Theory & Impro Do we really need theory?

[thomsax]

As @Pete Thomas has revised this interesting thread I had a read and wondered about the question
posted by @Wade Cornell all those years ago....

Dec 5, 2017


I had a look on Wiki and several musicians have PhDs (May and Cox included) but not in music or music-related study/research.

Some do have music Doctorates including Billy Taylor, Bill Bruford (King Crimson, Yes etc), and Alejandro Toledo. There are few others I don't know e.g. Robert Allan (Glasvegas), Michael Bishop (Gwar), C N Lester (songwriter), Annbjørg Lien (Hardanger fiddle). List of artists and entertainers with advanced degrees - WikipediaHardanger fiddle
I understand that Bill Bruford's PhD in music was after he retired from performing.

Probably not relevant or of interest nearly 8 years after the question was asked!

Chuck Higgins was a PhD

View: https://youtu.be/4P7Ab3naLt0?si=OxsNMl6w9twpRaDV

 

[cjR]

Just wanted to share a wonderful Victor Wooten quote I happened across recently on YouTube, when asked how much he uses theory (probably some paraphrasing here):
"...theory is a wonderful tool, but it's a tool, we ride with it in the trunk and break it out when we need it..."

 

[Colin the Bear]

He was an elephant?

 

[mizmar]

He was an elephant?

😿

Obviously it you had a tool in your boot, it'd hobble you.

 

[Colin the Bear]

😿

Obviously it you had a tool in your boot, it'd hobble you.

Proof reader required. 😉

 

[mizmar]

0

Proof reader required. 😉

Not by me. But you can ask if you don't understand

 

[Woodpad]

The theory that reality exist is underappreciated.

 

[Colin the Bear]

0

Not by me. But you can ask if you don't understand

Perhaps spectacles? 🤓

 

[Woodpad]

To bring this discussion back to the use of theorie in music we have to look at the strength and weakness of music theory.
The most obvious strength is to communicate musical thoughts among people. If you have a large group of musicians you need some form of theory preferably consising of theory elements that are shared. Such as notation, scales, chords, progressions, rhytmical patterns and other fun stuff.

In most discussions on theory you first have to cross a swamp of differences in definition before you reach the intresting part. In a large group it is efficient preparation to make a list of the used theory elements with accepted definitions to avoid some muddy tracks. Aps can be helpfull to share such lists. If you are on you own you can keep it down to the things you tend to forget.
This forum toppic hasn't left the swamp yet. Now imagine how large this swamp can get when groups from different musical theory schools meet for the first time.

Beyond the swamp you find the limiting resources such as technique, hearing, accuracy attention and a few other things I tend to forget.
For theory the most limiting resource is often the brain, which is a wonderfull unstandarized organ. It works often with sequinces of detection, processing and storage. The brain has its own measurable rhythms so it is well equiped for music, especially when you see frequincies as a rhythmical application.
The amount of attention in a brain is finit. This attention is divided on different tasks and diversions. When you make music and it starts to rain and you are not shure if you closed the windows of your car this atention shift can make you lose your rhythm.
In general if you convert a thought in words it is a diversion for rhythmical stuff and you need lots of technique and practice to do this smoothly. It also helps if you start at a very young age.

So to end this rambling story, you need a common music theory to communicate in large groups and it takes a lot of effort before you can use it during playing.

 

[wakyct]

I think it's useful to go back to the idea that "theory is a description of music that has already happened". This lets us communicate in words on a technical level about music we're listening to.

However, maybe too often, the description gets turned into a prescription for how to make music. This is where it can get real swampy. Don't get lost in the swamp.

 

[Pete Thomas]

Such as notation, scales, chords, progressions, rhytmical patterns and other fun stuff.

I might argue that of all those, notation isn’t really theory. It is important as a way to communicate the music but by itself it doesn’t get beyond being a communication tool rather than being, per se, part of the analytical or subconscious process of creation.

 

[MikeMorrell]

I might argue that of all those, notation isn’t really theory. It is important as a way to communicate the music but by itself it doesn’t get beyond being a communication tool rather than being, per se, part of the analytical or subconscious process of creation.

Good point.

My (largely uninformed) opinion is that there is (as far as I've discovered) no accepted widely-accepted definition - or theory of- creativity. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

My couple of cts. .....

Creative Art (in general)
- 'creativity' might for some artists be 100% 'intuitive': driven by 'internal vision', 'experimentation' and internally-driven self-development (including skills)
- The majority of creative artists, I would argue, are - at least to some extent - aware of what other 'broadly contemporary' artists are doing and are in some way may be inspired by - or 'learn' from - these; to me, it doesn't seem to be a coincidence that we, in retrospect, talk about 'art movements' (Impressionism, Cubism, Realism, etc.). It seems that each individual artist developed their individual styles but were also influenced by what (artistically and often socially) was going on around them.
- I would further argue that many artists have been aware (via art exhibitions and museums) of past artists, works and styles
- it's always fascinated me how current art school teachers guide and assess the progress and final results of individual art students during their 5-year course

Learning Preferences/Styles
- back in the day, when I occasionally gave multiple-day courses and weekly workshops, I frantically searched Google on 'how people learn?'; I discovered that different people have different 'learning preferences/styles'. So for example, some participants (strongly) preferred to first understand 'the theory' before applying it, while others (strongly) preferred 'learning by doing'. Others just 'absorbed' the learning experience and went on to do their own thing.
- my youngest daughter (back in the day) was a (Dutch) National ballet student. From what I remember, her only 'theory' was what to eat; her ballet lessons were purely based on 'learning by doing' (through 'corrections'').

Creativity/Learning in Music
I've never come across any 'theory of creativity' in music, any other art form, or other areas. People like Mozart and Einstein are often referred to as 'geniuses'. My gut feeling is that 'musical creativity' is some combination of the above points. In the sense that most 'highly creative musicians' are at least aware of the contemporary music around them and find a way of 'breaking out of the box' and going their own way.

So is there an occasional spark of genius? Or does progress just generally plod on in jumps and starts? I have no idea. Personally I believe that the answers to both questions are true.


FWIW, all students at Dutch music universities get a good 'grounding' in basic music theory. As in art schools, they are encouraged to pursue and develop their own personal musical interests. As in art schools, their 'progress' is regularly assessed.

 

[Dr G]

Proof reader required. 😉

Indeed. I thought the title of this thread was “Do we really need therapy?”

Regardless, the answer is “Yes”.

 

[PiccoloPirate]

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

 

[Woodpad]

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

View attachment 29365

But they can produce equal amounts of smugness

 

[Woodpad]

However, maybe too often, the description gets turned into a prescription for how to make music. This is where it can get real swampy. Don't get lost in the swamp.

It's the same with cooking, cookbooks do not describe all tasty dishes.

 

[Targa]

It's the same with cooking, cookbooks do not describe all tasty dishes.

Damon Knight's did.

 

[mizmar]

However, maybe too often, the description gets turned into a prescription

I guess I haven't seen all the music theory out there but, from what I have seen - here's the thing compared to Theory in, say, a physical science.
I've never seen any music theory that comes up with an answer.
Sure, it has - what the physical science call - heuristics. Rules of thumb relative to one or another style that encapsulate custom and practice. Some quite strict in its context, even...
... But nothing like an equation that, when solved for a given model, produces The Answer.

Sure, those heuristics get derived from whats going on. And modified through time. And some can be learned deeply enough to use extemporaneously.
But, someone prove me wrong, I've not seen anything that give the Right Answer universally.

 

[skeller047]

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

View attachment 29365

Yogi!!!

 

[Tenor Viol]

I guess I haven't seen all the music theory out there but, from what I have seen - here's the thing compared to Theory in, say, a physical science.
I've never seen any music theory that comes up with an answer.
Sure, it has - what the physical science call - heuristics. Rules of thumb relative to one or another style that encapsulate custom and practice. Some quite strict in its context, even...
... But nothing like an equation that, when solved for a given model, produces The Answer.

Sure, those heuristics get derived from whats going on. And modified through time. And some can be learned deeply enough to use extemporaneously.
But, someone prove me wrong, I've not seen anything that give the Right Answer universally.

Music is a art not a science. 'Theory' is probably not the best word, but any other description is probably going to be rather long-winded.