Prog and (how much) Music Theory?

Theory is very important but sometimes pushing boundaries and defying theory is equally important , there are some bands around with limited knowledge of theory that are cutting edge because they take what they know and throw away the rule book ..  ultimately feel and vision is the guts to it,  the theory is like extra colors on the pallet it doesn't really mean the artist can paint just because he knows the theory.  

Lots of progressive music people have been highly influenced by classical music - and a lot of them are 'conservatory rebels', it seems to me.  People who have studied music theory, but use what they've learned to do something original, unconventional and 'polluted' with all kinds of other influences...

I agree with what others have said above - it's useful for a progressive music composer/performer to have that orthodox knowledge, but it's how they use it that counts!  Also, no-one can teach you to 'be musical', or how to have a good musical idea.  Some people just sort of know without knowing, I think...

I find theory helps alot but to remain indivual and true to yourself play from the heart and dont let theory control you otherwise you might sound like Steve Vai.I guess in prog its quite important, you can see the differences in bands say Frank Zappa (theory) then then the mars volta (no theory).

song_of_copper wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: song_of_copper wrote: Also, no-one can teach you to 'be musical', or how to have a good musical idea.  Some people just sort of know without knowing, I think... That is a very misinformed statement (no offense). Of course you can teach someone to be musical. If a guitar teacher were to teach his students the value of how to make good phrases, that would be lesson in musicality. If a piano teacher were to teach their student the value of properly placed dynamics, that would be a lesson in being musical. No offense taken! I just mean that some people have more of an instinct for those things than others - sure, anyone could benefit from a good teacher, but not everyone 'gets it'... as in, being able to take that instruction, feel the sense of it, go off and do something original.  Some people will just reproduce what they've been taught, practically verbatim, whilst others will expand on it in their own way.

Ah I see what you mean know, just it wasn't that obviously implied in your first post Hmm, I don't originality is necessarily what separates those that "get it" from those that don't.
Take for eg this hypothetical situation. A dude that can't play anything original, but can nail Liszt pieces note for note, every dynamic etc to a tee. Another guy that has figured out how to make some weird new sounds from his guitar, but it sounds like crap. You can be as original as you want, but it's gotta sound good.
I listen to the Liszt note for note guy over the bumbling idiot that can conjure up weird sounds any day of the week.
But of course, the serious genius, is the 3rd one of the bunch, the musical one that creates new ideas, as you said

song_of_copper wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: Ah I see what you mean know, just it wasn't that obviously implied in your first post Hmm, I don't originality is necessarily what separates those that "get it" from those that don't. Take for eg this hypothetical situation. A dude that can't play anything original, but can nail Liszt pieces note for note, every dynamic etc to a tee. Another guy that has figured out how to make some weird new sounds from his guitar, but it sounds like crap. You can be as original as you want, but it's gotta sound good. I listen to the Liszt note for note guy over the bumbling idiot that can conjure up weird sounds any day of the week. But of course, the serious genius, is the 3rd one of the bunch, the musical one that creates new ideas, as you said Aargh, my brain's not working very well today.  Language skills somewhat diminished... Anyway, I'm not sure that 'originality' is what I meant either, at least, not in terms of doing something completely off the wall or unheard of.  You're right that a pianist faking Liszt is probably a better listening experience than someone's completely unique concerto for garbage bin and kazoo.   I suppose it's like... art class.  Some people will spend the rest of their days painting landscapes, in exactly the same style as their teacher.  Others will also paint landscapes, but with their own recognisable style.  They've taken the theory but added something of their own to it, which couldn't have been taught. Alright, I'm outta here!   No more rambling from me...

Ahhm, that made my day

Why does a prog fan have to know music at all to enjoy it?

In my case I know how the play the guitar, but I cant read music... not particulary proud of it either...

Depends on what your going for. I've heard some prog(ish) bands that don't really do anything with music theory, just riffs, melodies, solos, and such. Having just the basic knowledge will certainly get you by, if your talking about writing music. My pianist friend and I have been composing some stuff lately, and we found he as great music theory knowledge but doesn't have much of a sense of what just sounds right to one's ears, while music theory (mainly in the sense of chord structures) is my greatest weakness, but I have a great ear for what just sounds write. So combined we write some pretty impressive music (for our ages). My suggestion is get at least someone, even if it's just one person, in your band that knows music theory, and have him help out with the song writing process. Or you could just wing it and write a melody over a riff, a bass that just supports the riff or root tone, and let the drummer run (or... bang) wild. That's kinda what my high school band did last year.

I think knowledge of music is important, but not as important as creativity. There are loads of incredible musicians who don't play prog, on the other hand there are musicians who haven't too much musical knowledge and do play prog.. It all comes down on the creative mind 

There is a little saying that goes around in classical musicians' circles: "You can't break the rules unless you know the rules."  Therefore, knowing music theory is a great thing, although perhaps not entirely necessary for prog music.  But unless you know which rules you are breaking, it isn't worth anything to break them.  Get my drift?  It makes writing music a lot more fun in my opinion to break every rule in the book, so long as you know what the rules are.  There are prog musicians out there that have insane knowledge of theory - Michael Romeo anyone?  So it can really work either way.  I personally just think it is a lot more fun to be knowledgeable about what is being thrown out the window in some prog music instead of just thinking, "whoa, that sounds pretty wild."

I'm reminded of an Andre Malraux quote, something like, "an artist doesn't paint a picture of a tree because he saw a tree, but because he saw a painting of a tree." It's my feeling that even if one doesn't know theory in depth, one must be at least aware of it, which is probably where Omar from the Mars Volta is coming from. Stravinsky claims to have written the Rite of Spring in a pretty similar frame -- obviously he knew the theory that accounted for his prior music, but he followed his ear when creating that work... which doesn't mean that his knowledge of harmony and form didn't heavily influence it. Later theory came to encompass what Stravinsky was doing in Le Sacre, but the funny thing is, when a lot of people say they "know theory" these days, they're talking about a purely tonal theory that lacks a lot of what happened since 1900; I wonder if they wouldn't find it more useful if they had more modern theory at their disposal.

So, what am I trying to say? I guess it's that when I enjoy another musician's work, especially in prog, I often later discover that they were aware of some of the things that music theory encompasses -- harmony, texture, form. Often enough not by studying it formally, but from encounters playing and listening to music like that.