# How much "guitar theory" is needed to write songs?



## jco5055 (Feb 25, 2015)

Hi guys, let me explain my question.


Like most here, I started out/was a guitarist for the longest time. I was pretty much solely a technique guy. Like when I used to dream of going to Berklee or GIT, I definitely couldn't pass the entrance requirements, which I believe is "play the major scale in multiple positions" and "improvise over a basic I-IV-V progression". I could blaze through Intense Rock and Speed Kills no problem, and enjoyed learning shreddy songs via tab, but if you asked me to play some chords in X key as you soloed, I'd be lost. I also tried writing songs the traditional guitar way, meaning that I would try to come up with riffs and then make an instrumental version of a song, and then add the vocals and lyrics later. I managed to write 1 instrumental song, while partially writing like 3 other songs total in a span of years.


Anyways, sometime later I started doing some vocal training, figuring to use for background vocals or if I had to pull a Dave Mustaine and sing because nobody else was better, and I quickly realized that was my "thing". Besides being good technically, the main reason is because I find improvising, writing etc all comes naturally when I approach from a vocal standpoint. I have also written a lot of songs since then, but they are nowhere complete. They are the most basic forms of a song, being vocal melody, lyrics, the general makeup (order of verses/chorus/bridge etc) and a general idea of the chords.

Now, I'm curious, what amount of theory is necessary for writing songs, and which is really more "guitar-centric" and only really matters if you're a guitarist? What I mean is, I bought a great songwriting book called "Melody in Songwriting" that doesn't have any particular instrument it's designed for, as long as you can read notation you're fine. For me personally, there's no part (at least so far) that the theory is waaay over my head. I just have to do things like look up what a sus chord is, or the makings of the various 7th chords, but I memorize that and I'm ok. But what I haven't done is memorized all various chord forms etc as it applies to guitar. I also know the modes, but is there any real reason to know the modes or countless scales in terms of memorizing their patterns on guitar? 

I guess in a perfect world I'd have time to also go through and practice everything I want on guitar, but assuming I make sure to get the "essential" stuff theory-wise out of the way no matter what, do I really need to memorize the major and minor pentatonic scale forms on guitar, when I can tell you the notes in X major pentatonic scale? Or memorizing arpeggio shapes? Anything else I don't need to know?


----------



## Spectre 1 (Feb 25, 2015)

None.


----------



## WhoThenNow7 (Feb 25, 2015)

None. But it will be harder, in my opinion. I wrote a song a few years ago before I knew any theory/scales. And it turned out good. I didn't really "need" that stuff until I was writing the solo. When I did the solo, I just slowly figured out what note would be next and what the scale patterns were by ear. Now I know A LOT more than I did before... And if I would have known what I know now, back then, that solo would be a lot better; and easier to write.

I would start with the minor pentatonic scale patterns, and the major scale patterns. There are 5 different patterns for each octave (frets 1-12; I'm sure you knew that already). You can just search them on google. And also, learn what your notes are. You don't have to have the whole fretboard memorized, but be able to figure out where every note is at least on your low E string (at first, to get you started).

Actually, I would learn that first, finding where each note is on your low E string. That way, you'll be able to figure out how to play the scales in different keys. For example, if a song you want to solo to is in the key of A, then your first scale pattern will start on the 5th fret of the low E string. And that note is..... you guessed, A. 

It's technically "A minor", which is the same thing as C major, in terms of keys. When you learn all the patterns, just practice with them using a metronome to familiarize yourself more, and it will also help technique and speed. You can also do different variations; but for now, that's where I would start.

Later on, hell, even now if you really feel like it, you can learn the harmonic minor scale- used a lot in modern metal.


----------



## jco5055 (Feb 25, 2015)

thanks for the responses so far guys. 

First off, when you refer to "none", do you guys mean that as long as I learned theory but didn't restrict it to the instrument (similar to buying a theory book that wasn't made for a specific instrument, or I guess it's probably for piano technically) I'm fine, or in the very general "you don't need to know any theory to write songs"? Because I know that's obviously true, I guess the reason I phrased it as "writing songs" instead of general theory was because when I think of learning everything theory wise, that'd include all these exotic scales and styles etc. I guess it's more like, if I were to try to analyze already written songs and why they 'work', what theory would be necessary? 


Also, thanks for the tips about learning the basic scales, notes on fretboard etc. Yeah I've already got that stuff down (I need to go back and re-memorize harmonic minor though) and I'm memorizing the Circle of Fifths, parallel keys etc. 

I think my main problem is I'll be learning the scales and then I'll start to practice with the metronome or other basic exercises for them etc. Not that that's a bad thing, but I'm sure you understand that I can go a week not learning that much because I stayed on the topic to practice technically. Old habits die hard, especially when it's so fun to shred! Haha.


----------



## Daniel13 (Feb 25, 2015)

i'm really no where near qualified to answer this but i can share an opinion. i don't think you need to know any theory to write songs, i've written tons of songs (some finished, hundreds not) and i know absolutely nothing about music theory and am possibly a little tone deaf. 

and there are others in a similar boat i'm sure. while others know everything about music theory and every note on a guitar like the back of their hand but can't write 5 seconds of music that sounds decent.

not saying it's pointless to know those things, it should at least improve writing skills but it will still take experimenting and going back to the "just jamming out" way of writing as well


----------



## Daniel13 (Feb 25, 2015)

also if i read your posts correctly you're asking if a piano theory book would help with guitar? if that's the case i would say yes, either way it's music, and if it translates badly on guitar it shouldn't take much adjusting to get it to sound right knowing a bit of theory on guitar

edit: and i mean yes as in it would help, not that it is necessary


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Feb 25, 2015)

Spectre 1 said:


> None.



Exactly this.


----------



## cjms1997 (Feb 25, 2015)

Theory isn't required to write music. 

But that's like not knowing a language and then trying to have a conversation in it. It's not necessary, and the long you play it'll kind of be instinctive even though you won't really know what you're doing. If you learn the theory it'll make it much easier to read, write, and understand music and more often than not make it much more coherent instead of just a bunch of riffs just mashed together.


----------



## Datura (Feb 26, 2015)

Depends on the genre.


----------



## redstone (Feb 26, 2015)

You only need pitch training, music vocabulary, attention and imagination.



jco5055 said:


> I guess it's more like, if I were to try to analyze already written songs and why they 'work', what theory would be necessary?



Music grammar is not artificial, its rules are already fixed by your nature. They can only be artificialy refined. You just need more vocabulary and let the brain find the musical patterns (given that your sense of pitch/rhythm is fine). It's all about your own analysis... 

Music theories are questionably representative - and a posteriori - theories of music grammar. They can only inform you of things you already understand or not. They're rooted in the intuitive experience of other's music vocabulary and only give you an idea of all the ideas you should already have. Learning theories a priori can lead to serious atonal bullshit (yet theoretically valid). If you can't figure out by yourself why a song "work", no amount of theory will help..


----------



## Solodini (Feb 26, 2015)

I advise against memorising shapes. Doing so fixes you in one tuning, which is A) limiting to guitar and B) gives you very little to play with if you try another instrument. Learning the functional construction of theory is much better. It'll be slow but if you learn to construct the harmony and then find the notes as you need them then you'll get faster and faster at that and be able to seamlessly adjust. 

Modes can be useful, but viewing them as just a major scale devalues them. Instead of looking at the modes of C major (the C major scale starting on each note of that scale) look at the modes with C as the tonic of each: C ionian, C dorian, C Phrygian, C Lydian et c.. You'll develop an appreciation for the character of each mode. None is more or less valuable than a major or minor scale. 

Chords are just stacks of 3rds, or reductions of the above. If you know what a 3rd, a 5th, a 7th, a 9th and so on is, you can construct any chord on the spot, without needing prior memorised fingerings. This breaks down your boundaries as you can revoice chords to suit your circumstances: going from Cm7 to Absus2, GBbEbGC to AbEbAbBb, so each chord moves to notes close to it, rather than featuring clunky unnatural leaps between the only fingerings you know or have adjusted by moving a Csus2 shape up 8 semitones.

TLDR learn the construction to work out the notes then find them on guitar when you need them, rather than memorising shapes and boxes.


----------



## octatoan (Feb 26, 2015)

Solodini said:


> I advise against memorising shapes. Doing so fixes you in one tuning, which is A) limiting to guitar and B) gives you very little to play with if you try another instrument. Learning the functional construction of theory is much better. It'll be slow but if you learn to construct the harmony and then find the notes as you need them then you'll get faster and faster at that and be able to seamlessly adjust.
> 
> Modes can be useful, but viewing them as just a major scale devalues them. Instead of looking at the modes of C major (the C major scale starting on each note of that scale) look at the modes with C as the tonic of each: C ionian, C dorian, C Phrygian, C Lydian et c.. You'll develop an appreciation for the character of each mode. None is more or less valuable than a major or minor scale.
> 
> ...



Shifting to a new tuning (perfect fourths with no high F as I've snapped it :/) may help with this, as can writing some music "away from the instrument" a la Colin Marston and friends.


----------



## Solodini (Feb 26, 2015)

Depends on if you're still learning by memorised shapes just in perfect fourths, or if you're paying attention to notes. I'd argue that a symmetrical tuning might make it worse in that you could pay less attention and just move shapes around more. Open tunings, on the other hand, would make you consider the interval between each pair of strings.


----------



## vansinn (Feb 26, 2015)

Likely causing troubles for myself now, but.. I have, like, _stuff_ inside of my head I can't express and write down - because of lack of music theory.

I agree you don't need music theory to write songs; however, some vibes/moods can be easily described via theory explaining known mechanisms and how we perceive such in the music we hear, thus knowing theory will be quite useful.
Also just might be handy when poking into working with other musicians..

Oh well, we all know where this leads:
Lessons leads to excellence, too many lessons leads to jazz..
(likely incorrect quote from someone in here)


----------



## bostjan (Feb 26, 2015)

It totally depends on what you expect to pull off. You're probably not going to have an easy time writing "progressive _____" without some substantial music theory up your sleeve, but it's still doable. And if you are trying to write grindcore songs, your most important prerequisites are going to be angst and loud instruments.

I'd say that your song writing will improve with more theory, but there is a law of diminishing returns involved, and also, the theory is far from the most important tool in songwriting.

Where theory is most important is in communication. If I'm playing with another guy and I want to call out chord changes, no theory knowledge at all on either of our parts will make it prohibitively frustrating. If the guy knows chord names, like G major, C major, D dominant seventh, E minor, etc., it'll make things workable, but, if he knows what I mean when I say "twelve bar in G major quick to four with a six sub in the turnaround," then I can explain the whole song in five seconds.


----------



## metaldoggie (Feb 26, 2015)

You really don't need to know any theory to write songs. I'm sure it helps though.

Theory is not going to make you become more creative, it will just mean you can explain what you are doing and maybe think of another way of doing something on the neck or on another instrument.

I think best thing to practice in order to write songs, is to imagine a guitar line in your head and then try to mimic it -training yourself to instinctively find the notes on the neck is more important than knowing the theory behind it.


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Feb 26, 2015)

bostjan, I've written a lot of progressive rock/metal stuff with next to no musical knowledge. Okay, it's not really good, but it's still prog rock/metal. Nothing's been recorded yet, but I've put them on bandcamp in 8-bit so at least they're our there. All of this has been written around 2006-2007-2008, when I was just beginning to play bass, with basic high school music class.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 26, 2015)

The Omega Cluster said:


> bostjan, I've written a lot of progressive rock/metal stuff with next to no musical knowledge. Okay, it's not really good, but it's still prog rock/metal. Nothing's been recorded yet, but I've put them on bandcamp in 8-bit so at least they're our there. All of this has been written around 2006-2007-2008, when I was just beginning to play bass, with basic high school music class.



I think you've proven my point. It's doable, but not so easy. You wrote it, but haven't recorded it yet, and it's been nearly ten years.

Also, are you not the guy who's into crazy microtonal and experimental stuff? I have a hard time believing that you have no musical knowledge.


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Feb 26, 2015)

bostjan said:


> I think you've proven my point. It's doable, but not so easy. You wrote it, but haven't recorded it yet, and it's been nearly ten years.
> 
> Also, are you not the guy who's into crazy microtonal and experimental stuff? I have a hard time believing that you have no musical knowledge.



Hey, we're talking about something 8-9 years ago. Now my knowledge have improved. And also, writing music is different than recording it. If it would have been for a band I was in at the time, then we could possibly have recorded the songs, but it was just for me. At the time I didn't have any recording gear, and only played bass. Even today I still only play bass, but I'd be able to sing and program drums on them, but I'd still need a guitar player to record those parts. Still, with next to no musical knowledge, you can write songs that are decent, and with a little recording device that costs less than 200$ you could record it, given you can play multiple instruments or know people who play the instruments you need.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 26, 2015)

How do you write music without some knowledge of theory unless you record it, though? 

Wouldn't you at least need to know some form of notation in order to write it down?


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Feb 26, 2015)

bostjan said:


> How do you write music without some knowledge of theory unless you record it, though?
> 
> Wouldn't you at least need to know some form of notation in order to write it down?



Not really if you use guitar pro. A tablature is really easy to understand, and for the rest, just trust your ear. So there, I guess your music will mostly sound like what you are listening to at the moment.


----------



## Solodini (Feb 27, 2015)

metaldoggie said:


> You really don't need to know any theory to write songs. I'm sure it helps though.
> 
> Theory is not going to make you become more creative, it will just mean you can explain what you are doing and maybe think of another way of doing something on the neck or on another instrument.
> 
> I think best thing to practice in order to write songs, is to imagine a guitar line in your head and then try to mimic it -training yourself to instinctively find the notes on the neck is more important than knowing the theory behind it.


 

But theory will at least help you to know what it is you just did, and if you did the exact same things for the last 10 songs you wrote and how to change it up, take control, try new things so you're not limited to what you've already heard. With some basic theory you can come up with things you've never heard before and see what you think of them, and add them to your vocabulary.





vansinn said:


> Likely causing troubles for myself now, but.. I have, like, _stuff_ inside of my head I can't express and write down - because of lack of music theory.
> 
> I agree you don't need music theory to write songs; however, some vibes/moods can be easily described via theory explaining known mechanisms and how we perceive such in the music we hear, thus knowing theory will be quite useful.
> Also just might be handy when poking into working with other musicians..
> ...


 
There's traditional music theory but you can develop your own equivalent from experience. A lot of people who play by ear and have a lot of experience seem to have developed their own language of music which accelerates their understanding. They may have a picture in their head of intervals which work with each other, but they know them by shape in standard tuning, rather than by interval names. They may hear the sound and picture the shape when others might hear the sound and think "that's a perfect 5th" or, alternatively, "that's the start of the Star Wars theme!" 

We all have different frames of reference. As long as you listen out for similarities and patterns, and develop some language to describe what's going on to yourself or to others, you'll be fine. It'll maybe take more work if you develop your own language and will obviously be less broadly communicable but it'll serve your creativity. Loads of bands will have their own mini-language, though. Often for comedy's sake, but someone will play something silly, it'll become an in-joke and when someone references it, they'll all know what to play. It's a micro version of having a song name. When you know the song, someone says "Play Freebird!" and you know what that means. If someone says "Play Freebird in Eb" (I don't actually know what key Freebird is in), if you know a bit of theory you can know the structure and transpose that to suit. Or just be lazy and put a capo on/dpwntune.

With the stuff you have in your head but can't play or write down, I'd suggest singing it and recording it, then sitting with your guitar to find the notes, or hashing it out with a slide so you can smoothly move to the notes you want without being thrown off by the movement of semitones (as I used to be).


----------



## GraemeH (Feb 27, 2015)

How much knowledge of gravity theory is required to not float away when you jump?

Music theory is a language to communicate musical concepts with others. The concepts exist and are usable and learnable regardless. You still build the patterns in your brain for recalling what each concept sounds like.

Having said that, from my experience it's easy to underestimate the usefulness of being able to communicate about music early on in your playing when all you want to do is teach your hands to get around that great riff or solo you want to play.


----------



## Solodini (Feb 27, 2015)

Very well said. Communication is about being clear with yourself, not just with others, so being able to put concepts into words can help you to know what to do with your hands when you're learning to play. Makes that tricky rhythm into a case of just counting along and playing on the &s or whatever the rhythm dictates. Makes working out that bit which was tabbed wrong easier, too, as you can know what's likely and quickly discount what it's not.


----------



## ncfiala (Feb 27, 2015)

Well of course you don't absolutely need any theory whatsoever, but why wouldn't you want to learn? It's interesting and fun.

I would also argue that there is no such thing as "guitar theory." I really think it is best to learn music theory without reference to any particular instrument. And especially not from a guitar point of view because many guitarists seem to have a lot of misunderstandings of theory.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 27, 2015)

None... See: Nirvana.


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Feb 27, 2015)

Konfyouzd said:


> None... See: Nirvana.



I also once was told that Opeth weren't really big on theory, but they just had really good ear, so they could write incredibly good songs even without theory. I don't know the validity of my source, however, but I still think it's a cool thing to think about.


----------



## PunchLine (Mar 2, 2015)

Knowing your theory, modes, chord structures, chord progressions definitely help but they are not required to write good songs. Since you can sing you start with great advantage. I'd recommend analyzing your favorite songs and trying to understand and learn what's happening in them.


----------



## thatguyupthere (Mar 3, 2015)

The guys in periphery know minimal to no theory I'm pretty sure and they write some weird shit technicality wise. I wrote my first song just following my ear, and I even now that I'm in college theory I don't write using theory still.


----------



## QuantumCybin (Mar 3, 2015)

thatguyupthere said:


> The guys in periphery know minimal to no theory I'm pretty sure and they write some weird shit technicality wise. I wrote my first song just following my ear, and I even now that I'm in college theory I don't write using theory still.



Yeah I've seen that before regarding Periphery; Nolly is the only player in the band who has a solid theory knowledge behind him, but even he still writes primarily by ear. However, they can all digest and understand rhythms. Someone asked Misha on his ask.fm about his theory knowledge (well actually, he gets asked that all the time) and his reply echoes what has been said in this thread: he's basically developed his own understanding of theory, and he has a pretty good ear.


----------



## viesczy (Mar 4, 2015)

You can know every rule of your native tongue's grammar and not be able to write a story. That's why most authors have editors that fix errors w/o changing the author's voice. 

Theory explains the how/why of a piece of music, but it isn't the magic of creativity. Immersing yourself in too much theory can limit/overwhelm someone. Take in as much as you can absorb/understand, apply and KNOW it. Once you're comfy with that, repeat the process with even more. 

Be sure you have your technical abilities down though... just using "basic" theory is fine but sloppy playing is UNFORGIVABLE!

Derek


----------



## ThePIGI King (Mar 4, 2015)

bostjan said:


> How do you write music without some knowledge of theory unless you record it, though?
> 
> Wouldn't you at least need to know some form of notation in order to write it down?



Besides knowing how to put what I write into tabs, I have zero knowledge and I have written plenty of songs, spanning nearly a decade. Only a select few (6 or so) could be considered good. Keith Merrow once said (I believe) that he was writing songs that were good well before he learned theory.


----------



## Aion (Mar 5, 2015)

I'll just add that the most important thing about theory is not to let it limit you. I love music theory, I'm a total nerd about it, but music theory isn't about creating rules to write music, it's about creating methods of analyzing music. Self-analysis can help you write things that are more interesting than you would otherwise, and it can prevent you from reinventing the wheel on a relatively simple musical problem, but don't confuse rules for theory with rules for composing. Only rule for composing: if it sounds right, it is right.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 5, 2015)

ThePIGI King said:


> Besides knowing how to put what I write into tabs, I have zero knowledge and I have written plenty of songs, spanning nearly a decade. Only a select few (6 or so) could be considered good. Keith Merrow once said (I believe) that he was writing songs that were good well before he learned theory.



Ok. But writing tabs is also a level of music notation. The problem is, that tabs do not contain enough information to recreate a song. You need to know the tuning and also the rhythm of the song. Once you have the tabs, the tuning, and the rhythm written down, you have used music theory.


----------



## redstone (Mar 5, 2015)

Disagree ... music notation is no part of music theory.


----------



## Aion (Mar 5, 2015)

redstone said:


> Disagree ... music notation is no part of music theory.



... Explain.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 5, 2015)

Is written language the equivalent of grammar and syntax, or does it merely demonstrate the capacity to portray those things?


----------



## TheFightingCPA (Mar 5, 2015)

I don't know how anyone can claim to love music yet not have an interest in understanding theory. At one point I was also a "by ear" player, though when I decided that this was going to be a lifelong hobby I put in the work because I wanted to undestand music as much as possible. It can only help, not hinder IMO. 

Just in the small frame of time relative to the time I've been playing, my musical ability and creativity has expanded DRAMATICALLY due to pursuing an understanding of theory. I honestly believe, my opinion of course, is those that don't attempt to learn it are either intimidated or just flat out lazy (which I was). It feels great knowing that I can go to a jam, or audition and if someone says 2-5-1-6 progression in the key of G I know exactly what they're talking about. Or knowing which scales to solo in, knowing how to contruct and alter chords on the fly. Give me a guitar with any tuning and I can build my own chords without having to look them up or knowing more that "shapes." I recommend that anyone who is even in the slightest serious about music to pursue an understanding of theory.

Now, obviously you don't "need" it. But you also don't "need" a manual for a complex calculator, you just won't know how to do half the things on it.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Mar 5, 2015)

funnily enough my friend and I were having a similar conversation today. 

He was complaining that his bandmates literally knew zero theory; I'm talking like "hey hit me an A the the low E string" lack of theory. He finds it frustrating, as he has a degree in music and that's something he's passionate about, yet the main songwriter and the rest of them know squat, and they get by just fine. 

I took theory in high school and college, but I really dislike talking about it and beyond "what are the chords" I don't really go too far into it. Still, I'm glad I took it because I've gotten by in professional scenarios based on vague, unpleasant recollections.


----------



## Aion (Mar 6, 2015)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> Is written language the equivalent of grammar and syntax, or does it merely demonstrate the capacity to portray those things?



It's not a one to one metaphor and I think this is one of the areas where it falls apart. There needs to be some way to conceptualize the music. It doesn't need to be traditional notation, plenty of people have written pieces that don't use it, but there needs to be a way for analysis to take place. At the very least, some form of conceptualization (even if it is not actually written down) needs to happen for analysis to happen and thus is a vital prerequisite fundamental of theory.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 6, 2015)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> Is written language the equivalent of grammar and syntax, or does it merely demonstrate the capacity to portray those things?



Language is the capacity to portray those things. Language theory is understanding what those things are, what to call them, and how they work.

Music is organized sound. Music theory is knowing what those sounds are, how to organize them, and how the sounds and organizations work.

No?


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 6, 2015)

Aion said:


> It's not a one to one metaphor and I think this is one of the areas where it falls apart. There needs to be some way to conceptualize the music. It doesn't need to be traditional notation, plenty of people have written pieces that don't use it, but there needs to be a way for analysis to take place. At the very least, some form of conceptualization (even if it is not actually written down) needs to happen for analysis to happen and thus is a vital prerequisite fundamental of theory.



Most of the music in the world exists without accompanying musical notation. Indian classical music has a highly complex theoretical framework, but is taught and communicated in a completely aural manner. Music notation &#8800; music theory.


----------



## ghost_of_karelia (Mar 6, 2015)

I have the arguably unpopular opinion that these threads are written by lazy players who are looking for people to give them good reasons to not learn theory because it's too much work.

If you want to go into music and especially composing as a career or even a hobby that you claim to have any dedication for, put the hours in and learn theory. At least then you can make the CHOICE to go by ear, rather than having to do so because you're absolutely clueless otherwise.


----------



## wespaul (Mar 6, 2015)

If you're writing songs specifically for yourself, then you probably don't need theory. If you're going to be commissioned to write songs in a wide variety of genres, it would probably be a huge help in order to categorize and classify unique concepts involved with them all.

The biggest misconception is that knowing theory will somehow limit you in your playing and/or creativity. In reality, it's just an excuse lazy people have to rationalize their unwillingness to put in the time to learn it. Nobody has learned theory and then said "great, now I'm screwed up."


----------



## bostjan (Mar 6, 2015)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> Most of the music in the world exists without accompanying musical notation. Indian classical music has a highly complex theoretical framework, but is taught and communicated in a completely aural manner. Music notation &#8800; music theory.



As someone who studied Indian Classical Music, that was not my experience. I assume you had the opposite experience, so I am cusrios about that.

I think that music notation is a subset of the study of music theory. I do not think that the set of music notation equals the set of music theory, and I didn't see any one here make that claim.

Just go to any music theory website, or open up any introductory music theory book and see if there is a section on notation.

Also, since I was just on dictionary.com, here is their definition of music theory:

"the study of the theoretical elements of music including sound and pitch, rhythm, melody, harmony, and notation"


----------



## cip 123 (Mar 6, 2015)

None.

But it's nice to have and good to spark new ideas.


----------



## Kwert (Mar 6, 2015)

This isn't a chicken/egg-type scenario. The music isn't created by the theory - the theory is used to describe and explain what is going on in the music. 

People discovered/accepted things that to them, sounded pleasing to the ear and eventually came up with some rules and ways to communicate these sounds visually, and the theory was created. 

Knowing the theory behind what you're listening to/analyzing/writing is excellent and very helpful for dissecting the things your favourite artists and bands do, and understanding why things sound the way they do, but it's not at all necessary to actually write good music.


----------



## Aion (Mar 7, 2015)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> Most of the music in the world exists without accompanying musical notation. Indian classical music has a highly complex theoretical framework, but is taught and communicated in a completely aural manner. Music notation &#8800; music theory.



I think I wasn't entirely clear. There needs to be some type of conceptualization, whether or not it's written down doesn't really matter.

Additionally, any type of notation is the written result of some type of theory. For ease of reference let's use western theory. Someone had to ask themselves, "how many notes do we typically use?" The answer was seven from a diatonic scale. Most melodies didn't go much further than an octave so the staff covers a ninth. Then someone needed to realize, "this melody covers a tenth," and had to create a theoretical thing to represent it, which was additional ledger lines. Someone else realized that a melody didn't stay totally diatonic and had to create a symbol to represent that, which would be accidentals. And so on and so forth. Notation is the result of music theory and is a part of it. Now, obviously some styles are entirely aural with no written notation. However, just because every musical tradition doesn't use something does not mean it isn't theory. After all, the function of a secondary dominant is a very western music theory concept. There are plenty of musical traditions that do not use the secondary dominant (some traditions actually can't because the way they organize a scale doesn't allow it). But the function of a secondary dominant is still part of music theory.

Music notation does not equal music theory, but whether one learns it or not (and one does not need to learn it) it is a part of music theory.


----------



## redstone (Mar 8, 2015)

Aion said:


> ... Explain.



Music notation is a part of the description of music theories. The theory in itself is describing something else : music rules. A triplet is not a music rule, just a pattern, albeit conceptual. Naming or recognizing a triplet is not theorizing about its musical context.


----------



## Junnage (Mar 16, 2015)

Technically, you don't need any theory. There are plenty of bands (The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Hendrix, Clapton, EVH, etc.) in the past who have been wildly influential and successful who don't know any theory. Perhaps they picked some up over the years, but it's not like they had to go to music school, they used their ear. Whenever I write music, I listen to the sounds in my head and use my ear. Theory does help, but it is definitely not a requirement.

tl;dr The theory came from the music, not the other way around.


----------



## Sumsar (Mar 16, 2015)

You don't have to know it, but it can be helpfull.

However if you learn it, in my opinion, you must also be able to 'turn it off'. If I were to analyse my riffs many of them would be not really in any scale, or an absurd mix of scales. When writing riffs I like to go by ear - however for more melodic parts or atmospheric parts it is great to know theory, because then you know how to "break the rules", that is make things sound weird. For example knowing which combinations of minor chords is not possible in your standard major scale, and then playing those is an easy way of writing black metal 

And if you wanna do the occasional iron maiden chorus: pick 3 - 4 chords (both major and minor) in your standard major scale, and chances are it will sound quite pop-ish


----------



## vividox (Mar 16, 2015)

I saw a Tosin Abasi workshop video on youtube one time where he stated it quite eloquently. Paraphrasing: "Knowing music theory is kind of like being a chef and knowing exactly what a particular spice is going to do to your dish. It's absolutely possible to cook something delicious without knowing what rosemary or thyme tastes like, but knowing exactly which spice is going to complement your dish the most can sometimes save you some trial and error." (Wish I could find that video again, but after searching for 10 minutes, I gave up.)

Theory is a nice thing to have in the back pocket (for me it helps a lot in writing transitions between riffs and writing accompanying parts), but as everyone else is saying, definitely not mandatory.


----------



## JohnIce (Mar 16, 2015)

Things you need to make good music:

- Knowledge
- Skill
- Talent
- Taste

For session work, limited rehearsal times, quickly learning someone else's music etc. theory is great, the more you know the better. More knowledge will make everything easier and quicker and help you get called back and get paid better. If you've got a good Musical Director who knows what he or she wants from you, then theory is ALL you really need to nail the gig and make them happy.

However, it means nothing for your personal creativity. The two are not substitutes for each other in any way. Creativity has a lot to do with basic human curiosity, and writing something you're 100% sure will work cause you're 100% sure Beethoven or Pantera did it, is not curiosity. You CAN squeeze a bit of enjoyment out of working that way, but it's my experience that those who do may eventually either get writer's block, or end up enjoying studying more and more advanced composers over actually writing anything themselves.

For creativity, taste is in my opinion what you need to work with. Understanding and developing your taste and learning to trust it blindly and fearlessly is worth more than any knowledge, or any amount of practice in my opinion. There are plenty of beloved musicians who have poor skills, poor theory knowledge, hardly worked at all to achieve their fame and success, but what they all have in common is just good taste. Producers who can't play an instrument but every record they're involved in somehow becomes a huge success, because of their taste.

At least this is my experience  For me to understand what I actually like is a lot more work than you'd think. Sweep picking is easier.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Mar 16, 2015)

I say learn as much as you want/everything you can, but then when ti comes time to actually write, toss all that shit away and break the rules, try to make shit that shouldn't work sound incomplete if you didn't do that, but also make sure you are doing shit that makes sense. And try not to over think it.


----------



## TheFranMan (Mar 20, 2015)

Echoing what everyone else said here, music theory isn't necessary. The Tosin quote is perfect also. Here's the thing, writing songs and being a "complete" musician are related, but not completely one and the same. Of course, I wouldn't ever consider a musician "complete," because there's always something else to learn. But what I mean is that while a person with zero musical theory knowledge may be able to write a tasteful song, it will be more difficult, and put in a situation where they have to improvise live or jam with friends, their ability to do so may be seriously hampered by their lack of knowledge. It's a good tool to use.


----------



## TallestFiddle (Mar 20, 2015)

I think theory is very useful when I'm writing songs, but I'm really learning most of my theory by learning to play/studying other people's songs. And I also learn a lot from writing songs (whether they're good or not)

I'd say that theory is most useful for analyzing what you've made, I don't think it's a formula for writing a song. For instance, if I write one section of a song, I'll analyze it to see what key it's in what time signature it has, what kind of rhythmic or harmonic qualities it has. Then I'll use this knowledge when I'm writing the next part so that I don't have too much of the same thing Going on through the song. I'll think "ok I just had a part with syncopated chords and some arpegios and some upbeat drums so in the next part I'll just strum chords on every 8th note and play the snare once per measure rather than twice" this is the type of theory based thinking that helps me, I know it's nothing crazy but that's the point, pretty much anything you know from studying music is theory.

And when I say studying I just mean thinking about why something sounds the way it does, and I'm sure most musicians do that naturally


----------



## ThePIGI King (Mar 21, 2015)

Someone once gave me the advice "Learn everything you possibly can about theory, and then forget all of it". Haven't actually done this (or have I, and I just can't remember?), but was wondering if anybody has done this.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Mar 21, 2015)

ThePIGI King said:


> Someone once gave me the advice "Learn everything you possibly can about theory, and then forget all of it". Haven't actually done this (or have I, and I just can't remember?), but was wondering if anybody has done this.



I was given the same advice verbatim.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 21, 2015)

I was never given that advice, verbatim or in paraphrase.

Most, maybe all, of the advice I have received in regards to music has been specifically instructive. I remember "get the tenor out of the basement" on a harmony exercise, and now I'm careful not to crunch voices below a certain register (unless it's for effect). My undergraduate advisor told me to think bigger in terms of orchestration and gesture a few times, and while I'm still working on it I think that was extremely valuable advice. One of my teachers had a habit of telling every one of his students, private or otherwise, to make every piece at least 10 minutes long. Maybe not everything needs to be like that, but what I took away was that a composition should have scope and that its questions should be answered. Another teacher hounded me to put dynamics, articulation, and phrasing on everything. It's amazing how much better that makes things sound.

I don't know, learning the theory stuff has never been a question. If you're a musician, you learn the musician's language, whether it be by ear or through a book. And learning what chords are in a key (and which ones aren't and how you use them) is just a drop in the bucket compared to everything else we have to do. I don't see why anyone seriously practicing the craft would be averse to learning the basics.


----------



## GraemeH (Mar 21, 2015)

Mr. Big Noodles said:


> I don't know, learning the theory stuff has never been a question. If you're a musician, you learn the musician's language, whether it be by ear or through a book. And learning what chords are in a key (and which ones aren't and how you use them) is just a drop in the bucket compared to everything else we have to do. I don't see why anyone seriously practicing the craft would be averse to learning the basics.



Hmm, I think there are two layers to the "language" thing, so it's not as simple as "(theory is) the musician's language"

Music itself - as in, the combinations of pitches and rhythms - is an intrinsic language to the sounds that speaks for itself. You need no musical training to get the idea a musician is trying to get across - sadness, joy, longing, excitement etc. Having a better trained ear/brain will let a musician use that language more naturally and effectively.

The way in which you write those sounds down on paper, figure out what chords make up a progression in a key, is a secondary language abstracted from the first, extrinsic to the actual music.

As has been said by others, the second follows from the first, not the other way around.


----------



## Solodini (Mar 23, 2015)

As MBN mentioned, though "whether it be by ear or through a book". By ear is that language you mentioned of inherent understanding of emotion and expression. That's the core language, academic theory is the study of linguistics.


----------

