The pianist I mentioned is primarily known as a composer. In the classical music world, we use the term realization for the performing of a lead sheet, or originally, figured-bass notation. Realization, improvisation, composition, they freely interacted in the performance of this dude. Like a composition built in real-time from the needs of the moment. I wouldn’t be surprised if he transposed his accompaniments up or down, during the rehearsal process, to accommodate the range of the singers. And there’s no button for that on the piano.
Knowing music theory allows you to comprehend musical abstractions. When we use language, words carry the meaning of abstractions. We are able to have certain thoughts because we understand the meaning of words.
No, you don’t need any of that to arrange random sounds on a quantized grid.
Most of the techno I listen to has no chords in it and very little ‘musical’ content. You don’t need any music theory in the sense of scales/keys etc to make that, but you do need to know how to make interesting sounds and to structure a track, build tension etc. Obviously if you’re making the more commercial stuff with melody and chords then a bit of theory might help, but probably not as much as you think.
I like good music in a variety of genres. The first time I heard Venetian Snares, I listened to an entire album in one sitting. The story of the pianist, I told, above, illustrated what an understanding of musical theory can do. My expectations for “good” music are pretty high, I suppose. Maybe I would like your music…IDK.
Absolutely you don’t need music theory to make good techno, or hip-hop, or ambient. or punk, or lots of other things. I’m an adult learner, I think I made some good stuff before I knew much at all theoretically - and my level of theoretical knowledge is still mediocre - but what I’ve learnt has been valuable.
What shits me is when people imply you won’t be able to do those things if you can name some intervals or describe some scales, as if your innate musicality will get frightened and run away if you learn something you didn’t before. I think it only gets indulged because of that scared little child inside who doesn’t want to be seen hanging out with the nerds in case they get judged by the cool kids.
Agreed. There exists a lot of either…or reasoning on this forum and in the musical world in general, about music theory. Here’s one I’ve heard quite a few times: “I don’t read music; I play by ear.” As if the two are mutually exclusive.
My wife toured with a very popular songwriter / performer. That person supposedly didn’t read music, and it didn’t stop them from becoming ridiculously rich and famous. Maybe that person, had they learned music theory, would have had their songwriting mojo sucked out of them. Who knows.
Things like being artistically satisfied, like being able to express yourself and your emotions and to try to make other people feel it too. Things like just being able to go in a room for a bit and take my shit out on something for half an hour when I’ve had a shitty day.
I don’t need to know much about music theory to achieve all of the above things, and I’m pretty sure learning it won’t make any of those things easier or more fun for me, as I’m not playing in an orchestra or using a piano, I’m mostly just fucking around making horrible noises, which, for me and people like me, is the best kind of music.
I don’t give a fuck what other people do, or how much they know or don’t know about whatever, but there’s definitely an attitude amongst the more learned musicians that those of us who reject theory are scared or whatever, or are cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Maybe we’re happy with what we’re doing and don’t want to waste time learning things we don’t need for what we want to do. Which, again, others might really want to do and love doing and that’s cool, but some of us don’t, and not for any other reason than it’s just not the way we want to go.
It’s not like you’re going to bump into Merzbow backstage and start chatting to him about how much better his set would be if he played a few chords and a couple of arpeggios from time to time.
I’ll say it again. Forms. Its about Form.
The techno form, and the ‘insert genre for which you might need music theory here’ form are very different, but they are both music. And to be good at either one of them requires equal measures of talent.
You might be a knock out bare knuckle boxer with fuckall form, bugger all technique but youve never lost a fight. Or you might be a high level karate dude, fucking 9th dan black belt blah blah, yet never stepped in a ring, and never been in a ‘real’ fight.
Both are legit Forms. Both require talent, and dedication to the Form.
When I’m making the acid/funk/synth wave stuff I like, I use music theory, as it is relevant to the form. When I’m doing DnB, or drones, or techno, of course I fucking dont. Its irrelevant.
I don’t disagree with any of that.
But in these contexts - Internet forums about electronic music - the shit seems to flow mostly in one direction, that is, whining that anyone who knows chords is an elitist who sneers at everyone else.
I don’t see it. Where are they? You’d find them in a conservatory, sure, but not anywhere where people are mostly talking about things like synths and samplers.
Again, my point is not that theory is necessary to make music. It’s a tool, a really useful tool but not an essential one. My point is that it’s bad to mislead people by suggesting this tool will actively damage their development, or that they couldn’t possibly benefit from it, or that they are joining a club of misanthropic snobs if they decide to embrace it. You might not.
There’s a possible counterpoint: maybe someone here, who was happily making music without any theoretical knowledge, started learning it and found themselves suddenly creatively constipated and unhappy.
If that’s you, please say, because I find it really implausible. But I might be wrong. It would be interesting to know, honestly.
The word “form” means something a little more specific in classical music parlance. Form is the large-scale structure of a piece of music. For example, a sonata form starts with an exposition, then a development section, and it ends with a recapitulation. Within the archetypal exposition is a primary theme, a transition, a secondary theme and a closing theme.
Warning: Knowledge about musical form may result in dissatisfaction while listening to techno music.
I grew up with (“Western”) Classical music and Jazz greats. I self-studied a lot of early 20th century experimental / academic music and have ultimately settled in techno.
“Classical” music (symphonies and chamber music and whatnot) is certainly complex and interesting and powerful, but it doesn’t get butts shaking the way Techno does. Much of this is apparently Wagner’s fault, as he insisted that the party atmosphere that prevailed stop so that listeners could sit down and contemplate his Very Serious Music. Which is a valid way to enjoy music, but not the only way to enjoy music.
The other problem I have with “Classical” music is that no one seems interested in it, even at the big symphony venues. I’ve been to all the big venues in LA, and it just seems to be another venue for LA socialization with a slightly upscale musical flavor. Not. My. Scene. I don’t care about your latest real estate financing deal, I came to the show to enjoy music.
I would strongly disagree that you don’t need any music theory to do techno or any other dance genre. A genre is a thing, and there are unwritten rules that determine whether a piece of music fits in the genre. Techno music theory includes things like “use a 909 if you can” and various known good beat patterns to start with. It may not be harmony theory, but it is a set of rules and guidelines that will increase your odds of making a banger or at least something fun to listen to.
You may not need Western Classical Theory, but there is a useful set of guidelines that people who make good techno have internalized, @Fin25 included.
I think this is the bottom line. Theory, shorn of supporting adjectives, tries to abstract away from specific examples in order to say something general that might be helpful. Of course it can be taken too far and become unhelpful. But that doesn’t mean it’s inherently bad or useless (says the person who has been a theoretician most of his life).
Well said.
When we talk about ‘theory’, it’s obviously a shorthand for a particular set of ideas, ways of describing and categorising things that come from a particular tradition.
But ultimately it’s one set of conventions, and a different set of conventions prevails in techno, or in gamelan, or in dirty funk, or in Carnatic music, or whatever…
As someone who likes a decent chunk of techno - mostly the more minimal, distorted, brutal end of it - it strikes me that the conventions of ‘electronic music’ as a general scene are INCREDIBLY restrictive relative to other genres. Of course there’s a healthy fringe that ignores the rules, same as every other scene, but mainstream dance music is astonishingly conservative.
