How much music theory do i need to know?

[Praxisaxis]

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.

No no no. This is a faulty view. Harmonic practices are certainly culturally dependent, and Western theory only relates to one set of them. It isn't universal. For example, anyone working with electronic music should understand that pitch is an abstraction. This means that our harmonic system, which deals with pitch relationships, is at least partly arbitrary. There are good physical reasons underpinning the interplay of consonance and dissonance, but this is not something which is universally binding - it's a cultural phenomenon.

Think about this... the Reanissance (about 1400-1600) was a time where people on the European continent decided that 3rds were a consonant interval - extensive use of thirds as a consonant harmonic entity was a trend started by the English, and adopted by the continentals who had to adjust their whole system of tuning to account for them. Before this time, we had a different theory of music, where thirds were (believe it or not) considered dissonant (and pitched very slightly differently). And much, much earlier, the Greeks had a different theory to that. Presently, many different musical cultures use different systems of pitch and follow conventions not well encompassed by the Western system.

There do seem to be some similarities, or fundamental things which re-occur throughout history, in different cultures, and this seems somewhat related to physics - e.g. the pentatonic scale (widely used in folk music from many different parts of the world) is similar in pitch structure to the arrangement of harmonics above a fundamental pitch. But this is a lot less conclusive or constraining than you were suggesting.

[Turnipish_Thoughts]

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.

No no no. This is a faulty view. Harmonic practices are certainly culturally dependent, and Western theory only relates to one set of them. It isn't universal. For example, anyone working with electronic music should understand that pitch is an abstraction. This means that our harmonic system, which deals with pitch relationships, is at least partly arbitrary. There are good physical reasons underpinning the interplay of consonance and dissonance, but this is not something which is universally binding - it's a cultural phenomenon.

Think about this... the Reanissance (about 1400-1600) was a time where people on the European continent decided that 3rds were a consonant interval - extensive use of thirds as a consonant harmonic entity was a trend started by the English, and adopted by the continentals who had to adjust their whole system of tuning to account for them. Before this time, we had a different theory of music, where thirds were (believe it or not) considered dissonant (and pitched very slightly differently). And much, much earlier, the Greeks had a different theory to that. Presently, many different musical cultures use different systems of pitch and follow conventions not well encompassed by the Western system.

There do seem to be some similarities, or fundamental things which re-occur throughout history, in different cultures, and this seems somewhat related to physics - e.g. the pentatonic scale (widely used in folk music from many different parts of the world) is similar in pitch structure to the arrangement of harmonics above a fundamental pitch. But this is a lot less conclusive or constraining than you were suggesting.

Funny actually. I totally agree and have the same opinion. I suppose I sort of miss-represented myself there. My argument still remains at it's core though, that music lies in something external to our theory of it. To disregard theory because you want to 'be original' is silly because there are certain relationships within music that are so absolute, relatively speaking, even though often culturally defined, as to be functionally static and so can be used as constants to orient yourself towards more formal expression in music.

The underlying roots of these "constants", whether they be universal or anthropological, is another topic for discussion. (I would argue for and against in some regards, i don't think it's completely synthetic/culturally defined though it is a majour player, minor only sounds minor in contrast to majour, taken to it's extreme: all harmony is relative.) Be that as it may, within this culture and this time in history, we can't help but react a certain, collectively oriented way to our social conditioning through the years of how our culture has chosen to express it's self tonally.

Furthermore my most important point, that I'll clarify now as I may have not done it justice the first time, is that the physical science of vibrations is universal. 440Hz + 880Hz will always be a ratio of 2:1, that we have come to call it A4/A5 octave diad is mere convention, the sound will always be the same to anyone hearing it. Harmonic interplay will always exist within the conventions of dissonance Vs consonance and so will always have contrast drawn between different degrees of these two extremes, used in sequence, this will (and does) create narrative and evoke emotion. It doesn't matter what tuning system you're using, or from which culture you reside. These fundamentals remain. The external, objective physical science of sound. That is what I argued is worth learning (re: music theory), because it isn't just coming from artistic license, it's nature, physics, vibration.

[NinjaEdit]

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.

I already pointed out that my understanding of music theory doesn't allow me to produce high quality material, but yes, the subbass is playing in a microtonal temperament, and is the element which gets the most positive response from listeners.

It's obviously correct that you don't need music theory to create music, and that an understanding of music theory does not circumvent a need for creative effort.

But I don't want to further disrupt the actual reasonable discussion in this thread.