I love it. I can see why some people make the argument that its harmful. and I certainly don't think its a requirement. For Classical it ALMOST (though maybe it is today due to the pretentiousness of most contemporary composers) is but still not technically. I think music theory's awesome because it is sort of a shortcut to understanding the way sounds work together.
You could just try to gain an automatically instinctive knowledge of how notes would work together but why reinvent the wheel? An instinctive and logical knowledge can be gained when you know the reason behind what is going on in the music.
I think the study of theory (especially more advanced theory such as modulation, altered chord, counterpoint) gets ignored by some musicians due to the large amount of pseudo-musicians who ignore the fact that theory is everything even though the theory is just a way to explain the music. The two extremes of ignoring theory completely and making music theory and "originalness" the end all be all of musicianship (Im talking about academia who somehow gets to control what is "art" and what isn't in contemporary classical music.)
Considering the attitudes of many contemporary professors and the like its easy to see why an up and coming good musician would ignore theory more advanced than regular chords and scales. But I think most genres of music would benefit if the artists studied theory, sure that up and coming artist may produce good or great music but why settle when great or fantastic music could be made?
Theory != pretentiousness or dullness at all. Ludwig Van Beethoven sure as hell never went to college ( nor did most people during the time.) and not only is his music held in high regard by every range of listeners from master musicians to non-musicians but he does so naturally, and without being pretentious ( he does very advanced things but because it enhances the music not because hes trying to look advanced.) The main reason why I usually choose to listen to beethoven over a hardstyle artist or even a different classical artist is that he presents music in a way that not only sounds good and right but also contains so much variation and complexity that it never gets boring.
TLDR; Music theory is made to be very "academic" these days and I think it (as well as the whole contemporary classical music scene) is turning people away from studying theory. Theory does not mean that music is made mathematically but it means that the musician gains a greater understanding of what hes doing and as such can develop his ideas further and enhance the quality of his music with his increase in knowledge of music theory. Most classical artists that are renowned worldwide never went to college but they did study music theory and the theory fulfills the purpose of giving the artist a basic understanding of what theyre doing not just knowing what theyre doing. When an artist understands what hes doing he can become better and better, when he simply knows it will be same old same old. If when making a kick is it not better to know how to make a kick or simply find some guidlines on VST settings to make a kick. I would be able to make a good kick with both of them but only creative with the understanding of a hardstyle kick. Hardstyle and any other genre for that matter is music just as much as Beethoven is so why not try to do more than know music, but understand it?
I should mention sound design and understanding your hardware/software is definitely more important to hardstyle. But I gurantee learning more music theory wont bite (Unless its 20th century theory; seriously academia ruins art) Ear training is also probably of greater importance than music theory up until the point where you can write down whats in your head decently. (I have a lot of work to do in this department. sorta embarassing actually.)
all my threads here end up way longer than i inted apparently. Good thing my aspirations are not to be a writer. thanks for your time.
Musicians, I encourage you to study theory more deeply
-
Shadow Interaction
- Artist
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 01:03
Well.. i certainly like to fill in alot of knowledge holes, but the main problem is.. where to start? 
the first thing required to answer that question is to know how much exactly i know of producing. right now I can't even tell IF i know much or not.
I'm -in the eyes of others, and to my feel- quite a good/talented producer, but that's mainly because i know by feel/hearing how something must sound, and i know for the most part how to get there.
but aside from that, all the hightech producing stuff like LFO/modulation/chords (okay maybe i know a bit, from experience, but you get my point) and all the stuff i've never heard about goes way above my head.
where do you start filling in the information gaps?
-edit-
on the other half, the "the more simple the best" part really conflicts alot on the question if it's actually necessary to learn more... we are talking about hardstyle here.
the first thing required to answer that question is to know how much exactly i know of producing. right now I can't even tell IF i know much or not.I'm -in the eyes of others, and to my feel- quite a good/talented producer, but that's mainly because i know by feel/hearing how something must sound, and i know for the most part how to get there.
but aside from that, all the hightech producing stuff like LFO/modulation/chords (okay maybe i know a bit, from experience, but you get my point) and all the stuff i've never heard about goes way above my head.
where do you start filling in the information gaps?
-edit-
on the other half, the "the more simple the best" part really conflicts alot on the question if it's actually necessary to learn more... we are talking about hardstyle here.
When starting theory as a musician with experience it can be hard to know where to start with theory, afterall you clearly know a thing or two about music but have nothing to measure it on. It's very good that you have some natural understanding to music, i think thats always what it should come down to (in my opinion the true application of proper music theory is to just hear it in your musical thoughts rather than conciously alter them to fit the theory.)
I recommend starting with the general basics, as in all the stuff this website has to offer. (Including learning to read music, it will not take long trust me, you don't need to be fluent at all. Just be able to see what the notes are if needed, Then I recommend moving on to a book, one which covers a specific subject (ie counterpoint, or harmony, or form.) (Form for hardstyle would probably be the least beneficial, What is hardstyle without A - Break - Climax - A) I would say harmony is the only one that is really lacking in most artists today relative to their goals in music. (Counterpoint isnt used by most but musicians still strive for good chord progressions)
http://www.musictheory.net/
I'm a firm believer in the fact that you can never know the basics too well. I'm sure you know about chords but I recommend getting a good book on harmony and reading through the whole thing. I think what most people in contemporary genres (electronic and performed equally) would benefit from learning more about harmony. I have read piston's Harmony textbook and it was helpful but I'm not sure if I'd recommend it. It was written in the 1960's on common practice (1600-1800s.) common practice harmony is much closer to contemporary chord progression music since its goal is to sound good. (ignore 20th century theory unless you like 20th century classical music.)
I am currently reading Tchaikovsky's book on harmony written in the last half of the 1800's (romantic era) which I am really liking since it shows how the composers of the time thought of harmony and it is reliable since Tchaikovsky is a reputable composer and I like his music and most importantly use of harmony. I don't think you should listen to classical music if you don't like it but most books will be written with classical in mind so just being able to recognize that you like the way someone uses a certain element of music can help you in choosing a work to study.
I'd recommend it to most producers since his is the most practical related to contemporary harmonies (The romantic era which tchaikovsky belonged to composed relatively free and emotional harmonies while still having the goal of sounding pleasing, music shortly after would abandon the sounding pleasing part.) It was written by someone at the time so his thoughts were how people understood harmony at the time and not just how people understand it looking back. But most importantly I recommend it because he makes good use of harmony himself, even if I did say some new book on harmony is just as good, what gives me or the author more credibility than tchaikovsky when you listen to tchaikovsky himself and his masterpieces.
Hes very good at explaining things too (I forgot...thats pretty important....) I am almost half way done with his book but I chose to read through the very beginning simple parts. Even though you may already know most of it or all of it you still could gain a new way of understanding it or understanding the thought better related to the element being presented. (Think intervals, intervals can relate to melodies and you might understand that well but they are very crucial to harmonies as well.) So I would recommend Tchaikovskys book on harmony and starting from the very beginning. I could send you the pdf since its public domain.
I am pretty sure tchaikovsky covers modulation in his book at a later point than im at.
Once you know a bit of textbook theory I recommend mainly focusing on whatever peaks your interest.
LFO's don't fit under "Music theory" yet since as it is used today the term implies the relation of musical notes to eachother to produce music. Not the process in which notes are created nor synthesis. I am trying to find a good book on sound design or sound architecture or whatever the creation of sounds is called myself. My sound design skills are very low, as Im still a beginner so I really cant help much with LFO's. I would be greatful if someone could point me to something that covers the usefulness of synth shit and the sound theory behind it.
End ramble; somewhere in there I answered your question I hope! I think from my trials and errors of self studying music theory I would say that the most important device is to start thinking of why stuff works on you own and draw conclusions, you'll be wrong a lot but that will make you know whats right that much more. Don't be afraid to be wrong.
edit: Put in a link to musictheory.net the general theory site I was speaking of
I recommend starting with the general basics, as in all the stuff this website has to offer. (Including learning to read music, it will not take long trust me, you don't need to be fluent at all. Just be able to see what the notes are if needed, Then I recommend moving on to a book, one which covers a specific subject (ie counterpoint, or harmony, or form.) (Form for hardstyle would probably be the least beneficial, What is hardstyle without A - Break - Climax - A) I would say harmony is the only one that is really lacking in most artists today relative to their goals in music. (Counterpoint isnt used by most but musicians still strive for good chord progressions)
http://www.musictheory.net/
I'm a firm believer in the fact that you can never know the basics too well. I'm sure you know about chords but I recommend getting a good book on harmony and reading through the whole thing. I think what most people in contemporary genres (electronic and performed equally) would benefit from learning more about harmony. I have read piston's Harmony textbook and it was helpful but I'm not sure if I'd recommend it. It was written in the 1960's on common practice (1600-1800s.) common practice harmony is much closer to contemporary chord progression music since its goal is to sound good. (ignore 20th century theory unless you like 20th century classical music.)
I am currently reading Tchaikovsky's book on harmony written in the last half of the 1800's (romantic era) which I am really liking since it shows how the composers of the time thought of harmony and it is reliable since Tchaikovsky is a reputable composer and I like his music and most importantly use of harmony. I don't think you should listen to classical music if you don't like it but most books will be written with classical in mind so just being able to recognize that you like the way someone uses a certain element of music can help you in choosing a work to study.
I'd recommend it to most producers since his is the most practical related to contemporary harmonies (The romantic era which tchaikovsky belonged to composed relatively free and emotional harmonies while still having the goal of sounding pleasing, music shortly after would abandon the sounding pleasing part.) It was written by someone at the time so his thoughts were how people understood harmony at the time and not just how people understand it looking back. But most importantly I recommend it because he makes good use of harmony himself, even if I did say some new book on harmony is just as good, what gives me or the author more credibility than tchaikovsky when you listen to tchaikovsky himself and his masterpieces.
Hes very good at explaining things too (I forgot...thats pretty important....) I am almost half way done with his book but I chose to read through the very beginning simple parts. Even though you may already know most of it or all of it you still could gain a new way of understanding it or understanding the thought better related to the element being presented. (Think intervals, intervals can relate to melodies and you might understand that well but they are very crucial to harmonies as well.) So I would recommend Tchaikovskys book on harmony and starting from the very beginning. I could send you the pdf since its public domain.
I am pretty sure tchaikovsky covers modulation in his book at a later point than im at.
Once you know a bit of textbook theory I recommend mainly focusing on whatever peaks your interest.
LFO's don't fit under "Music theory" yet since as it is used today the term implies the relation of musical notes to eachother to produce music. Not the process in which notes are created nor synthesis. I am trying to find a good book on sound design or sound architecture or whatever the creation of sounds is called myself. My sound design skills are very low, as Im still a beginner so I really cant help much with LFO's. I would be greatful if someone could point me to something that covers the usefulness of synth shit and the sound theory behind it.
End ramble; somewhere in there I answered your question I hope! I think from my trials and errors of self studying music theory I would say that the most important device is to start thinking of why stuff works on you own and draw conclusions, you'll be wrong a lot but that will make you know whats right that much more. Don't be afraid to be wrong.
edit: Put in a link to musictheory.net the general theory site I was speaking of
Last edited by mU4Ea on 17 Aug 2013, 15:43, edited 1 time in total.
-
QuantomMusic
- Artist
- Posts: 478
- Joined: 07 Dec 2012, 06:47
I have always made the argument that theory is one of the most, if not the most important aspect of music production. I took theory class last year and it helped me improve immensely. Phrasing, chords, rhythms, time signatures, key signatures, etc, IT IS ALL VERY IMPORTANT IN MUSIC PRODUCTION!!! The last guy I collabed with was AMAZING at sound design but his lack of theory knowledge is what ruined it for us. It is very hard to explain errors to producers that aren't experienced in theory.