Does this sound familiar?
*text on screen*
The big confusion among young musicians is that they think of music theory as a prescriptive
discipline, or one which prescribes a series of rules and regulations for which you must follow;
otherwise, you will be wrong.
This misconception is at the heart of why so many people think that music theory will stunt their creativity --
because they'll be told that what they've been doing is somehow wrong,
and that they'll be coerced into making music
which is trite, and uninspired, and... "correct."
This is definitely not the case.
Music theory as a whole is a descriptive discipline,
or one which describes or seeks to describe music on its own terms as it's made in the real world,
free of aesthetic or artistic judgment.
Different forms of music require different theory to describe them;
you wouldn't talk about 16th century counterpoint
the same way that you would talk about punk rock or, say, Indonesian Gamelan music.
However, if you know enough about the theory behind this music,
you can draw distinctions between all three of these kinds of styles.
Music theory gives you the language to understand the music itself,
and also the means to communicate with other people about that music.
Perhaps you're familiar with the prescriptivist versus descriptivist model of language.
For example, a prescriptive linguist, or what some might call a "grammar enthusiast", might say that the phrase
is incorrect English, because it uses the contraction "ain't", and it also uses a double negative.
A descriptive linguist on the other hand might say,
"Well no, this is simply colloquial use of the language,
"and it's fine in informal context."
Context is essential to understanding music theory, as well.
For example, say you're sitting in your college-level music theory class,
and your professor hands you back your homework,
and there are red marks all over it,
because you decided to commit the grave faux pas of composing music with parallel fifths.
You're confused and rather irritated because, hey, the music sounds okay to you, and you ask your professor,
"Why am I not allowed to use parallel fifths?"
If your professor is not very thoughtful, he might just say,
"Well, this is how Bach did it, and if it's good enough for him,
"it's good enough for you too. Learn the rules of music."
Never mind the fact that, if it served his purpose,
Bach actually did compose in parallel perfect consonance;
the big thing is that parallel fifths kind of just don't sound... right...
if you're trying to compose in a classical counterpoint style.
This should tell you that theory gives you the tools and language to achieve a certain
AESTHETIC
In this case -- in the case of most college-level theory -- a fairly narrow one:
The music in the western canon, that was composed about
400 to 100 years ago.
This language clearly does not work for other aesthetics.
For example, parallel fifths are absolutely necessary for power chords,
which are a necessary element of rock music that has been written for the past, say, 50 or 60 years.
Parallel fifths and parallel consonance are also very necessary for the jazz big band harmonization,
say, in the style of Duke Ellington.
Duke Ellington, and the Kinks, for example, would never been able to make the music that they wanted to make,
if they were trying to wrongly apply
the language for the old aesthetic for the one that they were trying to create.
"Well," you might say, "that's fine,
"but that still doesn't mean that theory applies to the music that I make!
"I make... EDM/vaporwave/chiptunes-core/whatever."
It always takes a long time for music theory academia
to catch up with what music is happening in the real world at any given time.
For example jazz actually only entered Academia in the 70s,
after it had been a popular music for close to 40 or 50 years.
Only now are theory articles being written about rap and metal music,
even though they first came into existence in the 1980s.
There's almost nothing out there that talks in a theoretical manner about electronic dance music
But that doesn't mean that you still can't talk about it in theoretical terms,
and draw comparisons to other styles of music.
For example, the formal section known as "the build" in electronic dance music
relies upon sounds rather than discrete pitches.
Ascending linearly or logarithmically across the frequency spectrum from low to high,
to create tension that is eventually resolved on the "drop" or "bass drop," the next formal section.
This is analogous to dominant prolongation at the end of the development section of classical sonata form,
wherein harmonic and melodic material
ascends to create tension that is eventually resolved at the top of the next formal section: the recapitulation.
See, music theory applies everywhere: to all music, to all contexts,
and the more that you learn about different styles of music,
the more that you can draw connections between different aesthetics,
and the language used to describe them.
The more you learn, the more music seems to just be the same everywhere,
no matter what genre you identify with.
Sorry... um...
with which you identify.*
At the end of the day, however, music theory remains a means of communication of musical ideas
through language.
It's a very practical thing, actually, when you're trying to use it to convey musical ideas that you have
with other people.
For example:
Ex. 1: "Yeah, let's do a hit on the and of 1, and then like an 8th note anticipation on the G minor 6th chord of the next bar."
Ex. 2: Yeah, no, it's just a descending major walk-down, um, but can you use a three minor instead of the first inversion tonic chord?
This practical language saves time and reduces ambiguity.
Gives you time to play the actual music you want to play
instead of sort of dicking around at rehearsal trying to get ideas across to other people.
The same way that people will take pride in not knowing history or not knowing world events or not knowing...
science,
people will take pride in not knowing the inner workings of music.
And it just boggles my mind why people would take so much time and energy
to devote their life to something that they profess that they love,
and... be prideful that they don't know anything about it.
It's fine to not know things, but why celebrate that fact?
At the end of the day,
I've never met an accomplished musician that I respect who says, "Man, I wish I didn't know any theory.
"I just wish I didn't know this knowledge of music that I know now."
It is something so rich and so interesting that adds
so much to your understanding of music in general,
that I just don't understand the idea of not learning it "because...
it's the wrong thing to do."
*confused shrug of judgment*
Anyway, this has been Adam Neely. I hope you've enjoyed this... little bit of a rant.
Um...
Please comment, subscribe, and like if you want to listen to more of my ranting...
And yeah!
Uh,
learn music theory, it's pretty sweet.