjoy it, my friend

 

 

p.s.I forgot to mention Zen Guitar by Philip Toshio Sudo

it's a book about the 'macro' stuff

very fun to read

every chapter begins with a quote from a legendary guitarist, pertaining to the subject of the chapter

 

 

the advancing guitarist is about just guitars? I'm intrigued

 

some of the information is guitar-specific

but mostly the book is abstract/conceptual

(shit, I just went to go grab my copy and it seems to be missing )

when I read The Advancing Guitarist the first time, I was shocked at how esoteric it was

at that point I was used to very dry texts like A Modern Method for Guitar Volume 3 or Technique of the Saxophone Vol. 2

some of the chapters toward the end of the book are just random aphorisms or suggestions

like "take your guitar to the park and play along with nature"

or how to deal with regret

or meditations on individuality, patience, anxiety

"to keep learning: aim at always being a beginner"

(which is the main subject of Zen Guitar: trying to perpetually approach music with the excitement and humility of a beginner)

"play the guitar without using your right hand"

"what are you trying to convey with this note?"

the last couple pages are literally just a list of words to think about:

e.g. dynamics, tone, energy, contrast, ornaments, touch, space, dissonance, feeling, articulation

I think this probably is my favorite music book of all time

it really does tackle the micro and the macro and everything in between

i think i'll read it again

whether you know theory or not, what you will come up with can be assessed in the context of music theory, so it would definitely be helpful to know at least the basics--knowing the "tools in your tool box"and knowing approximating how to use them.

It's definitely helpful when you have a good part for your song that you really dig, but then you may realize that it's time for a new part(s). You could then turn to theory to help generate that next part in tandem with your innate creativity.

i was watching a video on jazz theory yesterday and really i think after all this time, the concept that learning theory makes you better at 'breaking the rules' is incorrect as a lot of people once they are conditioned by rules are bound by them, and those that 'break rules' are those that would have been of the musical brain state to see past them and just make nice sounds anyway. Also a lot of the rules that i was seeing, perhaps explanation of theory and structure of musical idiom would be a better way of putting it, these things seemed like a rough way of defining something that occurs naturally withit that genre. It seemed like over complication for the sake of classification. Even stuff down to the complicated system of chord naming seemed superfluous to me and it reminded me of a quote from george benson where he said that it didn't really matter, as long as you knew the key that you were in and how to play around. So using your ear and constantly jamming is going to get you to the same place without all this mountain of 'definition' fogging your mind.

That said, there are some basic things that you need to know i guess, like i said, what basic key you are in, then what tempo is and how many beat there are in a bar. It's good to learn the basic mechanics of a style, your ears help you with this a lot. Then if your melodies are just sequential notes played with no sense of rhythm when you have an whole vast grid to place them in, that is entirely your fault and nothing to do with the fact that you didn't learn music theory, it's cause you don't music very well.. But that's cool, not everyone is withit.

Then again again, maybe some people work better by learning through rules and you'll end up overall with a better standard of electronic music. Lots of highly tuned clone people beavering away at a better level, heh. Can't be that bad of a thing.

Also, take or leave my comment as you like, everyone has different approaches to things, this realisation i had whilst watching that vid of the superfluousness of jazz music theory may not apply to you at all and is but a personal anecdote, meandering. (so don't get mad at me, i've had a shit enough day already)

Since it's a more sober hour of the day I want to just clarify that was definitely not saying theory or technique or formal training are inherently bad by any means. Shit, I got a degree in sound design myself, although I do feel like I had to spend a lot of years unlearning the bad practices they taught me, and I definitely learned a lot more about the artistry of music by working at a record store and playing with other people than I did in college. I chose Berklee because a lot of their programs are focused on types of music that have historically been modern oral tradition/folk type stuff (rock, blues, jazz, DJing - of course all of those are such broad categories it's hard to really generalize) so it illustrates the trouble of putting the cart before the horse with regard to theory and technique (as opposed to a conservatory or other traditional classical training where you really DO want to put theory and technique up front because you really need to be on the ball with that when you're playing in a classical setting). But people who have a strong theoretical and technical background but also keep that in perspective and understand that it's all tools not laws can be the best.

Pure technique really doesn't do much for me personally, though.

I need one of these books. Note to self.

I'm a guitar player before anything else really and the keyboard is still a weird thing to me somehow. I love how expressive you can be with it but I can make the guitar generally make the sounds I want over a piano. My theory is basically knowing the petatonic minor scale shapes and major scales and I can play freely within those structures and shapes but that's where the theory ended.

I actually got this book and was well excited and then just got confused and annoyed by it:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Caged-Guitarist-Paul-Foad/dp/0953802604

teaching yourself theory is useful. being a music major and spending all your time singing disney opera is not.

in college i knew a jazz guy who had perfect pitch and was hailed as a prodigy. now he works at sam ash in the orchestra department, and looks like he is 38 (he is early 20s).

  On 9/3/2015 at 10:37 PM, Polytrix said:

I need one of these books. Note to self.

 

I'm a guitar player before anything else really and the keyboard is still a weird thing to me somehow. I love how expressive you can be with it but I can make the guitar generally make the sounds I want over a piano. My theory is basically knowing the petatonic minor scale shapes and major scales and I can play freely within those structures and shapes but that's where the theory ended.

 

I actually got this book and was well excited and then just got confused and annoyed by it:

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Caged-Guitarist-Paul-Foad/dp/0953802604

the CAGED system is cool for playing Hendrix chord-melody stuff

again, I'd recommend The Advancing Guitarist and Bill Leavitt's Modern Method for Guitar Vol 1-3

they both require being able to read music, though

the latter book is sorta like the Bible for Berklee guitarists

it will get you comfortable with all scales in all keys in all positions

but really, there's alot to be done just with major/minor scales and pentatonic scales

interval stuff, for instance

A minor pentatonic in (diatonic) 4ths, ascending:

A D

CE

DG

EA

GC

etc

or fifths, or sixths

or ascending, descending, ascending...(e.g. ADECDGAE)

or you can get into McCoy Tyner-esque quartal harmony

so like 4ths, ascending:

(ADG)

(CEA)

(DGC)

etc

I forgot to add that for me, personally, theory was much easier to learn via keyboard rather than guitar. I'm no great shakes on the keys but it's much easier to see and understand how intervals, etcetera, work because they're all laid out in front of you.

  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.

 

So it hinders you because people play the blues? I don't get your counterargument. The rules that make the blues sound like the blues are part of music theory.

I realized years ago that even our tonal systems are cultural and when you already know the underworkings of each of those tonal structures, you can better understand how to create your own. I've created my own scales that aren't any of the established modes. It's not that hard. Theory isn't trying to define music, it's trying to explain how we experience it.

Your argument is like saying "Who cares if we don't have a roadmap to California, we'll get there eventually!" Which may or may not be true, but a roadmap will definitely get you there quicker.

I just sat down and recorded a few quick ideas in Cmajor/Aminor:

https://soundcloud.com/limpyloo/c-major-ideas

I see alot of people learn scales up and down and then stop there

but there's really so very much to do with just white notes

  On 9/4/2015 at 12:53 AM, Braintree 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.

 

 

So it hinders you because people play the blues? I don't get your counterargument. The rules that make the blues sound like the blues are part of music theory.

 

I realized years ago that even our tonal systems are cultural and when you already know the underworkings of each of those tonal structures, you can better understand how to create your own. I've created my own scales that aren't any of the established modes. It's not that hard. Theory isn't trying to define music, it's trying to explain how we experience it.

 

Your argument is like saying "Who cares if we don't have a roadmap to California, we'll get there eventually!" Which may or may not be true, but a roadmap will definitely get you there quicker.

 

i was using it as an admittedly snotty example of how in some idioms excessive formalism and technicality tends to be counterproductive.

At any rate I think it's fair to say that the only one who can "indoctrinate" you into music theory is yourself, you've got to just trust your taste and judgement, keep perspective and use the tools that are right for you at the time, whether it's strict counterpoint or farting into a paper towel tube.

  On 9/4/2015 at 2:07 AM, RSP said:

 

  On 9/4/2015 at 12:53 AM, Braintree 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.

 

 

So it hinders you because people play the blues? I don't get your counterargument. The rules that make the blues sound like the blues are part of music theory.

 

I realized years ago that even our tonal systems are cultural and when you already know the underworkings of each of those tonal structures, you can better understand how to create your own. I've created my own scales that aren't any of the established modes. It's not that hard. Theory isn't trying to define music, it's trying to explain how we experience it.

 

Your argument is like saying "Who cares if we don't have a roadmap to California, we'll get there eventually!" Which may or may not be true, but a roadmap will definitely get you there quicker.

 

 

 

i was using it as an admittedly snotty example of how in some idioms excessive formalism and technicality tends to be counterproductive.

 

Excessive formalism and technicality is always the individual player's fault.

(I spelled out my thoughts on this towards the top of this page.)

But if you go to Berklee for 4 years

and then when you come out you can't play some dirty delta blues

without sounding like John Mayer or some fusion scale-runner

then that's totally your fault

it's not down to 'oops, i guess i learned too much'

it's about perspective

being aware of the big picture stuff

again, this happens because players focus on the micro stuff too much

this is THE biggest problem with improvisers...especially in jazz

where the goal becomes "how do I play cleverly over these changes?"

instead of "what do I want this music to feel and sound like?"

Yeah, I agree with you 100% on all of that, especially the jazz part. It's more or less what I was getting at but you said it better than I did.

BUT

It does happen a lot. I think there's probably some self-selection going on where people who tend to focus on the micro stuff are probably more likely to seek formal, technical training.

Also, bad teachers are a real thing that can have real repercussions on their students' development.

On the other hand, plenty of people love John Mayer so whatever works. A lot more people like John Mayer than like 99% of the stuff I like.

Will learning take away some of the magic of already existing music

"Oh, this only sounds this way because it's (x) mixed with (y) and (z)"

  On 9/4/2015 at 4:24 AM, Zeffolia said:

Will learning take away some of the magic of already existing music

 

"Oh, this only sounds this way because it's (x) mixed with (y) and (z)"

Will learning the chemical makeup of chocolate detract from the experience of eating it?

I've always played by ear, but picked up a lot of theory along the way. It's super helpful for explaining to other musicians what's going on (for jamming/collabs). Don't fear the theory, mang. If you're interested in figuring out other peoples' music by ear, it's super handy to know immediately that you're hearing a maj7 here, a diminished phrasing there, and not have to spend X minutes sounding every note out to get in the right ballpark.

Nothing to add, some great posts in here! Theory is a useful tool and working within a certain theoretical stricture (e.g, writing a melody in the Dorian mode in 5/4) can force your creative hand in a more focused way than having no stricture at all. Writing a melody using only 'pots n pans clanging' sounds is just as valuable and interesting a creative stricture to impose (ask Matmos).

Try writing a 'pots n pans clanging' melody in Dorian mode in 5/4 and I bet something cool will happen!

It's also important to note that a lot of what we compose 'intuitively' (i.e, with no formal theoretical tools) is actually arbitrary and based on our exposure to dominant musical traditions as we grow up. People who wholly compose intuitively without having an at least rudimentary understanding of what they just did are missing out on opportunities to analyse and ultimately strengthen their work.