The importance of music theory

toaster mantis wrote: ... As a result, I sometimes wonder how much of the compositional content and details regarding performance I'm missing with more "out there" avantgarde/technical music.

I think this is over ... thinking ... or over ... reaching ... things. It "might" and "might not" have compositional elements that you would be missing, but in general, this is very difficult to determine in the 20th century music development, since there is no fine line for helping clear up where "mental" exercises (my word for compostion!!!) or experimental/improvisational music start and end.

RECORDING, over the past 50 years, has shown us that in concert, or just plain live in the studio, that improvisational material is also very good and then later becomes highly defined and valuable, although I have yet to see ANYONE try to do Tangerine Dream!!! Which adds another element to composition ... sound effects!

In the late 50's all the way to the late 60's and early 70's, all the improvisational and experimental theater and film and literature, and art, was not about ... "compositional" content, any more than anything else ... it was about the experience of it all and how you responded to it. As one quasi-philosopher stated, the medium became the message, not the original component that created the music in the first place, or the art itself.

Thus we became enamored with anything that was conditioned by the media, and you forgot the "source".

Without the "source", your question loses its strength.

Without the spirit of the human, your strength is gone. Thus, I, for one, being a writer that does not 2nd guess his vision or dreams, find that a question like this is much too mental to be able to answer a condition that belongs on the inside and can not be easily translated to the outside.

There are just as many elements in one piece as there are in others ... but we have not sat down and worked the new "elements" that deserve to be a part of music history, or any art for that matter, in order to be able to come up with a sensible discussion and answer for you.

Hope this helps ... it was not designed to confuse you.

There is also the opposit, how much do the teoreticaly well founded miss, do to them not beeing able to stop analysing and just enjoy what they are listening too.

I belive all music was created 6 years ago by god...

Music theory is not a science. It's not an objective framework for how all music works. It's simply the methods of the western classical composers. In that sense, it's helpful in appreciating classical music, but not necessary. The same thing that makes classical music good is the same thing that makes the Ramones good. They succeed in moving people.  But, yes, it's beneficial if you want to know how western composers do things, and even outside of classical music, it can help.

tamijo wrote:   So now you are a better Music listener, congratulations.

Thanks for the responses, sorry I haven't posted until now but I've been extremely busy and haven't had the time to read the entire thread.

I think it's important to remember that most music theory so far has evolved in a very specific cultural context to explain very particular music traditions, as in Western "art music". Of course, this same influence will then trickle down to popular music by way of how the entire culture thinks about music at large, as well as how recording technology is designed, but I suppose it's more something to be aware of than use as a measuring stick for quality. Perhaps it'd be easier to find a nuanced perspective on different philosophies of music if I were more into non-Western European music traditions, but I'm not sure I have the time and resources for ever developing an in-depth appreciation of those either.

Someone mentioned that quite a few avantgarde and experimental musicians actually were motivated by trying to think around the music theory they had learned, though that might in turn be how new theories and systematizations of music composition are created. The kind of theory that forms the basis on how I judge music and my enjoyment of has less to do with how technically accomplished the performances are than it has to do with things like:

• The dynamics in the instrumental interplay, and how much the effect of the individual performances or layers enhance and counterpoint each other.
  
• How much of a consistent internal logic there is to the narrative structure of the songwriting, for example how systematic tension is built up and released over the course or the purpose of changes in time or metre.
• Different types of riffing/chords or sonic texture in the same song: What kind of effect is the contrast between textures used to? For example, if dissonance is used to contrast with conventional melody whether it serves some kind of narrative purpose in the song's progression.
• The flow of transitions between different sections if the song follows a linear progressive narrative, like what kind of build up and foreshadowing. If different parts recur at several points, are there any kind of variation used to develop them as themes and do they follow some kind of logic in the evolution?

Basically, it's the main reason that I need more and more listens to form an opinion on a piece of music or recording of it. It is obvious this much analysis is not necessary for a lot of music, in fact this might be a reason that I prefer listen to less complex or ambitious music when I don't have time or concentration as more involved stuff commands.

Learning theory shouldn't affect you basal enjoyment of music. Theoretically simple, complex, or nonsensical music can all still be beautiful (or not, if that's what you're into). As some people have mentioned, it can add a nice level of depth if you are the type who enjoys picking apart the artists intent.

Toaster Mantis wrote: It is obvious this much analysis is not necessary for a lot of music, in fact this might be a reason that I prefer listen to less complex or ambitious music when I don't have time or concentration as more involved stuff commands.

Yeah, some more complex music requires multiple listens or a well trained ear to fully appreciate. It can be a time commitment. Of course, there is always the chance that you still won't like it even after the time commitment. If you want to get into the analytics of prog, you ought to also enjoy it for the pure emotion of the music, or have a lot of trust in the artists' intent. Otherwise, you will just be wasting time trying to understand a piece that simply wasn't meant for you.



Edited by DreamInSong - September 14 2014 at 13:53

There is a massive difference between learning music theory, learning to play an instrument technically, ie. being a member of an orchestra, and being a musician. ;-) Being a musician is - for me, anyway, about being able to create and express musical ideas. These ideas do not necessarily come from an appreciation of theory. 

True enough. ;-) I have issues about orchestral playing, though. Done it. The problem is that just interpreting sheet music is not - for me - being a musician. There is not really any creative process.

^ Yes, obviously, this is just your opinion. And being flexible in semantics is always welcome, ... I think. I personally am not that picky about definitions. I think that if I'm just close enough to the true meaning of the word, I'm going to be just fine.