Music Theory Thread?

[venjacques]

And you can learn to converse in a society without being able to read or write, but just be able to talk to people. Would you feel comfortable going through your life as an illiterate in your native language? How do you learn a new piece by yourself if you don't have someone to play it for you? If you can't read notes, then you're useless unless you have another source to play it for you first. That's acting very dependent, and a selfish approach to learning to be a decent musician.

In the theory of music, there are certain rules. Rights and wrong. A D Major Tertian Triad is spelled D F# A, for example. Very clear-cut things. However, it's an art-form, so there are rules to be broken. However if you know notational rules that are standards the world over in music theory, you can read like an accomplished musician, rather than an amateur that has to count his/her lines and spaces for every single note.

Also, I'm glad you have mentors and colleagues, but there are some students that are self-taught and may not have access to such a variety of sources. It's nice to see that you don't need this section, but I think it's a little bigoted to say that everyone should go look for other sources of information rather than be able to come here, a MUSIC forum, and learn something too, rather than just gossip about the latest hit singles.

[Dr_Rez]

@venj: While I agree with nearly everything you said you may be missing one large point. Many of the modern era's greatest musicians did not read music.

The undisputed king of guitar jimi hendrix could not read music. #2 Srv also could not read music.

In the world of classical music and music study in schools I think you are right. Being able to learn a piece on paper is very important if not the most important thing. BUT rock/blues etc musicians do not learn that way. If you are playing with a band or another instrumentalist you must learn your part by quickly getting it by ear and watching them play it. If you have every been to a blues jam it relies largely on the trained ear and watch where the other person is playing.

To think less of a musician because they put stock in their ear instead of notation is simply absurd and pretentious.

[venjacques]

I'm saying that to be fully accomplished, you should be well rounded. Ear training is a large part of it as well. But being able to sight read can be as valuable a skill as mimicking something by ear. Audio representation of a piece of music isn't always available. And to communicate with other musicians effectively, the language that is music theory is an efficient way to communicate scales, chords, phrases, and ideas.

It's more precise to say, "From the downbeat of the B section, where the dominant figure goes to the tonic" rather than "Okay when I do this ::plays::".

I understand a lot of the greats didn't read. But they also didn't have the internet, access to books, etc. In such a social and literate society that we have today, there's little excuse for some aspiring musician to just ignore music theory. I'm sure there were great people in history that never learned to read nor write their native language. Is that a good argument to say that we shouldn't read/write either if we can communicate verbally?

[Dr_Rez]

I was only referring to the reading of notation. Im all for theory.

[venjacques]

Huh. I can't picture knowing theory without being able to read it. To me they're the same thing. But I guess you could verbalize Major/minor without knowing what it looks like on paper, but rather what it feels like in your hands when you play. Strange concept.

I agree with you there, then. Knowledge of theory and how to apply it is more important than being able to read it on paper. I just think writing things down make it easier to record, use, and share. But then I'm a pretty visual learner, so that could be a biased statement. I've done so much visual / handwritten theory that I can do it in my head. Everything from naming chords' and scales' notes, calling up terms, and so on have become second nature to me. I don't have to consult an instrument; I just visualize. So I guess there's something to be said about not needing to have it on paper after all.

That being said, I'm thinking the ideal musician would be able to read and write, as well as be able to think about it just mentally, and still further being able to use his/her ear to extract information accurately and quickly. Imagine if you had these 'super powers' as they were. You would be unstoppable. Then your only limit would be how good your fingers are in picking up new instruments.

[Rubato]

Originally Posted by RezZ

To think less of a musician because they put stock in their ear instead of notation is simply absurd and pretentious.

If you're looking to work in the music business you would be looked down on if you can't read music, it would make you harder to work with so why wouldn't they just find someone else who can do it?
and yes the same can be said for someone with a tin ear but I'm not sure why you're treating the ability to read music and having a good ear as being mutually exclusive, every music degree would require you to be fairly adept at melodic, harmonic and rhythmic dictation, you would most certainly be expected to play by ear in a classical setting too, directors tend to be short tempered and staring dumbfounded after he hums something for you to play wouldn't end well.

[lecterz12]

i dont think theories and that sort of stuff is not directly related to writing good music and that sort of art. i think the artists own humanness and expressions and feelings makes the songs he writes a precious piece of art.