Music theory = Creativity block?

Understand now?

No. What makes that so creative? Sounds confusing to me. Unconventional isn't necessarily creative.

As a child you learn to speak without rules. You listen to sounds being formed around you and start to say words, then phrases. Then become pretty good at talking. However, you still make mistakes. Like "I don't want no vegatable!" Then at a certain age you learn the rules to grammar, learn new words and learn how to express your ideas more clearly. In the same way, music theory teaches you how to express your ideas better or in a way you wouldn't have thought of naturally before.

OK, that's a lovely theory (no pun intended), and I'd buy this if it were everyone's attitude. But it's not. Too many people would rather stab around in the dark than learn something that will make them more effective composers.

Fine. Stab around in the dark. I think that's lazy and undisciplined, not creative.

And I've said it before, but apparently it bears repeating: Did theory stand in the way of Bach's creativity?

Did theory stand in the way of Bach's creativity?

Haha, you could even say in a sense that Bach molded theory (what do most beginning students study ...... the Bach chorales of course!)

2. You don't read music theory. You're totally self-taught, and you don't really care reading about composition technique. You don't use any rules or borders, and you leave 100% up to your creativity. You will eventually achieve the same knowledge (to a certaint point) as the one who reads theory, but in a much slower pace. Your first compositions are ridiculously bad, and you get alot of bad critique by fellow composers. You, on the other hand, don't think your own pieces are bad. In fact, you think they are pretty good, and you see a lot of potential in your work.

I used to think that way. For many years all I did was write little piano pieces, and so it was okay. Later on, though, when I was 15, I got notation software for the first time and repeatedly astounded myself at what I could write just through intuition (based on familiarity with classical music and with the instruments I played).

Because of this, I became firmly opposed to the idea of taking theory. Basically what it came down to was the fear that I would discover 'how' I was composing music exactly. And, as I think I said way too many times back when I was 15 or 16, it was the elusive quality of composition that drew me to it in the first place. (My piano teacher didn't help when she warned me that learning theory could destroy my 'natural ability' to compose.)

My dad, a composer and arranger himself, listened to this argument but routinely assured me that taking theory and such only enhanced the enjoyment of composition. I really wasn't convinced, and so decided to put it aside for later on.

And yet I inevitably picked up a lot of theory knowledge - sort of - in the next few years. I wrote more, which obviously helped; I took a small music composition class (which actually contained very little theory, as at the time I was pleased to discover); I found a lot of new music; and I even was given very helpful comments here at YC (this would be a few years ago, of course though).

And so my compositions have come a long way. My work from more than a year ago sounds earnest and all, but pretty amateurish other than maybe in the melodies. Nowdays I'm still composing by intuition, but it's a lot more guided just through the experience I've acquired. It's not the trial-and-error random guessing in the dark I was doing for so long. And I still like writing music as much as ever! More, even, because I have a better idea of what I'm doing.

I still have a long way to go, though. Officially all I know of theory doesn't extend terribly far beyond the basics: music notation, scales, circle of fifths, intervals.

I picked up theory backwards. I found something that sounded cool on the piano, like the circle of fifths and modulations and secondary dominants and what not, and then I read about it in a book and was like "so THATS what that is"

I recently got into an argument over whether theory is JUST the labels or if it also means a solid intuition for how music "works". I'd be more inclined to say theory is just the labels, and is completley unneccessary for creativity....mainly because I picked up the labels AFTER I developed an intuition for various devices (which ARE devices in common harmonic practice)

But... what's "learning theory"?* I think every composer should learn music theory early on - but not always in a formal setting.* As long as learning theory doesn't involve learning to automatically think in a certain way, it's a good thing.* (I, for one, usually think in terms of jazz chord notation rather than Roman numerals, because that way I find it easier to modulate from one key to another, or to handle harmonically unstable passages.)

I see your point. I believe it is important to learn theory, because learning usually doesn't harm you. I say at least know it, but you don't have to us it. Like most things you can change stuff around to suit your own needs with little problem, but just remember to at least know it...

Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Sep 2 2005, 08:27 PM
[b]No.* * What makes that so creative?* Sounds confusing to me.* Unconventional isn't necessarily creative.*
OK, that's a lovely theory (no pun intended), and I'd buy this if it were everyone's attitude.* But it's not.* Too many people would rather stab around in the dark than learn something that will make them more effective composers.

Fine.* Stab around in the dark.* I think that's lazy and undisciplined, not creative.

And I've said it before, but apparently it bears repeating:* Did theory stand in the way of Bach's creativity?

I know what you mean. I didn't mean to make it seem that I thought everyone thought like that, but it's attitude that should be used when learning something that is used to communicate. It's like people still talk like this:

"I aint got no place to go, but that alright 'cause i am sure they'll be a guy willin to take me in"

You understand what he is saying, but it's not clear. In the same way. A composer can create a mood without knowing theory, but he isn't going to create the mood as well as he could have(usually). People are pretty lazy and undiscilpined when it comes to learning theory. They want the quick and easy way, which is why I am not a big fan of work composed entirely on the keyboard with little forethought. Theory can only enhance your creativity if you take it for what it is worth, don't hold it like the bible, but hold it like a book of good advice.

Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Sep 3 2005, 03:27 AM
[b]No.* * What makes that so creative?* Sounds confusing to me.* Unconventional isn't necessarily creative.*
OK, that's a lovely theory (no pun intended), and I'd buy this if it were everyone's attitude.* But it's not.* Too many people would rather stab around in the dark than learn something that will make them more effective composers.

Fine.* Stab around in the dark.* I think that's lazy and undisciplined, not creative.

I sence anger and emotion in your thinking (bad).....

Chopin, Schubert and Mussorgsky weren't disciplined, and Beethoven used to get on to everyones nerves, because when he started to get deaf he banged the piano so hard the whole town could har him.
And not everyone stabs around in the dark. Many do just experiment by puting in random notes on a piece of paper, and i presume it's what you ment by stabing in the dark. But there alternatives to experimenting. For example many composers traveld a lot and sought inspiration cultures that they are not familiar with (Handel, Dvorak, John Cage......) and came up with something totaly original.

You are just lowering all kinds of experimentation to "stabing in the dark". And it is possible that, by doing so, your unconcious mind avoids everything that music theory forbids.

They want the quick and easy way, which is why I am not a big fan of work composed entirely on the keyboard with little forethought.* Theory can only enhance your creativity if you take it for what it is worth, don't hold it like the bible, but hold it like a book of good advice.

I think so too... But, alas, many people are like that..... i myself would never avoid taking theory classes, but i may not use them all the way through.

I have always found the idea that knowledge blocks creativity uncomprehensible (strange).


Theory gives you all these different techniques to write out an idea. It even activates creativity.


If music didn't have music theory I wouldn't be interested in it.

Some of the best composers didn't feel the urge to do something new: Reger, Brahms

I think theory should be taught, or better: "given" as a kind of last resort to which the composer should harbour, if he would run out of ideas. I always thought bad about some kind of universal theory, which will say, simplifying, "This is Good, and this is bad" and i think that rules are made by "putting up with" currently availible music.
Imposing strict rules to music newcomers is like killing an Einstein just because he had very bad grades at maths (he had). I do realise that writing music that is edible to the audience implies that you must conform in some way to the rules that are acceptable, but writing , obeying strictly all the rules is like fighting with windmills (Don Kichote and the like) because the very nature of rules implies that once in the past someone had written something superior, which exactly obeyed the rules, because it MADE the rules using which now we suppress the odd element in the newbie composers creations.
I think theory should be taught gradually, after a period of time when a composer should be told to develop his own style.
Now the problem emerges, because there is often that silly situation: if a newbie composer just starts, heard nothing about music, he don't know what his future style will be, nor is interested in particular type of music, providing that he didn't hear any music at all (impossible, but i must make some rethorical statements to aid the argument). The given composer should be handed to a careful mentor, who will present to him some carefully chosen music, and, with mutual feedback, modify the selection to help develop his style. Then, the theory should be given, as a sort of supplementar resource "They did that in the ancient times, you might want to check it out". And i think improvisation should be taught at schools from the begining. The great masters were great improvisers, so it might help.
What do you think?

Yeonil