Yes, but does that person need to know any theory to create a song. Reading music is a part of theory in a way, but yes, you need not know how to read music to understand some theory.

Honestly though, I have a name I'd like to award you and people who think you do (because it fits ever so perfectly) You sir are a "Theory Nazi".

At 7/14/09 07:27 PM, TreborLocke wrote:

Those people knew their theory.

try investigating and see that they dont, or know little

like scales, but how else would you label notes or pitches of sound

I know for a fact that Michael Jackson, Radiohead, Coldplay, and the Beatles (the top four right now) had a background in music theory. That doesn't mean they use it to create complex compositions

not yorke, and im pretty sure they wrote songs where they tried to include as many chords as they can, doesnt seem that simple
did slaves know their theory?
and youre all naive to the psychedelic underpinnings of post 60s music, which raises auditory acuity along with all the other senses, so dont talk about what sounds good

youd probably write a review like this

At 7/14/09 08:19 PM, pr0ded wrote: youd probably write a review like this

Now that made me laugh

Lol @ the debate.

You're in a dark warehouse, filled with junk. You're looking for a certain needle, this needle is your composition. Sure, you can find this needle in the dark, but it would be extremely hard, and take much longer than if you had a flashlight. Music theory is like said flashlight to me, and the more Music Theory I know, the bigger the flashlight's radius. Let's say, yes, I was looking for that needle, but look, with my Music Theory flashlight, I have found other useful things in the warehouse that would go nicely with my needle, stuff that would sharpen my needle, keep it from rusting, etc.

Now, you can have the biggest flashlight in the world, but if you don't know what you're looking for in the warehouse, it's pointless. That's my mangled view on Music Theory, at least.

I don't understand why anyone would argue that knowing theory (and I mean knowing as in having studied) might possibly not be a positive thing.

Fine. You can make music without studying theory.

But what would it hurt?

Kor-Rune I agree with you completely. I've never once stated that knowing theory is a bad thing (it's never a bad thing to have knowledge). I've just been stating that it's very plausible to write music without ever studying any form of theory.

I use theory when I write, but the truth is, whether you initially use theory or write by ear, a good sounding piece in the end will follow good theory techniques. It just depends on your style of writing.

There are however neat tricks you can do. I'd love for anyone on this site to tell me if the piece I've linked at the bottom is written in a 'major' or 'minor' mode....or if its written in a different mode entirely! I'll bet 99% of you can't. However, it's a solid piece, is good with its music theory, and its still in its 'experiment stage' (still need to add my vocalist to make it a standalone piece).

Major key, using 7th chordss.

I use basic theory when writing. In fact, some of my writing is purely improv, including my strings. I dont' write anything down before writing actual parts in Logic, except a chord chart. And that chord chart usually is derived from a degree of theory, when writing charts that are a bit more complex. That's about as far as I go with theory. I never actually stick with any theory rules, as you learn in college. I write what I think sounds good.

At 7/15/09 03:50 AM, loansindi wrote: I don't understand why anyone would argue that knowing theory (and I mean knowing as in having studied) might possibly not be a positive thing.

Fine. You can make music without studying theory.

But what would it hurt?

obviously if one musician knows theory, it makes them an unbearable snob who is out of touch with what music really is

That is a general sentiment that I sometimes get on the internet when I express my desire to study music theory. If you know it, you're instantly a snob.

Like I said a few pages ago, a much more interesting question is what you use from your knowledge of music theory, not if whether or not you need it. Because the latter question will only stir a retarded back-and-forth debate that goes nowhere, no matter how many valid points.

I agree with that statement, that's what I mean when I say it's about the application. I like knowing theory too, it definitely helps a lot. Though sometimes I can't get what I want out of a song on theory alone.

At 7/15/09 05:27 PM, nathanallenpinard wrote:

There are however neat tricks you can do. I'd love for anyone on this site to tell me if the piece I've linked at the bottom is written in a 'major' or 'minor' mode....or if its written in a different mode entirely! I'll bet 99% of you can't. However, it's a solid piece, is good with its music theory, and its still in its 'experiment stage' (still need to add my vocalist to make it a standalone piece).

Major key, using 7th chordss.

The argument for the piece is that its actually in a neutral mode. It's neither really major nor minor. If you really need to put a key on it, it's E Phrygian using 7ths, 9ths, standard Triads and a very brief cluster. It is also important to mention that E is the root note. You can go through the entire piece and hum or play an E and you'll never go wrong as it is in every part of the piece.

As stated earlier: not this topic again.

Every couple of months someone comes into the forum to boohoo because this or that genre uses simple chord progressions, no musical theory, etc. It was old in the 19th century, it's old now. Popular music is popular regardless if the listener knows what Mode it's written in, what progressions it features, or whether it's major or minor. It's popular because it is catchy, well produced, well mixed, and well received by a majority of people. The very fact that Charlemagne brought up so many different "schools" of thought surrounding classical/orchestral music is the reason that classical is at an all-time decline for listenership: there are simply too many divided factions calling foul against one another and claiming their "method" is better.

As for the comments surrounding knowing and applying theory, yes theory is another tool you can and should strive to have, just as proper sound engineering, from recording to mixing to mastering, is as well, or proper hardware setup, digital sound processing skills, routing, and a myriad of other skills would ALL be great to have for the modern musician and producer. But, remember that most of us are masters of but few of these skills. For those of us who first learned music "by ear", the theory comes later, while production may be easier for us now. Those who were brought up through orchestral playing and theory may not understand proper mixing, equalisation, the application and routing of FX, etc.

If you claim that without theory there is no "good music", then it can equally be argued that without production knowledge the same can be said. Yet, when was the last time you heard someone make the claim that a violinist needs to know how to run a mixing board? It's a silly notion to expect any one person to be a master of all aspects of music. Even composers have their weak points, as many choose to write for specific arrangements, instruments, etc.

Since this thread began with a comment vaguely pointed at the entire Audio Portal and followed with an attack towards Electronic and Techno genres, it's clear that this thread, while producing some great talking points throughout it's pages, was yet another in a long line of threads decrying that Classical (and Jazz, apparently, since that was the last thread of this nature's final ending point) musicians are the only musicians with proper music theory and musicianship.

I'm not trying to devalue the merit of electronic music, nor am I implying that musicians who make electronic music are underneath people with actual musical training.

This comment sums up the beliefs fairly succinctly of those who believe Electronic music is without musicianship: "actual musical training". It is an assumption that Electronic musicians have no musical training and Classical musicians do. The truth is many Electronic musicians (Brian Eno, for instance) have years of musical training, and of those many of them come from "traditional" (Ie. Classical and Modern Orchestral) backgrounds. Electronic music is not some dipolar opposite of Classical music. It is merely another genre, another outlet of music. Within Electronic music are many other sub-genres, some of which ARE more simplistic and less about progressional theory, pacing in the traditional sense, etc. But if you listen with an unbiased ear, you'd note that Pacing, Crescendo, and many other aspects of proper compositional theory are clearly evident in House, Trance, etc., in fact those aspects are some of the most important parts of the music. It is for this reason that the chord progressions may be kept simpler, as the music is built around it's ability to affect a large majority of people at any one time.

The Classical Era's departure from Baroque themes was largely seen in the same light as some Modern classical listeners and musicians see popular musical genres. Classical music was order out of chaos, so to speak, as "Theory" and Structure, harmony with melody and countermelody, took more precedent over Baroque's more layered approach. Many saw the change as detrimental to the health of music. Yet here we are nearly 300 years later with Classical music decrying that change is bad and newer genres are destroying what they worked for, that Theory is all-important. It is important, but every aspect of musicianship is. Every aspect of production is. Every aspect of recording, printing, paper production, logging to produce paper, anti-pollution laws to create viable wood, ad infinitum...

Therein lies the problem: you are not milling your own wood, then pulping it to create the paper your ocmpose on anymore so than I am putting together my own hardware from wire and electronics. We can afford to allow others to do some of the lifting, and that's what these other genres do. They have their own theories, they take the pieces of theory that are most useful to their music, and they use it to it's fullest extent. Just as classical musicians do not spend time understanding the four-on-the-floor drum pattern and how to vary it using other rhythmic patterning and percussion instruments, nor do they know the difference between D'n'B and Trip-hop, how to produce Goa trance using Gamelan timing and tuning, etc. Every genre has it's theories and it's methods. And it's time this was realized and respected by those from other genres.

Sorry if I came off as snobbish with that post, that was not the intent, as it was worded poorly.

At 7/16/09 07:42 PM, EmperorCharlemagne wrote: Sorry if I came off as snobbish with that post, that was not the intent, as it was worded poorly.

Actually 1st year theory your not a snob, your educated. But not really a snob.

If you know 2nd year though, yeah...you'll probably be labled as a snob. lol

2nd year theory in no way helps me compose. It goes so deep I lose my head.

And I'd hardly say that the myriad schools of 'classical' music thought is a detriment; why should any one genre sound the same and have songs produced in the same way? Different ideas allow for greater freedom in the genre; things would be boring if everything sounded like a Baroque sonatina.

I listed all those schools of thought not saying that they were trying to compete and outshine one another, but rather attest to the diversity in classical music as it stands today. John Cage himself that there is no more 'mainstream', nor should any type of music try to be 'mainstream' anymore. Everything exists in tandem now, for good or bad.

Some can say that 'listening is at an all time low', and if you look at it one way, it may seem that way. No Beethovens walk among us.

Yet for something like Electronic music, you do not say listening is at an all time low with the sub-genres of Dance, Trance, Trip-hop, Breakcore, DnB, Techno, etc etc etc. They are all different 'schools of musical thought', are they not?

However, that statement may have been applicable 20 years ago, but with the advent of the internet, it is no longer truly possible to say that. Classical musicians like John Adams and Steve Reich now have widespread followings for their music (Adams had his music featured in Civilization IV as well), and concerts are being filled with young people who like contemporary classical music, along with the old fashioned rich folk who used to dominate the concert scene. If you haven't heard of the modern composers, it's probably because you weren't paying attention very well in the first place and/or you're sequestered to a small musical corner.

I think only the old fogies are decrying stuff like 'this darned rap music is destroying what we've built, blah blah blah'. And I think a few folks around here are like that too. But you can be bitter about what's popular (which for an artist, is usually not their work), or continue to compose music. I don't know really jack shit about mixing, nor do I care to know. But I content myself with knowing something about sonata form and understanding the difference of timbres. No, electronic music is not the opposite of 'traditional' music; Stockhausen, Ligeti, and others saw to that.

Personally, I grow sick of simplistic songs (that is not to say minimalistic songs), and you find this all over every genre. When classical, DnB, Trance, and Rock all start to sound too similar, +/- a drum beat, that's when I wish things would be shaken up a little bit. I use theory/the ideas of musical schools to help me get past the I-IV-V-I chord progressions of songs, because to write that way seems like the blandest thing on earth.

At 7/16/09 07:54 PM, nathanallenpinard wrote:

At 7/16/09 07:42 PM, EmperorCharlemagne wrote: Sorry if I came off as snobbish with that post, that was not the intent, as it was worded poorly.

Actually 1st year theory your not a snob, your educated. But not really a snob.

If you know 2nd year though, yeah...you'll probably be labled as a snob. lol

2nd year theory in no way helps me compose. It goes so deep I lose my head.

as far as i'm concerned, there are two types of music theory, theoretical theory and practical theory.

theoretical: what is the key signature for F-flat major? Oh, that's easy, 6 flats and one double flat. I write in that key all the time.

practical: what is the key signature for E major? Oh, that's easy, 4 sharps. E, F#, G#, A, B, C#, D#, E. Now i won't put in any sour notes as long as i pay attention.

theoretical theory isd entirely impractical and essentially useless. but it's fun to talk about if your friends are nerdy musicians like you. i think i got to like 12 flats once while arguing with a friend about what the most ridiculous key signature was.

I am not a master of music theory, but I do try to keep it in mind in some of my pieces. In my older songs I did not know much music theory. In recent works, however, I do try to craft a good melody, do something other than the I-IV-V progression and maybe modulate when I feel it will add color effectively.

At 7/16/09 07:54 PM, nathanallenpinard wrote:

At 7/16/09 07:42 PM, EmperorCharlemagne wrote:

2nd year theory in no way helps me compose. It goes so deep I lose my head.

So you don't compose motifs at all when you write?

At 7/13/09 01:43 AM, benyue1978 wrote: The truth is, 99.99% percent of the people here pump out Techno and Electronic CRAP using Fruity Loops A.K.A. FL Studio. Honestly, any kid can do that. And it's mind-numbingly easy to do with that program. Just look in the audio production images thread HERE and most pics will be a FL screen cap. You're not going to find the next DJ Scooter here that's for sure.

im not sure if your bashing FL studio, but not everything that comes out of it is crap, there are alot of great artists who use it

At 7/16/09 09:38 PM, SessileNomad wrote: im not sure if your bashing FL studio, but not everything that comes out of it is crap, there are alot of great artists who use it

He's right. I use it, as well as MaestroRage, Gravey1, SessileNomad up there, and MH16.

At 7/16/09 09:38 PM, SessileNomad wrote:

At 7/13/09 01:43 AM, benyue1978 wrote: The truth is, 99.99% percent of the people here pump out Techno and Electronic CRAP using Fruity Loops A.K.A. FL Studio. Honestly, any kid can do that. And it's mind-numbingly easy to do with that program. Just look in the audio production images thread HERE and most pics will be a FL screen cap. You're not going to find the next DJ Scooter here that's for sure.

im not sure if your bashing FL studio, but not everything that comes out of it is crap, there are alot of great artists who use it

He's not really bashing FL Studio, just people that are taking advantage of how easy it is I guess. I use it myself and the last thing I'll make is anything electronica.

Gosh with all these arpeggiators and presets, it's like the song is writing itself!!

^
That is what I imagine to be running through the mind of your average APer making his newest platinum hit* for the AP, Legend of Zelda Trance Redux

*Remember those?

At 7/16/09 11:53 PM, EmperorCharlemagne wrote: Gosh with all these arpeggiators and presets, it's like the song is writing itself!!

^
That is what I imagine to be running through the mind of your average APer making his newest platinum hit* for the AP, Legend of Zelda Trance Redux

*Remember those?

Well, arpeggiators are only one piece of the puzzle. Plus, if you have a tool that cuts mundane work that you are otherwise going to compose anyway, what's wrong with that?

When you rely on the machine to do the song-writing for you.

Arpeggiators don't do the writing for you. You still have to tell it what to do. What chords, and what patterns to play.

Hell old vintage arp's required you to move around 25 or so different patch cables.

I want to point out that this guy can make ridiculous melodies that are far beyond what I'm capable of, and he doesn't know any music theory whatsoever. I, on the other hand, have taken AP music theory and all I can make is techno crap and/or instrumental pieces with static 4-bar chord progressions.

Music theory is helpful to some people, and to other's its like rubbing your face on sandpaper. I would be very, very careful when classifying artists who can't stand music theory as lazy or incompetent, because you're very likely to be wrong. Saying people who haven't taken music theory shouldn't be composing music is like saying people who haven't taken art classes shouldn't be drawing.

The way I see it, Theory allows you freedom in writing. Whereas previously you would be restricted to how many melodies and chord progressions you could write due to the fact that you don't know which chords sound resonant or not, now you would be able to compose whatever melody happens to fit the theme of your song at the time.

For example, before I started teaching myself theory, I could only write in i, vii, vi, v, and iv, without many of their inversions. Afterward, I could craft melodies for any chord and its inversion, as well as atonal music.

For me, theory helps me express myself much better. But without the production aspect of the music, my tracks would still sound horrible. In each song, I pay careful attention to how each sample is articulated and how clear it sounds with the rest of the piece.

In short, to be the best solo artist you can be, you should know how to do as much as possible in relation to your music. Besides, it helps to improve your marketability whenever you wish to start selling your music or going into the music business.

At 7/17/09 02:17 AM, Blackhole12 wrote: I want to point out that this guy can make ridiculous melodies that are far beyond what I'm capable of, and he doesn't know any music theory whatsoever. I, on the other hand, have taken AP music theory and all I can make is techno crap and/or instrumental pieces with static 4-bar chord progressions.

Music theory is helpful to some people, and to other's its like rubbing your face on sandpaper. I would be very, very careful when classifying artists who can't stand music theory as lazy or incompetent, because you're very likely to be wrong. Saying people who haven't taken music theory shouldn't be composing music is like saying people who haven't taken art classes shouldn't be drawing.

AP Music Theory isn't really college level material. It usually lets you pass out of a Theory I (sometimes a Theory II) course. It also goes over scales and their modes. Mostly it deals with the theory and chord progressions of the late barroque/early classical timeframe.

The theory that is useful for writing things like techno is Form and Analysis (Usually a Theory III course which your AP music theory or high school music theory wont cover) and a Theory IV course (which in most places goes over modern compositional technique and theory).

The reason I feel most people in the AP feel they don't need theory is because they've only seen how theory works for the classical period. Theory for modern music (which includes Pop, Minimalism, Jazz, etc...) comes much later in college level theory and by then, a lot of music majors will have changed their major and dropped interest. Another reason for why we hear so little about current music theory topics is because there are more books written about classical and romantic music than about contemporary music.

I'm sure if people dig, they'll find modern theory that is both useful and a lot more interesting.

At 7/17/09 01:55 PM, TreborLocke wrote:

At 7/17/09 02:17 AM, Blackhole12 wrote: I want to point out that this guy can make ridiculous melodies that are far beyond what I'm capable of, and he doesn't know any music theory whatsoever. I, on the other hand, have taken AP music theory and all I can make is techno crap and/or instrumental pieces with static 4-bar chord progressions.

Music theory is helpful to some people, and to other's its like rubbing your face on sandpaper. I would be very, very careful when classifying artists who can't stand music theory as lazy or incompetent, because you're very likely to be wrong. Saying people who haven't taken music theory shouldn't be composing music is like saying people who haven't taken art classes shouldn't be drawing.

AP Music Theory isn't really college level material. It usually lets you pass out of a Theory I (sometimes a Theory II) course. It also goes over scales and their modes. Mostly it deals with the theory and chord progressions of the late barroque/early classical timeframe.

The theory that is useful for writing things like techno is Form and Analysis (Usually a Theory III course which your AP music theory or high school music theory wont cover) and a Theory IV course (which in most places goes over modern compositional technique and theory).

The reason I feel most people in the AP feel they don't need theory is because they've only seen how theory works for the classical period. Theory for modern music (which includes Pop, Minimalism, Jazz, etc...) comes much later in college level theory and by then, a lot of music majors will have changed their major and dropped interest. Another reason for why we hear so little about current music theory topics is because there are more books written about classical and romantic music than about contemporary music.

I'm sure if people dig, they'll find modern theory that is both useful and a lot more interesting.

I took AP Music Theory this past year in high school, and we got past species counterpoint (the Fux method). We did a lot of part writing, where we would be given a bass or soprano line and had to fill in the other voices according to the rules of voice leading. While it is a bit restrictive, once you know the rules you can break them. I've found that music theory has given me a strong basis to compose more lush harmonies and write out multiple parts fast and efficiently.

I don't think that it is required to know music theory in order to be a good composer, but it does give you a lot of tools and shortcuts that you can fall back on and use to better express a musical idea.

Species counterpoint was defined in the late barroque period (about 2-3 decades before Bach's death). Hurray for Johann Fux. Learning species counterpoint also teaches you the scales and modes I mentioned (which is why its used in AP music theory).

The rules of voice leading in part writing still apply today. If they didn't, serialism would have taken off like a rocket :)