# Theory snob issue (rant/question)



## xDarkCrisisx (Mar 8, 2013)

So recently a 'friend' of mine has been pushing my buttons about how "oh if you don't learn theory your guitar playing will be empty", and "If you don't take lessons you won't be as technical as you could be". Now I understand theory is important, but guitar lessons are just not for me, I like to have fun and play when/what I want. And I can think of plenty of guitarists who didn't take lessons. I don't quite enjoy being told that i'll never be good at something just because I won't pay someone to teach me, so I guess my 'question' is has anyone else ever dealt with the 'Theory Snob' issue?


----------



## phugoid (Mar 8, 2013)

xDarkCrisisx said:


> So recently a 'friend' of mine has been pushing my buttons about how "oh if you don't learn theory your guitar playing will be empty", and "If you don't take lessons you won't be as technical as you could be". Now I understand theory is important, but guitar lessons are just not for me, I like to have fun and play when/what I want. And I can think of plenty of guitarists who didn't take lessons. I don't quite enjoy being told that i'll never be good at something just because I won't pay someone to teach me, so I guess my 'question' is has anyone else ever dealt with the 'Theory Snob' issue?



It's not a black and white thing like that. You can learn lots of theory without taking lessons. You could also take lessons without learning much theory at all. So whether you take lessons depends on how you like to learn stuff.

I think you'll progress more quickly if you understand the basics of how music works, and you can more easily extract ideas from other people without simply copying them.

Learn theory if you want to, not because of your "friend"'s BS.


----------



## ChronicConsumer (Mar 8, 2013)

Actually, I used to be in the same position as you are right now. I did eventually end up being tempted to learn music theory, and am in fact studying musicology right now 

What you need to understand is that the vast majority of music theory guitarists talk about (you know, in their infamous 'if you don't know this, your playing sucks' speech) is fairly basic stuff. I would highly recommend at least being able to figure out the different notes of the fretboard. It is also advisable to learn how to construct the major scale, and after that, basic chord triads.

Why, you might ask? Well, for one thing, it's going to make your communication with other musicians a whole lot smoother. If people ask me to play a I-IV-V blues in C# minor, it really helps if, given that information, I have a pretty good idea of what notes will sound good in that particular scenario.

The other thing that, in my experience at least, has made learning theory worthwhile is being able to play the same thing in many, many different ways. If you know which notes are in a certain arpeggio (or chord voicing), you can play all kinds of crazy combinations, variations, inversions.. The point is, I no longer see scales and chords as shapes and fingering patterns, but as intervals. It really helped me with the entire 'breaking out of the box' thing.

If you decide you don't want to learn any theory, that's fine and no-one should try to force yourself. On the other hand, if you do feel a certain desire to expand your musicological knowledge, check out musictheory.net

Lastly, one of the things that really helped me in so many ways was ear training (mostly intervals). Being able to figure out songs by ear, and finally being able to play the music in my head... yummy.


----------



## bondmorkret (Mar 8, 2013)

Everyone has a different approach to writing music, but whether you like to think from a theory point of view or not, snobbery has no place in music!


----------



## Overtone (Mar 8, 2013)

There are self taught people who know alot of theory.


----------



## goldsteinat0r (Mar 8, 2013)

Your friend is being pretty closed minded. Enjoy your guitar and have fun. Unless you're a pro musician whose living depends on your skill/performance, you have no obligation to learn anything.


----------



## redstone (Mar 8, 2013)

Tell him that musical theories don't explain harmony, they're just an interpretation so far.


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 8, 2013)

I found lessons to be more of a chore than anything. Luckily I could get my instructor side-tracked on teaching me theory. I found that I really wanted the theory a lot more than the lessons. I know I can play guitar and I know what I need to do if I want to get better. The theory was more like having a dictionary and learning the meaning of words that I already knew. I played a lot of the things he was telling me about already, I just didn't know the proper theory terms for them. The things that I didn't know really help add more to your musical arsenal when writing and jamming.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 8, 2013)

ChronicConsumer said:


> Being able to figure out songs by ear, and finally being able to play the music in my head...



This is also something you can teach yourself to do. I can practice or learn songs (to a point) in my head without the guitar in my hands, and I hear intervals when I want to- but I've never taken any lessons.


----------



## meambobbo (Mar 8, 2013)

Daniel gildenlow said it best - learning music theory is like studying a language you already know.

We take English classes. We learn "proper" grammar, etc. Doesn't make you a good poet or author. It can give you insights that you may never have learned otherwise and improve your skills, but it's a piece of the whole and depending on context can be a very small piece.

My basic point is that the snobs are neither wrong nor right. You will learn things but they aren't necessarily going to make you a better artist. There's lots of people with music degrees that don't compose enjoyable or emotive music


----------



## xDarkCrisisx (Mar 8, 2013)

I get that, and I do know basic theory and I plan on learning a lot more of it. I've just never heard of this argument before hahah.


----------



## wespaul (Mar 8, 2013)

Theory is something you don't realize the importance of until you know it.


----------



## Sephael (Mar 8, 2013)

I personally hate the comment that so and so DIDN'T take lessons or study theory and they are great. Yeah it is true a lot of musicians have become great musicians shut up alone teaching themselves just by what sounds good, but that doesn't rule out how much better they could have been. 

I feel a good teacher should help you learn what you want to learn, in this case saying you only want to play what you want doesn't rule out taking lessons. 

As for theory, sprinkle it in, it won't hurt your playing (another claim I've heard several times).


----------



## Winspear (Mar 8, 2013)

wespaul said:


> Theory is something you don't realize the importance of until you know it.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 8, 2013)

xDarkCrisisx said:


> so I guess my 'question' is has anyone else ever dealt with the 'Theory Snob' issue?



Every day of my life, man.

Joking aside, you'd learn something if you took a couple lessons. If you want to be a better musician, what could it hurt to give $30 or whatever for what could be a life-changing observation or instruction? Maybe the way you're playing the guitar right now is going to cause your arms to fall off 15 years down the line, and a teacher points out the thing that you're doing that's causing that. Maybe you find that it's not for you, but if you've never had a lesson, how will you know?

If you simply don't desire that level of commitment (and believe that you never will), then you don't really need lessons. Keep in mind that nobody is ever beyond taking lessons. As for your friend, is he really being a dick or is he trying to offer a helpful suggestion? It could probably go both ways, but his tone sounds a little superior. I only have your word to go off of, though. If your friend's comments are really bothering you, let him know your thoughts. No reason to drive a wedge in your friendship if it's completely avoidable, and some discussion would probably be good for clarification.


----------



## xDarkCrisisx (Mar 8, 2013)

SchecterWhore said:


> Every day of my life, man.
> 
> Joking aside, you'd learn something if you took a couple lessons. If you want to be a better musician, what could it hurt to give $30 or whatever for what could be a life-changing observation or instruction? Maybe the way you're playing the guitar right now is going to cause your arms to fall off 15 years down the line, and a teacher points out the thing that you're doing that's causing that. Maybe you find that it's not for you, but if you've never had a lesson, how will you know?
> 
> If you simply don't desire that level of commitment (and believe that you never will), then you don't really need lessons. Keep in mind that nobody is ever beyond taking lessons. As for your friend, is he really being a dick or is he trying to offer a helpful suggestion? It could probably go both ways, but his tone sounds a little superior. I only have your word to go off of, though. If your friend's comments are really bothering you, let him know your thoughts. No reason to drive a wedge in your friendship if it's completely avoidable, and some discussion would probably be good for clarification.



I've just learned to ignore her, yes a HER. I'm not against the idea of lessons or theory, again I know some theory and intend to learn more. I prefer to jam with people, that in itself could be a 'lesson' and that's all fine and dandy with me but what she means is paying someone to instruct me and tell me what to learn, a more conventional 'lesson' or teaching.


----------



## meambobbo (Mar 8, 2013)

i don't want to give the impression from my last comment that i'm in any way against theory or recommend not taking lessons. I like to learn as much about theory as possible - i find it fascinating. It really takes a sledgehammer to your brain when you start to think music is simple.

But it's not a crutch, nor is it a necessary. And sometimes it's more about not following theory than following it to get the composition you want. In fact, a lot of "advanced theory" is about clever ways to break the "rules" of basic theory.

And I think "theory" is a horrible word for it. Really it is a standardized analysis of historical compositions and compositional trends. Ultimately music is an art - a medium to communicate or inspire certain emotions. I suppose one could test musical theories empirically through surveys or tricky thought experiments like sociology, but it's a much fuzzier picture than say the ability of a properly structured sentence conveying a concrete, factual thought reflecting real-world objects than a sentence that uses poor grammar. Look at the large disparity of musical genres and its variance from region to region.


----------



## skeels (Mar 8, 2013)

You should listen to your friend and do everything he tells you to because he is in charge of all music and is the final arbiter as to what is right or cool in regards to anything, ever.

Who is this guy again?


----------



## wespaul (Mar 8, 2013)

meambobbo said:


> And I think "theory" is a horrible word for it. Really it is a standardized analysis of historical compositions and compositional trends. Ultimately music is an art



I think that's exactly why "theory" is a great word for it. My theory teacher invites discussion, and on more than one occasion I've argued my answers and been given credit.


----------



## meambobbo (Mar 8, 2013)

i associate the word theory with an attempt to explain something. so what's it explaining? ultimately, if music theory is truly a theory of how the art of sound manipulation inspires/communicates emotion. That goes a lot further than saying "proper voice leading is pleasing to the ear".

And ultimately I think it's probably impossible to make a coherent, testable hypothesis that has no contradictory evidence. It would involve a complex study of psychology, physiology, sociology, and physics. History could guide it but could not define it.

Of course, if we simply mean theory is a set of principles, then yes, it fits.


----------



## wespaul (Mar 8, 2013)

meambobbo said:


> i associate the word theory with an attempt to explain something. so what's it explaining? ultimately, if music theory is truly a theory of how the art of sound manipulation inspires/communicates emotion. That goes a lot further than saying "proper voice leading is pleasing to the ear".
> 
> And ultimately I think it's probably impossible to make a coherent, testable hypothesis that has no contradictory evidence. It would involve a complex study of psychology, physiology, sociology, and physics. History could guide it but could not define it.
> 
> Of course, if we simply mean theory is a set of principles, then yes, it fits.



Theory | Define Theory at Dictionary.com

_4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory._


----------



## StratoJazz (Mar 8, 2013)

I think learning basic theory is important and learning the theory for the music you play. It ultimately comes down to practicality. Any other study of theory is just for fun, inspiration or completely necessary because you need to learn how to write a part for a specific instrument. 

What I think is more important than having a vast knowledge of chord/scales or music theory is having a good ear. If you can pick up and react to the music around you, that in itself kicks the pants out of theory.

If you're even remotely interested in lessons, you want to find a GOOD teacher first. Most guys that teach at general guitar stores are really a waste of time or are like your "friend" and aren't experienced enough to know the difference.


----------



## walleye (Mar 8, 2013)

xDarkCrisisx said:


> So recently a 'friend' of mine has been pushing my buttons about how "oh if you don't learn theory your guitar playing will be empty", and "If you don't take lessons you won't be as technical as you could be". Now I understand theory is important, but guitar lessons are just not for me, I like to have fun and play when/what I want. And I can think of plenty of guitarists who didn't take lessons. I don't quite enjoy being told that i'll never be good at something just because I won't pay someone to teach me, so I guess my 'question' is has anyone else ever dealt with the 'Theory Snob' issue?



tell him you posted your concerns on an internet forum and internet people agree with you in that your friends stupid


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 8, 2013)

redstone said:


> Tell him that musical theories don't explain harmony, they're just an interpretation so far.



Actually, theory can explain harmony. The more overtones that notes have in common, the more consonant their harmony will be, the fewer the more dissonant.

On topic: you don't have to learn theory if you don't want, but it can help expand your musical horizons. It really is just a set of guidelines that show you how to achieve certain styles. The great thing about theory is that you can learn all there is to know and still not use any of it if it doesn't help music that you like.


----------



## ncfiala (Mar 8, 2013)

If you're intersted in music theory and enjoy learning about it, then do it. If not, then don't. I find music theory interesting and I enjoy learning about it so I do.

As far as whether or not the word "theory" applies here, it does. People need to keep in mind that the meaning of the word "theory" varies from discipline to discipline. I'm a mathematician and the way we use the word "theory" is completely different from the way a scientist would use the word. And no, mathematics is not a science.


----------



## redstone (Mar 9, 2013)

Waelstrum said:


> Actually, theory can explain harmony. The more overtones that notes have in common, the more consonant their harmony will be, the fewer the more dissonant.



This is just a description, not an explanation ; geocentrists also used to describe the planetary motions pretty well. Music theory points out structural differences between which chord progressions sound good or bad to us, it doesn't explain why, thus it doesn't explain harmony (= what pleases the mind). A solid theory would explain harmony at a neurological level.


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples (Mar 9, 2013)

I didn't think theory was important until I started learning it.
If you wanna be a great lead guitarist, I think you have to learn theory or have some sort of understanding of how things work.

I don't think it's all too important when it comes to rhythm playing, but it can certainly be useful.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 9, 2013)

Waelstrum said:


> Actually, theory can explain harmony. The more overtones that notes have in common, the more consonant their harmony will be, the fewer the more dissonant.



I don't think that this is true. Case in point, minor triads. Tell me where in the overtone series you find a minor third from the fundamental. Another: the dominant triad. It's a major triad, so it should be considered a consonance, but instead it's the most common dissonance to Western music. Or, if you take the harmonic series again, the seventh partial is a slightly flat minor seventh from the fundamental. If you were to collapse the first seven partials into a chord, you'd get a dominant seventh quality chord, complete with tritone between the third and seventh (dissonant). In the Western tonal system, that seventh chord quality is a dissonance. However, when you get to blues and jazz and rock, dominant quality chords are such frequent fare and are used in such a way that they can be as consonant as anything else. In other words, consonance and dissonance are highly subjective. The perfect fourth in liturgical music circa 1200 C.E.? Dissonant as all shit, the pope would have your head. Now? Meh.



redstone said:


> Music theory points out structural differences between which chord progressions sound good or bad to us, it doesn't explain why, thus it doesn't explain harmony (= what pleases the mind). A solid theory would explain harmony at a neurological level.



This is a gross misappropriation of the terminology. "Theory" in art strictly applies to observation of practices and a deconstruction of physical and cultural principles as they relate to the medium. I don't see why this thread is degenerating into an argument over the definition of "theory". And you're mistaking music theory (a rather broad field) for the study of common practice harmony, which is taught to demonstrate how harmony worked in music that had clear boundaries and expectations. It's a pedagogical model, not the end-all be-all of the musical universe.



MrPepperoniNipples said:


> I don't think it's all too important when it comes to rhythm playing, but it can certainly be useful.



It helps to understand what the music is doing, and therefore how to interpret the music, no matter what part you're playing.


----------



## redstone (Mar 9, 2013)

SchecterWhore said:


> This is a gross misappropriation of the terminology. "Theory" in art strictly applies to observation of practices and a deconstruction of physical and cultural principles as they relate to the medium. I don't see why this thread is degenerating into an argument over the definition of "theory". And you're mistaking music theory (a rather broad field) for the study of common practice harmony, which is taught to demonstrate how harmony worked in music that had clear boundaries and expectations. It's a pedagogical model, not the end-all be-all of the musical universe.



You're the one arguing over it.. I just said it doesn't explain harmony and you actually support my point. I think the guy who said _"oh if you don't learn theory your guitar playing will be empty"_ needs to hear that he didn't learned the real rules of harmony through common theory. Agree ?


----------



## meambobbo (Mar 9, 2013)

As pointed out earlier "theory" has two definitions. One is the more sciency one dealing with a conjecture that explains truth. One is a set of principles. I didn't mean to derail the thread. I just said I commonly associate the word with the first definition and feel it doesn't fit what music theory actually is. But the second definition fits nicely.

"Pleasing" is highly subjective. An octave might be displeasing because of it register or timbre.

Here's a simple question: is dissonance is displeasing, why do some people enjoy listening to it?


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 9, 2013)

redstone said:


> You're the one arguing over it..



Because there is far too much insinuation that theory of practice in art is analogous to the process of forming a theory in science.



> I just said it doesn't explain harmony and you actually support my point. I think the guy who said _"oh if you don't learn theory your guitar playing will be empty"_ needs to hear that he didn't learned the real rules of harmony through common theory. Agree ?


Allow me to revisit your previous post.

"Music theory points out structural differences between which chord progressions sound good or bad to us, it doesn't explain why, thus it doesn't explain harmony (= what pleases the mind)."

Harmony explains harmony, how chords are formed and their tendencies in a tonal context. Almost what you said, but then you go on to something more akin to subjective criticism: the dichotomy between good and bad. Music theory can't explain our subjectivity (what sounds good or bad to our ears), but it is by its very nature a catalog of what people generally liked hearing in the past. 

"A solid theory would explain harmony at a neurological level."

Wrong kind of theory. Although, if you wanted this sort of thing, you could look at the anatomy of the ear and the science of psychoacoustics. Not music theory, but tangentially related by the nature of the subject matter.



meambobbo said:


> "Pleasing" is highly subjective. An octave might be displeasing because of it register or timbre.



To add to that, an octave might also be displeasing because it is a waste of a voice (if you're into complex harmony and polyphony), or it makes a voice too thick compared to what the texture calls for.



> Here's a simple question: is dissonance is displeasing, why do some people enjoy listening to it?



My input:

Dissonance calls attention to itself. Once the spotlight is on, our attention goes there, so that dissonance has gotta look good. If it goofs up, we are critical of it and say it is bad. If it is handled successfully, then it is beautiful. And dissonances are not universal: a lot of musics consider the tritone to be a dissonance. It requires certain handling, as in the case of a V7-I cadence. However, the music of Bartók and Ligeti deliberately juxtaposes sonorities and melodies at the tritone for bitonal effect. Intervals such as the perfect fourth and fifth, while more conventionally consonant, sound really off in a texture where key relationships need to be as far apart as possible to outline the individuality of each line.


----------



## meambobbo (Mar 9, 2013)

i'm agreeing with you (like 99% of your posts). I think trying to determine a universal scientific theory of what music is enjoyable or not is futile. Even if you custom-tailored the set of "rules" about what is enjoyable to a single individual, it'd still be futile.

sorry to derail this thread.


----------



## wespaul (Mar 9, 2013)

The theory snobs are certainly out in full force in this thread.

And I love it.


----------



## meambobbo (Mar 9, 2013)

Who me? I'm certainly a nerd about anything music but look at what I wrote throught this thread - certainly no snob. If I'm snobby anywhere it's in distortion tone and I play a friggin pod hd so that's the extent of my snobbery


----------



## guitarguyMT (Mar 9, 2013)

I've played with some amazing guitarists that know almost nothing about theory beyond the pattern difference between a Major and Minor bar chord. 

IMHO though, the extent to which someone should understand theory should be reflective of what they intend to do with the instrument. A hobby guitarist or a musician that usually just does covers and isn't writing a lot of his/her own music probably doesn't need to know a lot of theory, or really ever get into it. However, a guitarist that plans on composing some of his/her own music should probably know at least a little bit of theory, like a major/minor scale... but the genre you intend to write should probably influence how much theory one should learn. If it's really chuggy not-so-melodic math sorta thing or breakdownish tough guy stuff, you don't need much theoretical knowledge I don't think, but it's gonna be hard to compose a well written, really technical and melodic power-metal or tech-death sorta thing with a limited knowledge of theory. You could have all the chops and technical talent in the world, but if you're constantly playing notes that don't belong in the implied key signature or are arpeggiating chords that don't fit together, something is going to sound off and be reflected in one's playing. And the more complex the music, the more opportunity for "incorrectly" placed notes or voiced chords.

_"Hold on man, but what about all that music that's breaking all those music theory 'rules' you theory snobs are always talking about? It's still good music! \m/"_ ...I ABSOLUTELY agree! But there's a huge difference between breaking the rules and not knowing the rules, and it shows. I would also be willing to guarantee the vast majority of your favorite guitarists/musicians know a decent amount of theory.

When I was a music comp student, I had a professor (Dr. Williams, UMT) give me this analogy and I think it's perfect. _"If a carpenter wants to build a house, he's going to need tools. The more tools he has, the better he will be able to construct his house, and the better he understands how to use his tools, the better his quality of the build. Theory is just one of many tools in a musician's arsenal, yet it can be one of the most often used and important tools one could have."_

Either way, it all comes down to what you want out of your instrument.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 10, 2013)

^ I agree with this, with the added comment that genre shouldn't be a determining factor in what you decide to learn, or how you explore sound. New sounds come from people who recognize the way things are, then say, "Hey, I don't see anybody doing this thing. I wonder what it would sound like."

Edit: One more thing!



guitarguyMT said:


> IMHO though, the extent to which someone should understand theory should be reflective of what they intend to do with the instrument. A hobby guitarist or a musician that usually just does covers and isn't writing a lot of his/her own music probably doesn't need to know a lot of theory, or really ever get into it.



While one can get away without any knowledge of musical practice in situations like this, it still helps to have that education behind you. Here are two recent examples where harmony has helped me where somebody who doesn't have the same education may have been (and, indeed, were) fooled.

1. I'm learning a song to play for my girlfriend on our anniversary. It's a simple pop tune from the 90's. This is a pretty common reason people pick up guitar, right? Girls and all that. I was at school when I decided on the song, so I looked up the chords for it online and perused Ultimate Guitar or some tab site like that. A lot of the transcriptions had the verse chord progression as G B C#. I'm looking at that thinking, "Really? Tritone? In a girlfriend song?", so I check out the tune when I get home. Turns out the guitarist's intonation is completely off: the G is a little sharp, the B is even sharper, then when he gets to the C (what it should have been, as anybody with a working knowledge of music theory will know), _whoa mama, it's sharp_. It's not quite C#, but it still fooled a bunch of transcriptionists. If I went by the recording and by the people doing the tab, then I would have been wondering why the damn thing sounded so weird.

2. I was making parts from Handel's Messiah out of Boosey & Hawkes' edition of the score. Realize that this is one of the most well known and widely performed pieces of repertoire in Western music, and the score is by the biggest publisher. I'm copying down a recitative that starts in B minor (two sharps, F# and C#), and modulates to F# minor at the end (F#, C#, and G#). It's a short recitative, so there's no reason to put the second key signature in when the modulation happens. It's all done with accidentals. Anyway, I get to the last measure, and the cadence ends on a _tierce de Picardie_ (Picardy third, major tonic chord at the end of a minor phrase), so the progression is C#7 F#. Except for one thing: on the C#7, Boosey & Hawkes is telling me that there is a G&#9838;. "Really? Tritone? In a Handel song?" Also, the G is leading up to A#, creating the interval of an augmented second. I could have either accepted that Handel learned harmony from the internet and was really awful at voice leading, or deduced that the editor on this prestigious edition of the score was too lazy to check the chord. What happened is the key signature still belonged to the old key, and somebody forgot to inflect the G#.

Thanks, harmony!


----------



## mdphillips1956 (Mar 10, 2013)

ncfiala said:


> If you're intersted in music theory and enjoy learning about it, then do it. If not, then don't. I find music theory interesting and I enjoy learning about it so I do.
> 
> As far as whether or not the word "theory" applies here, it does. People need to keep in mind that the meaning of the word "theory" varies from discipline to discipline. I'm a mathematician and the way we use the word "theory" is completely different from the way a scientist would use the word. And no, mathematics is not a science.



I suppose the great composers like Bach and Beethoven knew their music theory pretty well, but they were essentially great improvisors and inventors who used their theory to write down the stuff they made up... as in thinking up a new riff and having a way to write it before it gets forgotten... not having tape recorders back then!
Hendrix had little learned music theory at the start, but he could see harmonies and rhythms in his head that Bach would have been fascinated by I think.
Me and my brother started guitar together forty something years ago: he can do it reading and writing music while for me it is completely a head job... it's just horses for courses!
Thanks,
Mark D Phillips.......


----------



## redstone (Mar 10, 2013)

SchecterWhore said:


> Because there is far too much insinuation that theory of practice in art is analogous to the process of forming a theory in science.
> 
> Allow me to revisit your previous post.
> 
> ...



There are no insinuations whatsoever ; just said it doesn't worth being called a theory which explains harmony (between human affect and sound structures, aka music). Have you been hurt by the first part to the point of overlooking the most important ?

I fully agree that harmony - the discipline - is self-explanatory ; it explains its descriptions, not what it describes.. since the subject of music theory is music, not theory. Well, such theory doesn't explain music and I'm fine with that so please don't overreact. What I'm not fine with is people who aren't.. and I sincerely hope that you're no part of them. Btw I make my best to ignore your "wrong kind of theory" gratuitous provocation.  

ps. the catalog argument is non sequitur.


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 10, 2013)

SchecterWhore said:


> I don't think that this is true. Case in point, minor triads. Tell me where in the overtone series you find a minor third from the fundamental. Another: the dominant triad. It's a major triad, so it should be considered a consonance, but instead it's the most common dissonance to Western music. Or, if you take the harmonic series again, the seventh partial is a slightly flat minor seventh from the fundamental. If you were to collapse the first seven partials into a chord, you'd get a dominant seventh quality chord, complete with tritone between the third and seventh (dissonant). In the Western tonal system, that seventh chord quality is a dissonance. However, when you get to blues and jazz and rock, dominant quality chords are such frequent fare and are used in such a way that they can be as consonant as anything else. In other words, consonance and dissonance are highly subjective. The perfect fourth in liturgical music circa 1200 C.E.? Dissonant as all shit, the pope would have your head. Now? Meh.



The fundamental doesn't necessarily have to be one of the overtones in common. If you look at a simple major chord made out of C3 C4 E4 and G4 they have the these overtones:

C3 C4 G4 C5 E5 G5 Bb5 C6 etc...
C4 C5 G5 C6 E6 G6 Bb6 C7 etc...
E4 E5 B5 E6 G#6 B6 D7 E7 etc...
G4 G5 D5 G6 B6 D7 F7 G7 etc...

These are all consonant because they have many overtones in common. Also note that the most consonant interval (the octave) has the most overtones in common, and the least consonant interval (the minor third) has the least common overtones. The E and G are still consonant because they have all those Bs in common, but less that the C and G which has the Es in common, which occur earlier in the series and therefore will occur more often.

If we take a look at the minor chord you mentioned we get this:

C3 C4 G4 C5 E5 G5 Bb5 C6 etc...
C4 C5 G5 C6 E6 G6 Bb6 C7 etc...
Eb4 Eb5 Bb5 Eb6 G6 Bb6 Db7 E7 etc...
G4 G5 D5 G6 B6 D7 F7 G7 etc...

The Cs and the Eb still have a few Gs (and an eventual Bb) in common, making it a consonant interval.

You mentioned the dominant seventh chord, which is dissonant, but not entirely:

C3 C4 G4 C5 E5 G5 Bb5 C6 etc...
C4 C5 G5 C6 E6 G6 Bb6 C7 etc...
E4 E5 B5 E6 G#6 B6 D7 E7 etc...
G4 G5 D5 G6 B6 D7 F7 G7 etc...
Bb4 Bb5 F6 Bb6 D7 F7 Ab7 Bb7 etc...

As mentioned, the E and Bb are very dissonant, but the Bb is consonant with the G, and the distance between the Bb and the two Cs is sufficient that there are actually some common overtones, making it not so dissonant after all. This is why voicings that have the seventh some distance from the bass (say, in standard guitar chords which have it about one octave from the root played on the guitar and a further octave from the root in the bass guitar) are considered more or less consonant.

For contrast, here is a very dissonant interval of a minor second:

C4 C5 G5 C6 E6 G6 Bb6 C7 etc...
Db4 Db5 Ab5 Db6 F6 Ab6 Cb6 Db7 etc...

No overtones in common (in the first eight harmonics, there are eventually some common overtones), making it a very dissonant interval.

However, I agree that subjective taste is a very important part of it, as you mentioned with examples of the Catholic church in the Renaissance compared to, say, blues music.

tl;dr: The consonance/dissonance of harmony can be explained with music theory, but why we like consonance/dissonance can't.

EDIT: Sorry for getting way off topic.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 11, 2013)

^ I like this. Most of the argument for consonance in the harmonic series comes from the analysis of the series from a single fundamental. In reality, you're probably only going to hear a couple of those overtones to the point where they represent functional pitch content, so thinking in terms of what you'd hear in a chord (multiple fundamentals, played on piano or guitar, probably) is a refreshing way to look at it. On the other hand, I don't like going to deep with the harmonic series. The overtone series rides the precipice between incontrovertible fact and utter bullshit sometimes. 



Waelstrum said:


> tl;dr: The consonance/dissonance of harmony can be explained with music theory, but why we like consonance/dissonance can't.



Ditto.



> EDIT: Sorry for getting way off topic.



Hell, we might as well now.



redstone said:


> There are no insinuations whatsoever ; just said it doesn't worth being called a theory which explains harmony (between human affect and sound structures, aka music).



Allow me to revisit the same post once more.

"Music theory points out structural differences between which chord progressions sound good or bad to us, it doesn't explain why, thus it doesn't explain harmony (= what pleases the mind)."

Again, music theory has nothing to do with how our biology reacts to music, nor does it have anything to do with aesthetics at any time other than in the past. Theory in art is more history than it is science. 

"A solid theory would explain harmony at a neurological level."

There is no need to "explain" harmony, other than citing its historical development. Harmony (the simultaneous occurrence of vertical sonorities) is a part of Western musical culture, and a scant few other musical cultures. It's not a natural phenomenon, and treating it as such takes you out of the realm of music theory.



> Have you been hurt by the first part to the point of overlooking the most important ?


I think I'll manage.



> I fully agree that harmony - the discipline - is self-explanatory ; it explains its descriptions, not what it describes.. since the subject of music theory is music, not theory. Well, such theory doesn't explain music and I'm fine with that so please don't overreact.


Perhaps I'm missing something. Would you care to elaborate upon this statement?

Harmony is like any other facet of music theory: it is descriptive of music within a socio-historical context. If you're talking about Common Practice harmony (the harmony of Western European art music between the years of 1600 and 1900), which is usually what we refer to when we say "harmony", then it perfectly describes what is going on in music of the Common Practice Period. If you think that CPP Harmony is explaining its own descriptions and not shedding any light on what you think it should be describing, then perhaps you are not looking at it through the correct historical lens. We do not live in Western Europe between the years of 1600 and 1900. To say that the CPP Harmony does not describe what's going on in our music of today (wherever you may be in the world) is not surprising.



> What I'm not fine with is people who aren't.. and I sincerely hope that you're no part of them. Btw I make my best to ignore your "wrong kind of theory" gratuitous provocation.


I'm not trying to provoke you. The definition of "theory" you seem to be using belongs to the sciences. Art does not have testable hypotheses or postulates. My interest is in dispelling the scientific definition of theory in this discussion.



> ps. the catalog argument is non sequitur.


It's not an argument, it's a fact. And it is not a non sequitur, it relates directly to our discussion on the definition of music theory. Music theory surveys the structure of music within its cultural context. It is literally a historical catalog of musical practice. Music theory makes no qualitative assurances, only observations on historical trends in music in a given culture. There is no scientific or aesthetic content to music theory.

I'm really bored with this, and I'm pretty sure the OP isn't coming back.


----------



## Curt (Mar 11, 2013)

As I read SchecterWhore's posts, it occurs to me that I need to get into theory... I know only basic theory, and though I learn by ear well... I need a better understanding of what theory I am applying in my writing, and moreso, learn theory that I don't know that will prove useful when trying to fine-tune aspects of the riffs I am working on, which often stumps me. Just not sure where to begin looking for the source of the knowledge...


----------



## EcoliUVA (Mar 11, 2013)

SSO needs a SchecterWhore signal, ala the Bat signal for Batman. A silhouette of a scantily clad C7, whatever the hell that would look like. Then, a button users can press to stick this distress signal next to the thread, similar to the yesway/noway/etc. at thread creation. 

If there were ever a thread that needed one of these, this is it. Fortunately, our caped crusader's ever vigilant eye doesn't miss much. Thank you, abalone-clad keeper and protector of the theory!


----------



## Najka (Mar 14, 2013)

Music is like a langauge, Sure you can learn all kinds of sentances and words, but you won't understand what you are saying. If you are a recreational guitar player, or you play really simple music the whole aspect of theory would just be to sedate your worn curiosity. 

Once I graduated from the tableture and learned some theory, the difference in my playing was night and day. I would preferably want to play with other musicians that atleast understand key signatures and how to play in key with me. Otherwise they are just spouting off patterns they learned in tabs to whatever key, in hopes it will sound good over the rest of the band


----------



## dbk91 (Mar 17, 2013)

I feel like Theory helps one process music more quickly. I have a tendency to hear musical ideas in my head (and always have since I was young) before I begin writing. Ever since I learned the little bit of Theory I know, I've been able to immediately sit down at a piano or pick-up my guitar and quickly play out an outline of my idea. If you don't learn theory, it will not devastate your writing or playing ability, but it will make certain aspects of learning and creating significantly slower.

I also feel that Theory is the best way to communicate musical ideas between musicians. Rather than trying to communicate fret and string numbers, you can tell your guitarist or bassist to play a certain note, scale, or chord.

However, if you don't have a desire to learn Theory but want to play and write music well, the only solution is listening to as much music as possible and practicing. The ear is the most important thing. If you don't listen to a broad spectrum of music, your writing will be narrow. If you don't practice and intently listen for good tone when playing (which comes from playing slowly to a metronome and building accuracy), you will play sloppily. That's how I feel about it, at least. 

Don't doubt yourself because someone is telling you Theory is the end-all-be-all to great guitar playing. It's helpful and it's wonderful knowledge to have, no doubt. Having said that, you must be confident in how you practice and listen.


----------

