Prog and (how much) Music Theory?

I think that is advisable to know something about music theory if you are into prog. I mean when they start talking about time signaatures and chord progressions all I can say is : " This band Rocks!!" and I feel like an idiot.

popeyethecat wrote: Q6 wrote: Chanting can be expressive and needs no words. A child's nursery rhyme can be expressive but requires little vocabulary. I could read a book on quantum physics but it would not move me. Most music (western) is based on a few simple scales. You can whistle them or hum them. Does that mean you know music theory? Or is it a cultural thing. Eastern / middle eastern cultures also have their own scales that give their music a distinctive sound. Sometimes it sounds unfamiliar to those in the western world but to those who are brought up in that culture it is as familiar as DOH-REH-ME-FAR-SO-LA-TE-DO is to westerners. It is this instinctive knowledge of music that give a musician the skill to communicate the essence of a song, the hook, the melody line, the riff, the bit you whistle. The the next trick is to communicate that essence. Musical theory helps to add depth or colours to that initial essence. The more theory you know the easier it is to add those musical textures and dynamics. But the question was specifically about progressive rock musicians? And I think the same holds true. Some are instinctively good at playing. They convey magic in the single notes or even the spaces between the notes... "Gilmour". If you are a natural and have that gift then a basic knowledge is all that is required. If you don't you can flower it up with theory so it "works", as I said prog by numbers. Now add great musical knowledge to someone who is also a natural then boom!! Light blue touch paper and stand well back. But musical theory by itself... is just theory. Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you, to an extent! Someone with no natural musicality or feel can read all they want, that won't produce expressive music. What I meant was that music theory helps you express yourself better and more fluently. It is something that can be learned through reading, but also through experience! You may not know the names for things, but you can work things out. After all, theory is just things people in the past have worked out, is it not?

Yep I would agree with that.

popeyethecat wrote: Q6 wrote: Music theory? Does that help you put soul into your music? Probably not. Being comfortable with your instrument is more important. You got to let your heart find its voice in your playing then another person will be able to truly hear what you're playing. I sound like yoda There are several bands out there who play what I call "prog by numbers". You can tell that they know scales and modes and harmonies and blah blah but it's so bland. BUT surely you would need to know enough theory to successfully put soul into music? It's like expressing yourself with words - you need to know a language first.

Chanting can be expressive and needs no words. A child's nursery rhyme can be expressive but requires little vocabulary. I could read a book on quantum physics but it would not move me.

Most music (western) is based on a few simple scales. You can whistle them or hum them. Does that mean you know music theory? Or is it a cultural thing. Eastern / middle eastern cultures also have their own scales that give their music a distinctive sound. Sometimes it sounds unfamiliar to those in the western world but to those who are brought up in that culture it is as familiar as DOH-REH-ME-FAR-SO-LA-TE-DO is to westerners.

It is this instinctive knowledge of music that give a musician the skill to communicate the essence of a song, the hook, the melody line, the riff, the bit you whistle. The the next trick is to communicate that essence.

Musical theory helps to add depth or colours to that initial essence. The more theory you know the easier it is to add those musical textures and dynamics.

But the question was specifically about progressive rock musicians? And I think the same holds true. Some are instinctively good at playing. They convey magic in the single notes or even the spaces between the notes... "Gilmour". If you are a natural and have that gift then a basic knowledge is all that is required. If you don't you can flower it up with theory so it "works", as I said prog by numbers.

Now add great musical knowledge to someone who is also a natural then boom!! Light blue touch paper and stand well back. But musical theory by itself... is just theory.


Edited by Q6 - November 21 2008 at 12:09

Music theory? Does that help you put soul into your music? Probably not. Being comfortable with your instrument is more important. You got to let your heart find its voice in your playing then another person will be able to truly hear what you're playing. I sound like yoda

There are several bands out there who play what I call "prog by numbers". You can tell that they know scales and modes and harmonies and blah blah but it's so bland.


Edited by Q6 - November 20 2008 at 13:53

Damn, caught out 

Sometimes humour is the only appropriate response ...


Edited by russellk - August 18 2008 at 11:24

WinterLight wrote: Incidentally, that's precisely what you've done.  I've asked you repeatedly to substantiate your position, but you've refused.

Edited by Certif1ed - August 18 2008 at 03:24

Trademark wrote: Winterlight's Grammar analogy is quite possibly the closest we'll get to an accurate view of music theory. Yes, theory is mostly descriptive. It is a way of understanding what others have done and a general sort of language has resulted from this study. No one is obligated to follow any rules, but there are physical properties to sound and pitch that have proven useful and are therefore taught and studied. Everyone who ever picks up an instrument and learns a song or two, no matter the method he uses to learn, is gaining knowledge of these extremely basic theoretical principles whether by formal study or by osmosis, they are learning music theory. But like grammar, there has to be some common syntax or intelligible communication is rendered impossible. Just go and read some Gertrude Stein (or to a lesser degree ee cummings or James Joyce) if you doubt this. This need for communication is a major part of why music theory is taught as a set of "rules", in much the same way that grammar is taught as rules. Anyone who reads knows that no author uses grammar exclusively according to those rules, just as virtually no composer would ever consider using music theory as a set of rules. (classroom exercises are an exception, of course). We use just enough "grammar" to make sure our audience knows what we're trying to communicate, and then let our imaginations fill in the spaces with new and unusual sounds that we (the composers) find pleasing. The idea that one can create intelligible music that others will understand and enjoy by "creating straight from the heart and soul" is, however, completely ludicrous. Put someone who has never played any instrument in front of a piano (or any other instrument) and tell them to "create from the heart" and you'll get garbage. Learning to play is learning theory. Learning to copy (interpret) others is learning theory. Learning to compose is learning theory. Listening to and reading about music can be learning theory, because music always is (and at the same time never is) music theory. It is not about learning the rules and then breaking them. That is an incredibly juvenile attitude. Learning to play, to interpret, to compose is learning about how music works. Formal study can be tedious, but it is faster than waiting for inspiration and experience to teach you what you need to know. Formal training is a jump-start into the wider world of music. Once you know the basics of how sounds and tones are assembled into music your inspiration and experience can take you much much further.   But however you approach it, if you know you're playing in 4/4 time and in the key of E you already know some theory.

Indeed Trademark.
The amount of times I've come across people on forums and even more annoyingly in real life that believe it's "better to play from the heart and don't bother learning theory" is ridiculous. You would think more people would understand that knowing theory is only ever a benefit.
Your third paragraph sums that up rather nicely.
Now that I actually know a lot more theory than I used to say, 3 years ago, I can more confidently improvise without having to stumble around and hope my "ear" gets it right or not.
Being able to compose and actually understand what the hell I'm doing and be able to link ideas more effectively rather than just have to use way too much trail and error, is just a blessing.
Now that I have this knowledge, never do I look back.
If someone wants to just write blues songs and have a rudimentary knowledge of theory and have limited technique, fine for them.
But not for me, because there is only so much I believe I can express with limited knowledge and technique.
Having a more extensive knowledge of theory and having more technique is just a liberating feeling and always me to really put through my feelings and emotions through music in a much more expressive way.


Indeed, I noticed how off topic this topic was getting, had to bring it back into line me thinks.

russellk wrote: ^No, they're actually called 'binaries'. I'm sure that's the patois of the presently ordained Parisian intelligentsia, but I still think that "dichotomy" is a better choice.  But this is a stylistic concern mainly (though I'm sure that a deconstruction of my diction could provide some filler for a PoMo dissertation). I've emailed both Foucault and Derrida and they agree with you. Derrida said he didn't know what he was thinking, using the term 'binary' when clearly 'dichotomy' was a better choice. He's off now to rewrite his masterworks, and asked me to pass on his grateful thanks. This may come as a surprise, but not everyone grants papal infallibility to the secular priesthood.

Certif1ed wrote: Winterlight - you've brought nothing new to the argument, save your own opinions based on limited knowledge. I never suggested that my approach is novel in any sense; in fact, I feel somewhat silly in emphasizing such obvious points.  Not sure how you can assess the limitations of my musical knowledge through an exchange over a forum on the Internet:  maybe it is limited in some way, but you really have no way of knowing this, especially since I haven't discussed music theory but rather its metatheory. I can find nothing in your response worthy of a reply - you respond to my points with opinions stated baldly as if they're some kind of fact, or simple twists to attempt some kind of meaning change to put yourself in a stronger arguing position. Incidentally, that's precisely what you've done.  I've asked you repeatedly to substantiate your position, but you've refused.  If I've written statements that you believe merit qualification, then ask me and I'll gladly comply. This is not debate, it's just contradiction, and ultimetly, useless twaddle that assists nothing but your own self-glorification. Again, I'm not interested in debate as I don't feel compelled to choose one side or the other.  Although I readily admit that my comments are neither novel nor profound, I'm doubtful that it's "useless twaddle."  But, then again, such categorization probably facilitates dismissal of my position.   You even state that this is your approach, then challenge me to defend my position, while you do no such thing - is that reasonable? No, I did not state this: I wrote quite the opposite, viz. "I don't debate."  On the other hand, I do think dialogues have potential to be constructive.  Also:  I believe that I've answered most questions or criticisms about my claims.  If there's something that I've missed, then let me know.   Debate is the way to further knowledge. See above.   It's clear you have a bee in your bonnet about my Opeth review... Not "clear" exactly.  I admit that I didn't care for your scandalization of the "wrong note."  But, to be honest, I don't like Watershed either, but I don't feel the need to build for my opinion the facade of objectivity--I don't like the album, and that's my problem not Opeth's. ...but if you want to discuss music, then please learn about it first... What, other than the difference of our opinions, provides the basis for your claim I know little about music theory.  Of course, you could be correct, but there is no evidence to support that conclusion in this thread. ...or stop side-stepping and show some real thought. Not side-stepping at all.  Again, I've tried to reply to all serious criticisms or questions about my statements.  If I've missed something, then please bring it to my attention.  Furthermore, I think that I've given some "real thought" to the ideas raised in this thread.  That you don't agree with these thoughts doesn't make them any less "real." It's clear this discussion finished with your first response, which was also somewhat void of actual content. My first response in this thread: "But it's a mistake to consider music theory as a set of rules--it's a descriptive rather than prescriptive theory, i.e. it's simply a collection of guidelines on what generally works or is sonorous to the occidental ear, not a body of regulations as to how or what to compose." I don't see how that's "somewhat void of actual content."  Of course, it may be entirely false that music theory is "descriptive rather than prescriptive."  But the fact that it can be evaluated as true or false implies that it does indeed have "actual content."  Again, I admit that there's nothing novel in this claim, but I do believe that this formulation approaches the truth of the matter.  I honestly don't see how it could be otherwise:  maybe you could articulate that possibility instead of casting aspersions?

Edited by WinterLight - August 17 2008 at 15:16

russellk wrote: ^No, they're actually called 'binaries'. I'm sure that's the patois of the presently ordained Parisian intelligentsia, but I still think that "dichotomy" is a better choice.  But this is a stylistic concern mainly (though I'm sure that a deconstruction of my diction could provide some filler for a PoMo dissertation). You really ought to have read some Derrida. Thank you, no.  I prefer authors who have healthy respect for rationalism and whose work has impact on the world beyond the kaffeeklatsch (say, for example, Bertrand Russell or Noam Chomsky). Strange that something essentially simple is either tautologous or unintelligble: I congratulate you on your self-confidence. More misdirection.  I claimed that what "theorists" write is either tautologous (essentially simple) or unintelligible (essentially meaningless).  In the former case, and in the interest of acquiring credibility, these theorists transform basic truisms into obscure "profundities."  In the latter case, no further obfuscation is necessary for obtaining cult status. In any case, this has less to do with "self-confidence" than it does with aversion to self-delusion.