How much music theory do i need to know?

[Gravehill]

It depends on what kind of music you want to make. For typical EDM you dont need more than a knowledge of basic chords (major, minor, 7ths and minor 7ths) major, minor and penatonic scales, and a basic idea of harmony

[NinjaEdit]

you dont need to be able to sight read piano music, however knowing the ins and outs is pretty useful. Learning about musical structure, timing, notation, chords, dynamics, harmonies etc. can prove very useful.

...Which is easier to do if you can read music. It's like saying "you don't need to learn to read, just learn about narrative, character, dialogue, setting, etc."
Good suggestion with improving your aural skills, though.

The best answer was that you don't need to know any theory. It's all useful though, so start at the beginning and just keep going forward.

[Gravehill]

you dont need to be able to sight read piano music, however knowing the ins and outs is pretty useful. Learning about musical structure, timing, notation, chords, dynamics, harmonies etc. can prove very useful.

...Which is easier to do if you can read music. It's like saying "you don't need to learn to read, just learn about narrative, character, dialogue, setting, etc."
Good suggestion with improving your aural skills, though.

The best answer was that you don't need to know any theory. It's all useful though, so start at the beginning and just keep going forward.

Most people that can read music cant sight-read fluently

and I cant imagine how someone with zero theory knowledge could make music based off of anything but pure luck

[NinjaEdit]

Find the notes that sound good? That's what you do when you know the theory, anyway. How have you been working?

[Gravehill]

Find the notes that sound good? That's what you do when you know the theory, anyway. How have you been working?

Yeah man that definitely works but like I said its just luck. I work by already knowing what I want, theres actually no work involved

[NinjaEdit]

Firstly luck doesn't exist, secondly even if an understanding of music theory does actually allow you to compose symphonies entirely in your head, Mozart-style, there's still significant work and creativity involved, or everybody would be doing it.

What exactly does music theory tell you that you want? Everything that's been done in the past? We heard that already...

If you want to write something new, you'll have to explore and experiment. For example, when working microtonally, which if you understand music theory you would know you should, since twelve tones per octave is completely unnecessary and arbitrary, you'll have to figure it out from the beginning.

I've worked with musicians with no understanding of theory, and they can conceive of and execute creative musical ideas, they just use their own unique language. What level of understand do you think your average dance, rock or pop musician actually has?

[Gravehill]

Firstly luck doesn't exist, secondly even if an understanding of music theory does actually allow you to compose symphonies entirely in your head, Mozart-style, there's still significant work and creativity involved, or everybody would be doing it.

What exactly does music theory tell you that you want? Everything that's been done in the past? We heard that already...

If you want to write something new, you'll have to explore and experiment. For example, when working microtonally, which if you understand music theory you would know you should, since twelve tones per octave is completely unnecessary and arbitrary, you'll have to figure it out from the beginning.

I've worked with musicians with no understanding of theory, and they can conceive of and execute creative musical ideas, they just use their own unique language. What level of understand do you think your average dance, rock or pop musician actually has?

Not much, which is exactly what I said above, you need a limited knowledge of music theory but the more the better. Of course there is significant creativity involved. The difference is that if I hear something in my head I can get it on paper immediately rather than someone that has to start from the bottom of their keyboard and hit all 12 notes until they find the note that they are hearing in their head. And that's not even getting into chords. If that's not luck in the context of this discussion, then I don't know what is. Whoever told you you should be working microtonally in western music was talking out of their ass. There is no application for microtonality in western music other than little grace notes/passing tones or dissonant mess. Even people that play microtonal instruments such as violin generally don't bother stepping outside of any of the 12 tones because there is no reason to. Microtonal notes aren't going to all of a sudden make you a ground-breaking musician :/ and I play a few microtonal instruments by the way

[NinjaEdit]

Luck is like the Yeti, it doesn't exist, but there are Waldos in the world who still believe it does.

Not much, which is exactly what I said above, you need a limited knowledge of music theory but the more the better.

You're not creating music if you're not an average musician?

The difference is that if I hear something in my head I can get it on paper immediately rather than someone that has to start from the bottom of their keyboard and hit all 12 notes until they find the note that they are hearing in their head.

Firstly, you're talking about aural training, not music theory, secondly the second approach is easier and more accurate, even if you are trained (you don't have to try "all" twelve tones, because you know roughly how far up or down the next one is), thirdly, you admitted that it is possible to work without knowing the interval or note names, fourthly, planning is not the only way to create, you can also explore, which in this case means playing notes until you find something you like, and fifthly, what happens if you imagine a tone which is not a multiple of a twelfth of an octave? Which brings me to my next point...

Whoever told you you should be working microtonally in western music was talking out of their ass.

Nobody told me to, which is the point I'm making. The creator of Pure Data, a professor of music, has made comments in this direction, though.

There is no application for microtonality in western music other than little grace notes/passing tones or dissonant mess.

...And a whole paradigm of modern concert music. Like 12/octave, it's a dissonant mess if you suck, and beautiful, interesting and expressive if you don't. I live in the East, by the way.

Even people that play microtonal instruments such as violin generally don't bother stepping outside of any of the 12 tones because there is no reason to.

Some of them do. The rest use vibrato, glissando, portamento and other techniques like they were trained. Most instrumentalists are not an authority on composition either. Most people are also fat stnuc.

Microtonal notes aren't going to all of a sudden make you a ground-breaking musician

It's far more likely than if you only use 12 tones per octave. Why do things the hard way?

I suggest you try composing in an alternative temperament before making your evaluation.

[Gravehill]

I'm bored so I guess I'll do this too

You're not creating music if you're not an average musician?

I can assure you, aimlessly fumbling around on an instrument is much more average than having a solid knowledge of music theory

Firstly, you're talking about aural training, not music theory, secondly the second approach is easier and more accurate, even if you are trained (you don't have to try "all" twelve tones, because you know roughly how far up or down the next one is), thirdly, you admitted that it is possible to work without knowing the interval or note names, fourthly, planning is not the only way to create, you can also explore, which in this case means playing notes until you find something you like, and fifthly, what happens if you imagine a tone which is not a multiple of a twelfth of an octave? Which brings me to my next point...

1. Aural training and music theory go hand in hand in this context 2. no it isn't, sorry, 3. of course it is 4. of course it is...? what point are you even trying to make anymore? 5. You play the tone. That does not automatically qualify the entire piece of music as 'microtonal'

...And a whole paradigm of modern concert music. Like 12/octave, it's a dissonant mess if you suck, and beautiful, interesting and expressive if you don't. I live in the East, by the way.

You're using modern concert music to back-up an argument about the benefits of not learning music theory I'm a music professor, by the way

Some of them do. The rest use vibrato, glissando, portamento and other techniques like they were trained. Most instrumentalists are not an authority on composition either. Most people are also fat stnuc.

I would hazard a guess that the composers that composed the music for the instrumentalists could be considered authorities on composition

It's far more likely than if you only use 12 tones per octave. Why do things the hard way?

Moar notez = better musics

[cheshirebeats]

Find the notes that sound good? That's what you do when you know the theory, anyway. How have you been working?

I logged in just to tell you off.

Honestly your posts in this thread combined with your composition guide are perfect evidence that you don't have the first clue of what you are doing when you sit down to write music.

There are many, many amateur producers that want to just sit down and put out bangers, but are not willing to put in the work. Music theory is an extensive subject of study, if you know major/minor chords and scales, and can write a perfect cadence, you more or less know how to say "yes, no, thank you" in musical terms. An incomplete education in theory is simply knowing a bunch of words in a different language but not how to use them. If you have EVER studied theory, you should keep studying it, to the point where you understand harmony at least a little bit, and understand some compositional elements. Patience is something that so many people on here and other websites lack, especially concerning theory. You can make wobble bass all day but if you don't know how to harmonize your tracks will always sound like shit.

Big ups to gravehill for even trying to show you the light, some people are just committed to burying their heads in the sand.

[extremesociety]

In defense of microtonality. There is a very long tradition of microtonality during the 20th century.

Lot's of it is very math oriented, parsing the enharmonic series and all that.

People are STILL doing work on it. Here's a way of notation developed ca. 2001: http://www.sagittal.org/

^ Sibelius plug-in for this one I think

There's even a wiki for microtonality! : http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/

Here's a Facebook group dedicated to it: https://www.facebook.com/groups/xenharmonic2/

^ These dudes love to argue and get really into it.

Finally, Xenakis FTW!!



Xenakis is awesome.

[extremesociety]

Some of them do. The rest use vibrato, glissando, portamento and other techniques like they were trained. Most instrumentalists are not an authority on composition either. Most people are also fat stnuc.

I would hazard a guess that the composers that composed the music for the instrumentalists could be considered authorities on composition

...but yeah.

<---- an authority.

[bkwsk]

Xenakis is awesome.

qft

[Gravehill]

In defense of microtonality. There is a very long tradition of microtonality during the 20th century.

Lot's of it is very math oriented, parsing the enharmonic series and all that.

People are STILL doing work on it. Here's a way of notation developed ca. 2001: http://www.sagittal.org/

^ Sibelius plug-in for this one I think

There's even a wiki for microtonality! : http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/

Here's a Facebook group dedicated to it: https://www.facebook.com/groups/xenharmonic2/

^ These dudes love to argue and get really into it.

Finally, Xenakis FTW!!



Xenakis is awesome.

This is all really cool stuff, thanks

I should have been more clear before, when I said there was no application for microtonality in western music I was defining western music as mainstream/radio music: pop, rock, EDM, stuff like that. I'm assuming that the OP is just starting out with music and trying to make dubstep or just EDM in general, in which case jumping right in to microtonal theory is going to do more harm than good IMO. That whole discussion is getting pretty far away from the original point of the thread anyway I think

[NinjaEdit]

Find the notes that sound good? That's what you do when you know the theory, anyway. How have you been working?

I logged in just to tell you off.

Honestly your posts in this thread combined with your composition guide are perfect evidence that you don't have the first clue of what you are doing when you sit down to write music.

There are many, many amateur producers that want to just sit down and put out bangers, but are not willing to put in the work. Music theory is an extensive subject of study, if you know major/minor chords and scales, and can write a perfect cadence, you more or less know how to say "yes, no, thank you" in musical terms. An incomplete education in theory is simply knowing a bunch of words in a different language but not how to use them. If you have EVER studied theory, you should keep studying it, to the point where you understand harmony at least a little bit, and understand some compositional elements. Patience is something that so many people on here and other websites lack, especially concerning theory. You can make wobble bass all day but if you don't know how to harmonize your tracks will always sound like shit.

Big ups to gravehill for even trying to show you the light, some people are just committed to burying their heads in the sand.

Let me reiterate my answer to the OP's question. You don't have to learn any music theory to make music, but it is all useful. I used mictrotonalism as an example of music that had very little established theory, but musicians could still create great music, in particular, these ones.



What do you think they did in early music history before they had any theory?

Are you assuming I have never studied music theory, only understand major and minor scales and have never harmonised a melody? I studied music through late primary school, all of highschool, and even out of highschool I completed a technical qualification in music, which means I formally studied music theory from ages 10-19, ignoring any autodidactic study. I apparently have a deeper understanding of music theory than you; you can sure lecture me on the fundamentals!

Learning music theory will not allow you create "bangers" every time (evidently), which seems to be what you are implying. Music theory is not a formula to create great music, it just tells you what musicians have done in the past. Composers with a great understanding of music theory still have to generate original ideas through creativity, which is not taught as a part of music theory...

I feel like I'm being schooled by undergraduates.

I'm a music professor

I meant the Australian definition " most senior academics at a university".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor

[test_recordings]

Enough to make triads (chords), plus some scale relations for modifying those triads. Don`t forget inversions, either. Scales are useful for melodies but you can get beautiful results from arpeggios (playing a melody based on a chord) so you don`t necessarily need to know anything beyond chords, in my opinion.

Mind you, rhythm and timing (cadence?) would be good, actually! 4/4 is basic but if you just stick to on-beat rhythms it`ll sound dead

[dickman69]

90% of all of it

[cheshirebeats]

Are you assuming I have never studied music theory, only understand major and minor scales and have never harmonised a melody? I studied music through late primary school, all of highschool, and even out of highschool I completed a technical qualification in music, which means I formally studied music theory from ages 10-19, ignoring any autodidactic study. I apparently have a deeper understanding of music theory than you; you can sure lecture me on the fundamentals!

Learning music theory will not allow you create "bangers" every time (evidently), which seems to be what you are implying. Music theory is not a formula to create great music, it just tells you what musicians have done in the past. Composers with a great understanding of music theory still have to generate original ideas through creativity, which is not taught as a part of music theory...

Oh, I didn't realize you played in your high school band, excuse me. You must be a highly experienced composer.

Maybe I should start analyzing that track in your signature, there must be some microtonal mystique to it - to me it sounds like utter shit but I guess I just lack the experience and education to make those judgements!

We've got a regular John Cage on our hands here folks, everybody listen to this guy.

[Praxisaxis]

I come from a classical music background and that's been interesting for the way it's affected my production. But I really believe it's more a matter of diving in and getting started, even if you've got no formal training. The key is the number of hours you're prepared to spend - this is what is really behind the success of big name artists, not whether they had much formal training.

[Turnipish_Thoughts]

Music theory is not a formula to create great music, it just tells you what musicians have done in the past.

Not entirely true. Music theory really isn't that much about what other musicians have done in the past. It's about the psychoacoustic reception of tones and the dissonant < - > consonant relationships in harmony as expressed in various rhythms through time. It's not a history lesson (as such), it's a physical science, and part psychology. A perfect cadence will always sound final; the 7th will always lead in to root, the minor third will always sound more dissonant than the major third when in harmony with root, moving a triad chord up or down a half tone in sequence will always sound spooky/magical. These aren't so much things we have culturally decided on, they are things we have discovered about an objective truth, a verity of existence that has substance external to our understanding of it, a physical science.

We have come to learn these things about sound and tonality and have mapped out a theoretical framework around our discoveries, much like we have done with the stars, or the elements of the periodic table. People didn't 'create' musical scales, we discovered them, ordered and grouped them into sensible patterns and relations and have applied them in creative ways. The vibrations themselves that underly all music have always been there, far longer than we have; and have always been fixed in so much as an octave relationship will always have a ratio of 2:1, a perfect fifth will always be 3:2 and our experience of those harmonies will always psycho-acoustically translate in a universal way, to anyone capable of hearing.

It is information worth learning and respecting. It is information about reality, not about ourselves. How we go about shaping and arranging that knowledge is ours to keep, but shunning 'theory' based on half understood notions is like shunning our learned knowledge that fire is hot, or why the sky is blue. We have evolved as a species and come to map out this arena we find ourselves a part of, sound is such a fundamental part of that experience and musical theory is the blueprint we have come to construct around 'sound' enabling us to imprint ourselves upon a facet of the infinite. It was never about learning how copy off other people's music, it's always been about learning the fixed nature of sound as a means to orient our creativity.