Before i start giving this out of myself, let me make one thing clear. Im not here to shit on music theory, and people who learn it, because thats not my intention. Im simply here, expressing, and letting the experiences out of myself, while proving that you dont need music theory at all to make music that is good.

Music theory is an interesting thing. It is a pretty complex system which has million different parts and theories, and many new musicmakers get lost in the mess where they dont even know where to start. But im not here to talk about learning picking music theory with 0 prior knowledge, im here to talk about picking up music theory after a considerable amount of time being someone who is affiliated with music in any shape or form.

Here is my opinion. Advanced music theory sucks.

Why? Because it takes away your options. There is a saying that goes: "Creativity is the art of thinking outside the box." The most efficent and effective way of doing that, if there is no box. By filling your head with rules and guidelines that you let yourself dictate what you shouldnt or should do, you are taking away a massive portion of your ideas that are original and unique.

Art has never been about following a set of guidelines. Art is about expressing ourselves, taking journeys into the unexpected, and sharing that with the world. Anything can become an art form, its just the way how we see it, and the beauty we perceive in it. Uniqueness and originality a lot of times comes down to people's perceptions. How they see the artform, how they are comprehending it, and how they are making it. Every people has a different approach, and a different structure on how they hear the music.

Of course, i will emphasize this also. A musician should be aware of the fundamentals and the basics. Im not saying that you can make music having no clue about anything regarding it, but diving down the rabbit hole of music theory is unstimulating,very difficult, and ultimately just a waste of time. Time that you can spend by actually doing things, and figuring stuff out, and that is much more rewarding, and yields more satisfaction.

Take me as an example. When i began writing my first song, back when i was 14 years old, i didnt even know what a major scale or chord was. I was just riffing in my bedroom, trying all the different combinations, experimenting on the knowledge that i had. I never recorded anything before that, let alone written any pieces of music. I didnt know how to mix and master. And despite it being my first song, it managed to get over a 1000 views on NG.

Melancholy Hill- Caravan Of Dreams (newgrounds.com)

So to everyone who feels that should throw themselves into the advanced stuff, you really dont need to. Focus on the things you know, experiment, get outside your comfort zone, and you will learn a lot more, in a more fun way.

I hope this will serve as a wind of push for folks who are anxious on starting out. If you have a different take on this, i would love to hear it. I hope we can have some civil discussions about this.

Thank you for reading this, may the Spirit be with you!

Keep climbing.

I feel you're missing the point a bit here. I understand what you're trying to get at, but this is the same as saying "If you can already speak, then learning to read and write will make you a worse speaker." Which I fundamentally disagree with. I come from the Wooten school of "Music is a language." and whole heartedly believe that you should learn to "speak" (play and instrument/sing) before learning to read and write, but asserting that illiteracy will make you a better speaker is nonsensical to me. Theory is simply music literature/literacy, there are no rules in music theory for how to write "correctly", but there are grammatical/syntactical rules. These rules are for the purposes of making written music sight readable and nothing more. I understand the confusion though and I agree that learning to speak before you read and write is the most efficient way to learn, but I assert that learning to read and write can only be an advantage in terms of you're ability to communicate musical ideas. Theory isn't a box, but it'll let you write about the box you've put yourself in. Don't mistake other people writing about "boxes" as theory itself. Hope that makes sense.

I would argue that the opposite is true. If you understand the principles behind the abstractions formed by music theory, then you will understand all of the control that you have over every aspect of every note and forms of notes you write. If you don't understand the theory, then you're blindly throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks.

I don't personally think that it is "destorying creativity" in itself, but that the workload of trying to make sense of everything and understand everything is what limits people.

Another thing I wanted to point out was that when people delve more into the medium of digital music production, due to all of this confusion, I think that they resort to more and more unoriginality. I might be wrong but I've noticed it sometimes. People put a lot of trust into "loops" and "chord packs" and such which they download online and use in their music. I feel like the more they have done for them, the less they themselves learn, yet these inexperienced producers won't progress efficiently if they continue to rely ontoo much of the work to come from other sources. This is pretty much fuelled by the constraints which the implied responsibility of "mastering music theory" applies.

To be honest, the way I have the skill which I do now (not saying it's amazing but I would say I definately have improved somewhat in the past few years) is mostly by recreating/remixing other peoples work. Even though that is feeding off of someone elses thinking conceptually, that all remains only in my head and when I play the actual song. What I proceed to make is then make is played and composed by me entirely. So I suppose I have been gaining the kind of procuction flow and skill along the way, as I am not having it done for me. In a way, I suppose, I am just following the steps of what other more successful artists have done and, in the process, have just learnt more on my own.

Then I'm able to apply that in my own music, and, given enough time and effort, progress in skill is made.

This is not me discouraging learning music theory, I do think it is important to know, but just don't let the idea nestle in your head that memorising all that information and applying it exactly is the only way forward.

A big problem is how it's taught.

Adam Neely's video on the problems with music theory still stands.

1) As an explanation of how things work, from our perspective at least, it tracks, but then, I speak as someone who followed the exam system. Few teach it with any level of passion and exploration, and so it breeds the notion that it has to be memorised because the exam demands a knowledge of certain things. The obvious way around this would be to teach with more interest, but... fuck if I do ever see anyone around me doing this; the earth would shake.

2) Other theory systems and explanations are treated as lesser, at least implicitly by some teachers (and I have seen a few go all the way and do so explicitly, saying that Bach was a genius because the Western system bred geniuses and no one else, very racist thinking). Blues scales, ragas and talas, there's just so much we don't know about, and these types of teachers dissuade students from picking it up and exploring. This, in small part, was why I felt ashamed of my ethnicity's own music growing up. To be clear, I don't anymore.

3) As someone who followed the ABRSM exam system, I was taught figured bass at Grade 8. Figured bass is only useful in niche circumstances, like in mine where I'm an organist dealing with period music. For most people, that knowledge can be simplified and entirely substituted with chord markings that are almost universally known. Yet, everyone who does the theory exam to be able to study music at university level (yes, because uni demands Grade 8) is expected to know this otherwise useless thing known as figured bass.

So: learn theory and teach theory all you want, but ya better teach it right / approach studying it with an open, explorative mind, or we're wasting our time.

To my rookie level, music theory is a handy toolbag for when in doubt. (or when your aging ears start to betray you)

I enjoy adding tools here and there at my own pace. Usually when i pick a virtual instrument. I look what its used for, in which context, but that wont stop me putting some crazy effects on it if i want to^^

I wouldn't say it sucks, but it definitely is not important nor needed to make great music! I'm currently studying a Music Morphology course in my career after seeing 3 semesters of Harmony, a course of Counterpoint, and soon an Added/Advanced Harmony course, and the best way I like to see it is as a base. Music theory has been proved by history, it certainly works. It's like a base where you can begin before starting to experiment, or something you can rely on when striding too far off.

I use it a lot to work my music harmonially, things like understanding what works with what (say, establishing the tonic, knowing how tension-release works, chord substitution), but also experiment with further, weirder chords.

Music theory is great, but I totally agree that you shouldn't just rely on it and follow the steps to make music, after all, music is a form of expression! :D

I’ve been playing piano since I was 8 years old, and learning theory the whole time. As a result, I can write a whole song without even taking a listen. I can just understand the way a song is supposed to sound. Music theory is a good thing, and following its rules can definitely be beneficial.

But it’s not a requirement. Making exceptions is part of the fun! Music is an art form, not a math problem.

Theory doesn’t destroy creativity. It refines and encourages it, giving it a better way to “speak.”

With the time we have left before the big event, i preferred not to learn theory and go straight to action

who is actually making any counterclaims as an absolute, though?

define advanced

alternatively: music theory gives you a new box.

you can make a fancy game in a high power 3D-game engine, or use PICO-8, and make a game that is limited but has more charm.

working with boundaries enforces a different avenue of creativity. Think of MacGuyver getting his way out of a jail cell but with nothing put a toothpick and a reel of floss. He needs to have a creative mind to do that in addition to have an understanding of how the lock mechanically works.

how are you quantifying massive here?

you don't need to have grammar and vocabulary to make a good story, but it helps.

breaking grammar rules and creating new words is creativity in of itself.

but even in doing that, it helps to understand syntax and word origins.

really has nothing to do with music theory destroying creativity.

also a mark that you may be missing, music theory gives an avenue not solely for enhancing creativity, but for communicating and analyzing music.

I don't believe artistic pursuits are purely poetic, but they have a scientific side too.

unsubstantiated opinion

opinion, and has nothing to do with the merits of music theory

4u

mostly irrelevant anecdotal experience. Again, don't think anyone here is claiming you can't make the bestest music ever witthout knowledge of music theory. Moreover the bestest music isn't really qualified by its amount of exposure on an Pennsylvanian animation website.

I agree with this. Depends on context, but in general there shouldn't be any pressure for artists to learn music theory.

I disagree with the premise that music theory destroys creativity; what you have described here are (personal) psychological problems not directly attributed to music theory itself.

I disagree with this, although I think I have a grasp on where you're coming from. I have probably forgotten more music theory than I've learned at this point in my life. Or just simply ignored it while writing (I always joke I just play in the key of 'sounds good' lol).

But really, not using music theory isn't really an enhancement or detriment for that matter to your creativity. The beauty of it is that even if someone doesn't necessarily know what they're playing a more knowledgeable person can probably make it make musical sense using music theory. It's essentially the 'math' of music. Do enough equations, and you can usually get the answer you want (obviously a stretch but you get my point.

I think as long as people keep playing and exploring their minds, creativity is endless. I think some of my best work has been the result of me just playing around with something and then reworking/building off that initial starting point, (sometimes using theory, others not as worried about it). It's a good knowledge base to have in songwriting.

I really like what Bill Wurtz has said in regards to Music Theory:

'[Music] theory' may be fun, but it's made of liquid and has a tendency to melt. 
The music comes first and then you figure out how to describe what happened, 
although fully describing it can never be done. One of the classical composers 
said 'We will never understand music, but music understands us readily and instantly'. 

There's a saying that us artists have that remains true with musicians. Know the rules before you break them.

I'm not saying that to agree or disagree with your point of view or to justify the need for advance music theory but my hunch would be that while the advance stuff may not be a necessity it may at the very least enhance what options you have in whether or not you choose to follow them, even after the fact that you know the foundation levels of music theory.

Take my word with a grain of salt however. It has been a very long time since I last played around with music making and my knowledge even with basic music theory is vague at best since I haven't messed around with an instrument in that respect. But I should.

if it sounds good, then its good.

i'm a little torn on this subject. i had music theory in high school but didn't really walk away from it with much left in my head as i deemed it uninteresting to me personally in comparison to the real thing, and have since managed to write atleast a handful of decent songs using only intuition, my tools and my personal taste.

to the guy who wrote the first response to this thread: your comparison of music theory and music writing to speech and literacy doesn't hold up in my eyes. i think instinct, proficiency and feeling is key to writing a song first and foremost, all of which cannot be taught in a class and must instead be trained and maintained like a muscle through action, which means writing music and figuring out what works for you.

if you want to get musically literate, i reckon it'd likely be incredibly helpful in several ways to actually know how music works empirically rather than going wherever your mind takes you at any given moment, which is mostly what I do as someone without much music theory knowledge.

the caveat is this: i've observed second hand how people leaned on their knowledge too hard, which resulted in their musical output gradually becoming more of a cookie cutter endeavor than a creative project, i.e their music gets repetitive and sticks to one particular methodology rather than broadening and indulging in more left-field or unknown forms of music to them, which to me is a stifling of creativity.

though this is only my personal opinion. i'm not gonna make you listen to my own music, and i don't think i'm the best songwriter in the world, but i at the very least pride myself in having a stylistically diverse output rather than one particular scene that i pander to. but if exclusively producing techno, dubstep, classical or anything else is your MO, then that's a valid decision to make as an artist, and being smart enough to know how to make what you're going for will be advantageous in the long run.

none of this is to say that all musically literate people are creatively stifled though. only a small yet notable minority that i've observed on the audio portal over the years. i could still name many artists that had a full musical education who often travel the unknown.

This applies to so many creative pursuits, not just music. My own little forays into music are proof you need at least a foundation to make something passable at first (outside of some music classes my parents forced me to take, I don't know a single thing about making music that doesn't sound like I'm randomly banging piano keys or adding notes into a DAW). But you can only get so far spending 100% of your time watching tutorials, studying theories and browsing relevant forums before you need to actually experiment (and most importantly, fail multiple times) before you find your own voice.

This is a common misconception. Music theory is descriptive not prescriptive. Theory is not a set of rules that you need to follow, it's just a way to describe what you hear and a way to make sense of how things work. When you first start learning music theory, a lot of harmony, voice leading, and counterpoint stuff is based on high baroque ideals. Because of this, people can get the impression that theory tells you what you can and cannot do, but really we've just recognized that Bach wrote some pretty awesome music so theorists have spent a lot of time picking apart how he wrote and came up with a set of guidelines. It's used in basic theory courses because it's a good starting place, but those "rules" only really apply if you want to write like Bach.

Think of it like a youtube video on mixing. Producers will often suggest keeping the bass and kick drum panned in the center, and sidechain the kick to the bass so they don't fight each other. There's no rule that you have to do that and there are times when you'd choose not to, but if a mix sounds weird or you notice the low end is peaking quite a bit, having that info in mind can help you identify where the problem is and give you some ideas of how to fix it.

To be able to think outside of the box, you have to know 'what' the box is.

World is full of so called creatives, who believe that they know how to think outside of the box and trail-blaze, and then they go proceed to do the most average-common thing ever.

Knowing the theory and fundamentals is what allows you to break them.

However if you do not set yourself to 'break' anything nor you try too hard to 'think outside of the box' - you can just be free and do your thing. And for that you need no theory. While you think what I said is one of the same, then far from it. It is question of starting point and goals.

I feel like music theory is really about what you want from it. If you want to understand music on a deeper level, then advanced music theory is for you. But I find that most musicians can get by without needing a full music education. Personally, I never formally learned music theory. I just picked things up as I went. So this means that I only know what is necessary to compose music. This works because that's what I want out of music theory. I want it to aid me in creating music.

I feel like music theory *can* be the destroyer of creativity, but it can also be a catalyst, depending on how you use it and what you want from it. Personally, I use my solid grasp of music theory fundamentals to make my music, and it elevates my creativity because the theory allows me to convey what I want to convey in the way that I want to. Without music theory, I would not be able to do even a fraction of what I do with my music.

I'm going to be completely honest, I didn't read your entire message. So I'm sorry if I am completely misunderstanding the point of the thread.

and all this time i thought i needed it. Does knowing like the basic terminologies and song structure stuff count in this context or not, because that is definitely something i need to learn cause it feels like i'm trying to speak a language I dont understand

Out of curiosity, how is "Advanced Music Theory" being defined in this context?