How much music theory do you take into consideration while composing?

I am curious. How often do you think about using music theory to compose? I know some people can be really technical with this stuff. I'm the opposite really. I'd much rather sit at the piano and tinker around until I have something. I will use music theory technically, but I don't mentally think about using a chord progressions, scales, modulation and so on. I might start thinking more theory based if I become stuck, or I might just experiment with a new idea.

I think the reason I don't need to think much about theory when composing is because it's so hard-wired into me, that it's what my brain naturally wants to produce, which can be a bad a good thing. Perhaps limits your creativity, but also keeps you within the realms of practicality. What are your thoughts?

Sorry if there is another topic about this. I looked around a bit in search but it had quite a bit of extraneous results.

I use almost no music theory when I'm composing on the piano. (which I do almost all of the time) I think being a pianist is very convienient for a composer. Its not because I have music theory hard wired into me. Its because I visualise everything in the layout of the keyboard. Even when I'm composing away from the piano, I have to visualize everything on a keyboard.

how much grammar do you take into consideration when you talk?

jrcramer said it!

In terms of raw creativity and "music-finding, I use only a nominal amount of theory, but when it comes to the final product, I use a huge amount of theory, specifically voice leading. As Jaap said, its comparable to talking, though I would extend the analogy further to include writing a final composition is like writing a big essay or paper, which requires proper grammar (or a specific creative deviation from the grammar a la e.e. cummings).

In terms of raw creativity and "music-finding, I use only a nominal amount of theory, but when it comes to the final product, I use a huge amount of theory, specifically voice leading. As Jaap said, its comparable to talking, though I would extend the analogy further to include writing a final composition is like writing a big essay or paper, which requires proper grammar (or a specific creative deviation from the grammar a la e.e. cummings).

You said it.

As with using grammar while talking, I use a lot of theory when I compose. Not only consciously but also subconsciously and without any real 'thought' or intention in it. As someone said above, it's 'hard-wired' into us - even when we don't think we're using any... when you look at the work, we are.

In terms of raw creativity and "music-finding, I use only a nominal amount of theory, but when it comes to the final product, I use a huge amount of theory, specifically voice leading. As Jaap said, its comparable to talking, though I would extend the analogy further to include writing a final composition is like writing a big essay or paper, which requires proper grammar (or a specific creative deviation from the grammar a la e.e. cummings).

I'm fine with this extension. Writing an essay is more similar to composing, than just talking. Justins analogy stresses the effort of putting it together and a spelling and/or grammar check afterwards. For the same reasons I thought of comparing it to poetry. I choose just talking since it all starts there, and is more close (as Gamma started) to it being hard-wired into the composer.

I think you should be aware what is being hard-wired and be able to analyze your own work. I think making use of theory is the only way someone is taking himself serious as a composer.

While maintaining your craft (in an artistic sense), you should be able to incorporate theory at all times - but it's how you speak it.

I think the old adage about learning the rules before you can break them is important for me. Composing is largely about taking existing models and changing them at several strata, and so the codified rules of theory provide a starting point for us to build upon and modify. We can all write polyphony that is technically competent and musically effective whilst ignoring almost every rule of sixteenth-century species counterpoint. So to answer the question directly; I do think about theory, but only as something to be used as a series of general principles from which underlie our work.

We can all write polyphony that is technically competent and musically effective whilst ignoring almost every rule of sixteenth-century species counterpoint.

I strongly disagree with this. Yes, you can purposefully ignore the 16th century rules but you still have a degree of unity that you have to work out prior to putting melody 1 with melody 2. You can't just slap the two together and call it a piece.

I cannot know how much theory I use, is kinda automatic, I don't think "I'm gonna move this because is wrong" instead I follow very much the feelings, "I'm going to change this because it isn't sad, and it should be" or "this sounds too happy" or "this is too silly" etc...

Of course music theory is used in the process but it's almost an unconscious process.

Am I the only one that voted none? I write the notes my inner ear hear.... It comes from absorbing a lot of music through many years and immersing my self in sound and theory.

Even then, you still are using theory. You just don't realize it. ;)

I would definately say no to that JA - there is a difference and to me it's pretty clear.

Besides don't forget "Advanced Theory" is still Theory, not because composers go beyond classical or tonal music are ignoring theory.

EDIT:

Where's Gardener to be answering these topics in short definitive manner

I would definately say no to that JA - there is a difference and to me it's pretty clear.

Let me quantify and explain why I said you still are using theory but just don't realize it. In writing music, you right out are using theory. Setting notes and the various symbols we use to notate what we 'hear' in our head - is utilizing theory. Setting up chord progressions, even subconsciously, is still utilizing theory. Even using a 12 tone matix to set up rows, etc.. is still using theory. Unless you just hum melodies into a microphone and don't set pen to paper, keyboard/mouse to notational score, etc... then yes, you do use theory.

well I would like to diferentiate between music theory and musical notation - it seems you got them mixed up. Notation is just a way of communicating what you hear

not if you consider using a spellingcheck part of writing text

well I would like to diferentiate between music theory and musical notation - it seems you got them mixed up. Notation is just a way of communicating what you hear

No, I do know the difference. However, notation does fall under the jurisdiction of theory - and is an important part of most collegiate theory courses. Even keeping them separated though.... I will buy that you don't use theory only if your music meets the following criteria:

1. No melody

2. No Harmony

3. No instrumentation

OK I'm off.... I just see things differently - and for a reason.

The initial question doesn't make any sense really

The initial question doesn't make any sense really

Bingo.

What in this case qualifies as "music theory?" If you label it as any given musical framework (be it microtonality, counterpoint, serialism, etc) then you can ex-post-facto claim that all music ever is based off music theory, and the composers must've thought about it consciously or subconsciously.

Honestly I don't mix both things. To me composing is freeform, you can use whatever you want in whichever way you want.

That means:

I strongly disagree with this. Yes, you can purposefully ignore the 16th century rules but you still have a degree of unity that you have to work out prior to putting melody 1 with melody 2. You can't just slap the two together and call it a piece.

Yes you can. You can do whatever you want.

And

how much grammar do you take into consideration when you talk?

Besides the false analogy, it would only begin to make sense when talking is free art and we can say whatever we want. In that context, no you wouldn't be forced to use grammar at all, if you didn't want to.

People have different methods for composing and see things in different ways, let's never forget this.

Perhaps a better question would be, "Do you compose what sounds good to you or what is theoretically correct?" This isn't a perfect question, but I think it clarifies the different methods of composing. Can you guys think of a better phrasing?

Personally, I compose what sounds good. It doesn't matter if your harmonies are technically correct if the piece itself doesn't sound good.

-John

Besides the false analogy, it would only begin to make sense when talking is free art and we can say whatever we want. In that context, no you wouldn't be forced to use grammar at all, if you didn't want to.

I for the most part tend to agree, and honestly I'm glad you notice it's a false analogy. (you should note however that I somewhere stated I thought of using the word 'poetry' in stead of just talking)

The falseness of the analogy was my way off saying that the initial question is not making sense ;)

My point is that what ever you do (art being a free-form), it is possible (well, maybe you should invented a new grammar/theory, anyhow) to describe what you did in terms of grammar/theory, and people should reflect on what they do. I would call this "take theory into consideration"