I wouldn’t say that music theory teaches you how to make songs. What it does is explain common song structures (verse, chorus bridge etc.). And again any song you write does not have to include these elements.
1 Like
It doesn’t have to - but surely you can at least agree that spending time learning systems will encourage you to use those systems, right?
Otherwise it sounds like an exercise in academic timewasting.
But I don’t want to put you in a black/white corner - I don’t disagree with your point that you can choose to ignore your training. I even think there’s additional value in that - as a lot of music is about expectation, and knowing how to subvert that expectation can be powerful as much as satisfying it. Some of us get that without needing it to be taught, but learning it can defintiely be a shortcut.
Yes music theory provides a common language.
If you tune your piano differently to the norm it does not alter the fact that you can have notes scales and chords, albeit they may not be very pleasing to the ear.
Well, completely re tuning a piano would be akin to changing the parent alphabet for a language. You’d need to write a new dictionary for it.
Not a problem if you were just writing tunes on the detuned piano by yourself. If you wanted to perform them with other musicians, or have different musicians perform them, you have a problem.
Really, that’s all that music theory is. It’s a framework for musicians to be able to communicate with one another.
Besides, the rules of tuning are not arbitrary. I am no expert but it is down to physics and how fundamental and harmonic frequencies interact with one another that determines how and why certain sounds are pleasing and others are not.
1 Like
To those of us attuned to traditional western diatonic scales, anyway 
But actually this isn’t entirely true - we break slightly away from nature to make the math easier, hence equal temperament.
1 Like
Yes, and that common language is made out of rules. If you alter the tuning so that it makes no theoretical sense none of the scales or chords apply anymore.
My conclusion is that therefore you must tune your instrument in semitones or microtonal tunings and if you don’t follow that rule you can’t learn theory with it anymore, but you can make music and find incredible new territories.
Notes are finite and frequencies are infinite.
1 Like
I knew as soon as I typed that I’d get pulled up over that one… 
But yes, equal temperament does even things out a bit when compared to the “exact” pitches that the physics would indicate. 
1 Like
Less theory, more facts:
- Beats must be hard
- Squarewaves must be pulse width modulated
- Song modes are for poseurs
3 Likes
Well I think that depends on what you want to achieve. All these systems apply to existing music.
If there is a specific style of music that you want to copy it is likely that you will research the rudiments of that music and follow its structure.
Jean Michel Jarre is a classically trained musician (Conservatoire de Paris) and yet he developed his own style of music.
I met Nikki Sixx and Vince Neil when I werked in Whistler…they said they knew NOTHING about music…reading, writing. They just knew what they liked. Motley Cru did fairly well.
It’s funny, talk to a guy that’s got full on training and they wish they could be free from the constraints of theory [people I’ve spoken to say it gets in the way of experimentation]. Talk to someone with no training and they wish they knew theory.
Assessment: if you’re complaining about it, then you’re using it as an excuse for the reason you’re not making music. If you wanna learn it…there’s all kinds of avenues. If you wanna break free from it, just jam. Don’t worry about what’s supposed to come next.
I believe, if you got the music in you, get it out. Bottom line: I think knowing at least some theory is beneficial but there’s a BUNCH of folks that make sick music that can’t put a C note on a stave. [I’ll bet you I named that incorrectly [a musically deficient person here ]]
4 Likes
With music theory the grass is always greener on the other side.
1 Like
The formula for the minor scale is whole, half, whole, whole, half, whole, whole
If you don’t follow that rule then it’s not a minor scale.
I think we just see the word “rule” differently.
1 Like
Most definitely. I guarantee that many of those people who don’t know music theory are applying some without knowing they are doing it though.
No need to write sheet music (your DAW can do it for you if you need it )
I think we’re all just bouncing between the two primary uses of the word - we’ve gotten ourselves caught in a semantics quible whilst debating what rules are or are not. I’m kind of impressed and dissapointed in us all in equal measure.
I’m not going to read that, I’m better off. Not knowing what it means 
6 Likes
1 Like
Hahahaha
1 Like
No that is not a formula, it is simply the name given to a scale pattern that proceeds whole, half, whole etc.
" In music theory a scale is any set of musical notes ordered by fundamental frequency or pitch. A scale ordered by increasing pitch is an ascending scale, and a scale ordered by decreasing pitch is a descending scale."
The most commonly used scales have simply been given names (Major, minor etc.)
Sure they may be unknowingly adhering to theory. Doesn’t mean they know what they are doing. they are just doing what they like to hear. BIG difference.
1 Like
Yeah I’m probably not using the word rule correctly. I tend to bend the meaning of words in attempt to explain something. Sometimes I feel like it’s easier to understand that way.
I’m usually only concerned with getting an idea across vs being grammatically (or literally in this case) correct.
I actually always got A’s in my English classes (hard to believe I know) .