Man, definitely can't relate. Once I learned that the entire goal of music theory is around using intervals to create harmony and a create a feeling and (have some language to describe it)- I threw out the language part and just learned harmonics and scales and how to create and relieve tension and create specific feelings and then how to use circles of fifths and fourths to move around and bam... Done. That's all I really wanted to get out of theory. I took what's useful to me, left the rest. (Wrong or right? ) Who knows. I make a lot of mistakes. But that's the whole idea! I still watch stuff like this to learn a bit more but, only where it's practical for me.
Its funny because I grew up writing music starting at the age of 14, then I went to college and learned all the theory, Schenkerian Analysis, etc... and once I was aware of the "rules", it stagnated my created muse. In my third year or so I finally mustered up the nerve to ask one of my Professors why we had all these rules. He explained it the way you did and then he added, "Once you know the rules, you can break them." That freed me up again to write. Today, when I`m composing, I do my best to follow the rules. Why? As you mentioned, parallel 4ths, 5ths, and octaves just sound off. I guess thats what years and years of training your ear does. However, nothing beats those power chords when writing some rock tune. My point is: Learn the rules but don`t be afraid to break them.
Some advanced music theory concepts are about breaking the more fundamental ones. Polytonality, polymodality, polychords and microtonality let you to follow your instinct and make your own rules.
There is room for parallel fourths and fifths when it comes to rock and modal music because they create a sense of near-unison or even tonal suspension.
What's the point of learning the rules just to break them? 🤔 If the theory inhibits you then why should I inhibit my self by learning theory? I don't see the lesson in learning rules just to beeak them. 🫤
@@thekingsmatter5845 You got it wrong. You don't break them just for breaking. You learn the fundamentals behind the theory and then selectly remove, modify or subvert the theory in accordance to your needs. Something that holds much more value than randomly hitting notes.
It took me more than 20 years studying, making and recording music, to understand that one of my first teachers was right when he tried to teach me more about improvisation than "composition" or theory, even when I knew I didn't want to go the performance route but rather the writing route. The truth is that getting better at improvisation, living life, and simply making more and more songs are the 3 things that have really helped me improve as a songwriter/producer
Improvisation is an excellent tool for mining ideas. The refinement process is composition. The issue with relying only on improvisation is the tendency to rely on muscle memory and follow your hands only to places they’ve been before.
@@JamesonNathanJones truly! I guess that's why subconsciously I started writing on instruments that are foreign to me. Do you recommend other ways to avoid falling into muscle memory?
@@SalvatoreCremeOfficial That’s an effective method for sure. If it is an instrument you’re more comfortable with, improvise at a slower tempo and force your hands to go into uncomfortable places. Recording that process can be really helpful.
@@JamesonNathanJones I understand the point you're trying to make about improvising. But, (in an overly simplistic way) if a person relies on muscle memory to improvise then they aren't really improvising. :)
What you are describing is precisely what happened to me. All the formal theory education sucked any inspiration out of me. It felt so much easier to improvise and compose before all the rule checks in the brain started to run in parallel and dictated the outcome. To make things worse, I tended to get stuck in simple diatonic schemes without the grit to use out-of-scale notes and harmonies. I went from just painting to painting with numbers and dull templates. And it took so long to find the confidence to throw it all out and start fresh without any inhibitions. I've only just arrived at this point and I'm rediscovering my own music now.
I understand where you’re coming from, but for me it was more about learning to understand what the purpose of all of it was - and more importantly, what it wasn’t. I didn’t throw it all out, but certainly no longer try to analyze things while I’m in creative mode.
what formal education usually does is, gives us an understanding from a different perspective, supposedly through a broaden comprehension of what is going on. It is not unusual for this extra amount of information to hamper the creative process because now there is an added need to justify the legitimate use of our imaginations. What some jazz composers do is they take the concepts of abstract applications of ideas from physical art and in the same way that a visual artist would throw paint onto a canvas say, throw sound into the air from their imaginations. In the mist of the chaos comes order, and once the idea is on paper, the fundamental elements that create a logical progression of sound intelligible to the concept of music, becomes the raw material from which to create.
Your statement: “I was so afraid of doing things the wrong way that I never did anything”. really hit home. Glad I'm not the only one who's been stuck there. I still kind of am, but you give me inspiration to move on, as well as pointers on how to get my feet out of that mud.
Music theory is to great music what Calculus(math) is the physical world. It's a way to retroactively explain things that weren't being considered during inception. Rick Beato (last week) did an analysis of Nirvana's song "you know you're right" and was breaking down the absolute genius of "this and that" theoretical techniques, suspensions and genius intervals - which we all know Kurt wasn't considering when writing the song. Theory is the answer to a question I didn't ask. Another great video, James. Thumbs up given. (yeah I still have my OG copy of hanon and czerny)
(I'm not a native english speaker) 1. Beato has good ears, but not good knowledge of music theory, even if he talks about Bach he knows almost nothing about him. 2. Let's say you are improvising with your instrument and you discover a combination of notes that you like, let's say for example you are making a suspension, if you know music theory you know that is called "suspension", but you are not just putting a label on it, you also know how to replicate that effect and you know how to make it sounds good ( maybe it already sounds good to your ears, but it could be even better if you know what you are doing), in other words you have a lot more control on what you are doing.
I'm a guitarist who has been trying to learn piano on off for a while and I definitely agree that starting with piano is likely to set a better foundation for understanding music in the long run.
My experience was virtually opposite. A violinist by age 11, and a dedicated orchestra & instrument geek after that, I had minimal theory training & good natural talent for music & math. Somehow, I became fascinated by composing & arranging, and, while still in high school, spent much time scribbling out transcriptions & arrangements of music I heard. I knew both treble & bass clef, and memorized all the instrument transpositions, but my “original compositions” were of the most rudimentary & insignificant sort. I had tried to read some theory texts, but I needed a teacher or tutor. Going to college as a music major made the difference for me. Though a violin major, at first, I was eager to learn theory/solfège, work on improving my compositions, and get some piano skills. By third year, I switched to theory/comp and started to really feel free to create new music! I loved learning music theory, and it actually guided me & gave me a template by which I could write the music I wanted - then, of course, I began to disregard the rules…
Yes...that's kind of what I was saying above (not that you have to read my other comments, of course.) Music theory was useful to you because you learned it when you had a reason and a purpose in mind for understanding it. The problem isn't music theory per se, but rather that it's often learned by rote or without a clear understanding on why or how it can be useful....
When I started with composing (which maybe be too big of a word for it - but there is no other word unfortunately) I did not knew *any* music theory. I did not even know scales or rules for chords, other than that a chord I thought consisted of 3 notes. So I used all sort of chords, borrowed chords, sevens, suspended etc chords just by the idea that If I threw 3 notes together that was the chord. I transitioned to different keys without knowing it all pretty much based on trial and error. I just did whatever sounded interesting, not too predictable and felt that it gave an emotion or vibe that resonated with me, often with a degree of tension (which I'm a sucker for) before it resolved into some chord at the end that felt like it broke the tension. Oddly enough though, I liked not knowing too much, because then I could just use my creative intuition without thinking too 'logically' about it. Everything was new and exciting about it. I've always been into unknowns more and liked the act of sort of learning in an autodidact manner in everything I did, so this was no exception. I felt afraid that if I knew too much official rules about it, that it would would take the exploratory nature out of it and would stop exciting my brain. Recently though I've somewhat randomly been watching some youtube videos about theory and found out things like the names for the chords or scales i've been using, which in one way is handy to know. I learned basic things like that the "vibe" I gravitated most to in my favourite music is apparently called the harmonic minor scale. So it definately saves time knowing such things, as you can just start out using these scales more conciously. However, at the same time playing around with music feels a bit more of a robotic or overly concious process once you know a bit more rules (and I still hardly know anything other than very basics). Somehow it feels like such a big and concious choice to either break a rule or not break a rule while normally I would just pick whatever resonated with me most without the feeling I made any big and important choice. So on one hand I like knowing more because it definately speeds up things as trial and error without knowing anything in a concious manner can be quite a time consuming process, but on the other hand I tend to get the best results when I feel like I'm just playing around in a manner that children tend to do. I have the same sort of issue outside of music too, like for example whenever something is broken and there is a 'good and propher, official' way to fix it. Suddenly, that feels more complicated to me than when I use some uncommon, out of the box way to solve it. That seems to come natural and much more effortlessly to me. I guess it's just my brain works. However, since we can not really alter the way our brain functions best, maybe the best solution is try to present things to your brain in a manner that it responds best to it . However, I'm not an expert on any of this. So all in all, this video quite resonalted with me! By the way, are you an intp personality type? (you kinda look like one). Have a great day!
Great video. It puts me in mind of a quote from a different context. "Anxious, inexperienced writers ignore rules; rebellious, unscheduled writers break rules; an artist masters the form." This comes from Robert McKee and his book "Story. Substance, structure, style, and the principles of screenwriting". It also chimes with videos from 12tone. I often watch those and wonder whether the musicians who wrote the songs actually thought about their compositional choices the way they are analysed or just did something that they thought sounded kind of neat. And one last thought. I created a little guitar piece where my goal was to use only two fingers on my left fretboard hand. Years later I saw an interview where Paul McCartney said he did the same thing. But I then broke the rules and ended with FM7 to E. Because I thought it sounded kind of neat.
I believe theory gives you tools to communicate ideas, identify problems and sometimes solve a problem w something you wouldn't come w if you are only composing. As a very intermediate guitarist, I've watched a lot of music theory vids about chords, time signatures and scales that have helped me composing. I would've never used a diminished chord in my life if it wasn't for the theory I learned (yes, I'm basic). Idk about advanced theory like the things ppl are learning in music school, but some basic theory does wonders for every composer IMO (yes, I may be saying obvious shit, sorry for that lol).
To me what you're saying is that music theory was useful for you because you had a purpose in mind when you learned it. In my never humble opinion, that's exactly the point. It isn't necessarily whether or not one should learn music theory or at what level, it's WHEN we learn it and for what purpose. And, the dividing line in my (never humble) opinion, is that a person has to first decide that there's a reason they need the to learn more about music theory. They must decide there's a need for some additional information or some additional context or structure. And then in seeking the answer to whatever problem they are trying to solve for they look to and possibly find that answer in music theory. Or, they might not find the answer IN music theory but rather WHILE they are learning about music theory.
Really great video! I'm primarily a songwriter who usually composes on guitar. I have no formal training, but my partner is a music educator and has begun teaching me theory for specifically the reasons you mentioned. Theory is not (generally) going to inspire ideas, but it can help you problem solve. As I've started incorporating more sonic elements into my writing with synths, drum machines, samples, etc... the theory I am learning helps me recognize when something is not working and gives me the tools to fix it. Please do more content like this!
The music theory is needed to become sensible to how voice leading, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration and other tools can help you amplify a certain mood. You're not supposed to just learn the rules, but rather, for example "how does adding an instrument affect the mood of the piece". Or "what effect does sudden switch from polyphony to unison create?". The counterpoint is needed to create lavish backgrounds instead of simple boring chords. Harmony allows you to fix a chord that does not "sound right". When you have a weak chord in the culmination of a piece, that just weakens the effect of the culmination. And if you know harmony, you can fix that, because the harmony teaches you the strong chord progressions that have a strong sense of direction, what is best to put in the lowest note of the chord, what note of the chord is best to double and what not to double and so on. Of course, you might have situations where a weak chord progression is needed, but how would you know which one is weak or which one is strong without music theory in the first place?
I have a similar story. I did my bachelors and masters in theoretical chemical physics. Once I started my doctorate studies, while I could do the theory, I now had to do REAL EXPERIMENTATION to test my theoretical models. Experimentation was a completely different monster. I thought theory and experimentation would coincide nicely. It didn't. In experimentation, you're not dealing with ideal conditions that make theory easy to utilize. Real world experimentation requires different equations, thought processes, and stress. I'm both humbled and happy with your comment that music theory and composition are not the same. However, like you stated, theory is still important. Currently, learning the major and minor scales (using Tenuto and Music Theory apps to practice everyday). I've realized, I don't necessarily have to learn to play them but just know what they are. Why? Because that's what everyone keeps telling me but I still don't see the importance of the scales. I just wish, as you learn the theory, you could apply to it music to understand its utility. I know with the sequencers I have, the Toraiz Squid and Squarp Hapax, in the configuration mode, the major, minor, modes like Dorian, and so forth are options. Hence, I know modes, scale, and so forth are vital in music education. Again, the hick up is how much do you have to know before you can start composing. I've actually created some simple compositions (by trial and error) and adding delay, reverb, modulation on a filter... which can make simple composition can sound grandiose. It's just hard to believe that trail and error has been the most helpful tool in my arsenal. What you stated here is so incredibly valuable, and you're the first producer that has had to make the claims you do about theory vs trail and error. I'm new to this game. Hence, I always listen to practitioners in the field. It's a hard lesson to learn in wisdom. Yes, please, more on your journey and what aspects of your musical journey have been the most pragmatic.
Scales are important because all the relationships the notes you're gonna use have with each other are derived from the scale. The scale is the map with which you navigate the creation of music. But what is a scale? I'm curious what your answer would be, since you mentioned that your learning sources are telling you that you need to know what they are. With your current understanding, can you tell me what a scale is, or what you know it to be? If you telll me what you know about scales, it should give me an idea where you're at as far as what I might say to be helpful. What I'm trying to avoid is going over things you already know, or delving into aspects of theory that will just confuse the hell outta you for being too advanced. I'm happy to help if I can; I'm even happier if I can do so efficiently..
My son starting writing his own songs and composing his own music when he was 12. And that was only after taking a handful of piano lessons and without understanding anything about music theory. What he did learn was how to use music software to produce songs and he began by creating different versions of existing songs. Over time he took drum lessons and taught himself how to play the guitar a little, but until recently he's resisted our offers to get guitar lessons or to take music classes. Notwithstanding that minimal formal background and lack of understanding of even basic music theory and concepts, he's written many wonderful compositions and songs. And, he's become pretty skilled as a producer (he's 16 now and has worked on some projects with a number of well-known, recording artists). The reason I mention this story is that what my son's progress showed me is that there's no "right" way to come at these things. I have taken a completely different approach to music from my son and could never do things in the way he did. But, what I think I've learned from him is that one needs to learn to experiment and be comfortable experimenting from wherever we are at the moment. Because the longer we wait to experiment the harder it gets. That being said, as long as we're pursuing deeper knowledge and understanding for the right reasons -- and not as a way to avoid the discomfort of being a newbie when it comes to improvising or composing -- then I think there's no reason to worry about how long it takes us before we improvise or compose.
Reminds me when my music teacher telling me about why I need to know the "rules" in music theory. He told me I must learn it so I may break those rules. At first it didn't make sense but this video gave me some insight to that.
Thank you very much for this video!I have never studied theory and was somehow still blessed with being able to improvise on the spot, something guided more by ear, heart, joy and curiosity. It also felt like magic just being able to pull music out of thin air (which isn't thin at all). I could relatively easy push through trial and error y until I had a piece of music. But the idea of not having studied music haunted me my entire life, making me learn disjointed bits and pieces of theory which in the end clogged up my ability for carefree creation. I had come to believe that there was an x- amount of knowledge that I needed to become fluent again, but the worst was, that I had become scared and boxed into the little amount of theory I possessed. Hearing from you and your professor, people who have been with theory most of their lives, that composition it is trial and error and the comparison of theory with a forensic department really gave me what I needed to hear, to regain trust in my joy, love and appreciation for creating music. Now it all just boils down to, courage, the passion for adventurous experiments and appreciation for what music is to me in this life. So, again, thank you for having made this video, it changed something for me today, blessings!
I feel so aligned with your view and experience through music- I've been feeling exactly like this lately. Thank you for writing this comment, you literally materialized my thoughts.
I’m no musician….but listening to your fascinating talks on several different topics relating to music has me hooked. Having been an avid listener to many genres over the years, these are really appreciated in order to gain a greater degree of understanding . Thank you so much 🙏🏼👌🏼
VERY well put 👏 As a music teacher, I can confirm this haha. I’ve got lots of students well versed in theory but no idea where to begin when putting a song together. Others (who critically listen to music on the regular) will begin writing catchy songs when they barely understand what a key is and only know 5 chords. Great point about piano being laid out in a way that’s conducive to music theory too. I started on guitar, gigged professionally, and even then felt like I only “sort of understood” music until I became proficient in piano 🎹
This video was appearing on my home page for a while and I'm glad I finally clicked it, after trying to write my first piece and having no ideas coming to my head I think this video is the thing that kept me trying to compose
Study Ebenezer Prout's "harmony:its theory and practice" 16th edition or later, complete all exercises, even if they seem insignificant, and compare them to the author's completion of them in the book "analytical key to harmony: etc.".
lemme be honest. Two years ago, I thought the songs I composed were not good, because I had no idea about chord progressions, harmonics, notes, call and response, intervals, velocity, tonal range, octaves, scales, etc. I could go on with that list until eternity, but here's my point. I actually wanted to learn how to analyze music I like and know in what key the songs are I love. So I reached out to my aunt in law, who is a studied music psychologist and she gave me piano lessons about the basics. I always wanted to learn reading sheets, because that way it would be far more easy, to analyze music. So here I am after two years, watching that video, seeing a note sheet and still having tons of questionmarks above my head. Yes, theory helps to understand progresses, but to be fair, my composing didn't improve that much. I learned the difference between minor and major, woohooo but that's it.
I love the humor you put in and the slight comedy with playing and stopping that emotional music behind! And I'll disagree with some statements. Learning and making music theory is what got me from a small composer, doing things almost in a "random logic" to someone with an awesome toolbox to choose from. What I find though is that the more stuff you do, theory you learn about for new genres etc, the more you'll internalize them, with less need to label them more. Everything that I'm doing is coming from stuff I've analyzed, it's only combinations and questions but nothing inherently new. Synthesis theory, harmony theory, melody theory, and making your own theories for example about the making of sonic palettes or anything else... Music theory IS just the best way to become a better composer. Furthermore, music theory is what made most of today's music in the first place. It's thanks to scientists and mathematicians that most of Western music has this set of tools we use. And as long as you always seek practice, along with the theory you learn, you'll be good as a composer, for example knowing what a perfect fifth sounds like when you learn about its highly resonant value, on sounds with a harmonic spectrum.
My first degree is in ceramics. It's a discipline requiring a lot of technical knowledge, craft skills, there is a plethora of historical styles and orthodoxies to be learned and hopefully one will get through all of that and find one's own mode of expression somehow. Although our department was somewhat looked down upon by the so-called 'fine arts' students, I learned enough about art school to realise that for all the theory and orthodoxy there was a maxim of great value "There's no right or wrong way to do something." That is to say, there are ways that work and ways that don't work. You choose. Personally, this has been the most liberating and enlightening outcome from my arts education. When I was writing songs in my twenties, my ex. ,who had had cello lessons to grade 8, heard one of my songs where my intro had a bold key change into the first verse. His response was "You can't do that!" I never played him another song and shortly after I gave up writing songs for about 35 years. IMHO the big question for any artist is "Is this working for you?" and not at all "Is this working for your audience?" Once I stopped making things for other people and started whatever the hell I wanted to make, I found an audience, or rather they found me.
When I do music theory, I try to make it an activity that promotes creative exploration (as opposed to the "corpse forensics" method). I think you’ll dig what I do, and you can see some examples over on my channel.
The way you're talking about feeling inhibited by all the theory you learned in school is something I thoroughly relate with. It seems that ever since I started leaning theory, I became less concerned with the feeling of the composition and instead acquired a laser focus on writing by the rules. I also was surprised to hear you mention that you harbored some sort of jealousy toward musicians and songwriters who were not academically or classically trained, because this is something I've found my self struggling with; especially as of late. I've been composing, in some fashion or another, going on almost 19 years. The last 10 or so with more of a focus working within DAWs. The thing that never fails to get me starting to contemplate my ability, however, is when I hear music that someone has made after only starting their hobby like 6 months or a year ago. To be honest, a lot of the time I think my music sounds like trash in comparison. Then to salt the wound I come to realize they know virtually nothing about theory or synthesis, recording techniques, arrangement, post production and can still cobble a piece of music together that I feel I couldn't have thought of in my wildest dreams. It's like I've acquired so much knowledge that it's actually debilitating me, and all I want to do is somehow regain the naïveté I see in many others.. Anyway.. I don't mean to sit here and type out a novel; believe me, I could. Lol. I just really wanted to let you know how fundamentally I connected with what you said in this here vidjya. -- Including being a southern boy. Yeehah, parter. 🤠
I've been thinking about picking up composing again. I've thought up some exercises to do. Maybe these are completely trivial first-year stuff, maybe some inspire you. My main thought is that I want to learn things experientally first, conceptually second. So here are some inane drills: - Play every interval (minor second, major second, ..., up to whatever limit you choose). Turn your focus inwards. How does this interval feel? Write down three to five adjectives which capture your feeling. Review your notes every now and again. When you listen to music, see if your ideas about intervals in isolation work in context. - Do the same for every chord, in every inversion, and try leaving out each of the notes one at a time. - Transpose a piece to every possible key. Engage in the same thought process. - Formulate your own hypotheses ("pitch going up sounds triumphant"). Lots of them. Test them, by listening and judging. Most generally: I want to think about the elements of music that go into a composition and the decisions I make as a composer. I want to try them out, all of them, to develop a sense for how they feel. Here's one conjecture of mine: I've been told that too much predictability is boring which causes disengagement, and too little is chaotic which causes disengagement, Aristotelian golden mean yada yada. My enjoyment of food happens not when I'm full but when I'm eating; not when my calorie battery is large but when it's growing. I think we all experience some intrinsic reward when correctly predicting the world; or rather, not by being able to predict the world but by _becoming_ able to predict the music. Not after having reached a high level but when making progress. Thus, to hit the golden mean of predictability, introduce many new elements such that their arrival is unpredictable but their behavior (once they have arrived) is predictable. At least that's one strategy for maximizing the number of learning moments. Suggestion: take a lesson you've been told and think about the mechanism that makes it true. Then make a small piece which explores that mechanism. Sorry to hear your teachers didn't give you better practical advice.
@@brailyndsummers I'm happy to hear it sounds helpful to you. After writing my previous comment, it occurred to me that I didn't state _why_ I picked _those_ exercises. Maybe that's valuable too. I assume composers want to compose a piece of music that _feels_ a certain way, and that the feeling is the goal. [Either your own feeling or someone else's; and in the latter case you probably use your own feeling as a proxy indicator for the feelings of the target audience. So in both cases you are guided by how the music feels to you.] I don't know of any good formula, model or theory that lets me _predict_ feelings from sheet music (or any other informational representation)-I have to _experience_ those feelings to know them. Hence my drill regimen: connect the most primitive building blocks (intervals, chords, etc.) to the ultimate outcome variable the only way I know how: experientially. [And then write stuff down and review your notes to reinforce your episodic memory of the feeling, but that's secondary; experiencing the feeling is primary.] My idea about composing a small piece which focuses on some technique, rule, idea, pattern or whatever is more of the same idea: it lets you observe the element and the feeling it elicits, in full context (at least for some value of "full context"). I get the impression that much of the theory and technique you've learned is prescriptions like "don't double up the octaves/fifths/..." without the _why_ being explained, at least not often. In other words, the connection between technique and the ultimate goal was lost, and therefore the technique or rule seemed arbitrary and without purpose. That's not to say the rules are bad, just that they weren't properly justified to you-i.e. in terms of their impact on your desired outcome.
Man, I am really digging your latest videos. Valuable info and great presentation, thank you and keep up the good work! P.S. definitely keep the humour in there too, love it 😊
I think, what a lot of people dont unerstand about music theory is that it's not restrictions, or an idea to hold yourself up to, it is also not immediately going to make you a brilliant composer. Being a brilliant composer takes practice. Music theory is a tool to help you build your music, it is not required, but it is very useful.
Speaking from a perspective of someone who always dreamt of making noise (I won't dare to call it "music" for a long time) but only recently started learning music theory, I'll say for me music theory IS composition. It's a way to put my disjointed ideas into coherent forms. I finally know what to do to get the sounds I want. :) Having said that, I get what you mean. I'm a professional visual artist and I know too much theory can be suffocating. But that's an expert's perspective. If you're only starting, knowledge is liberating. It turns out there's a language to all you want to say!
I think the full answer is, as almost always, "it depends". I have two good examples: A good friend of mine has had a musical gift since we were kids and he hates theory and can barely read notes. He can play many instruments and has composed whole film scores for smaller movies with the help one orchestrators etc that could turn what he pressed on a keyboard into something a 80 person orchestra could play. Music literally lives inside him. I am a biomedical engineer and I love music but I don't have that "natural gift". I still want to make some music as a hobby and I use theory to help me synthesize music in a more "mathematical" way. I think of emotions I want to produce, I know which chords and sequences are associated with them. I know how to turn chords more interesting, change the mood etc. I "doodle" in chosen scales to find interesting melodies and I know how to harmonize them. etc etc. So I might never be a great musician but it helps me to have fun with a hobby. To me, it is not only helpful but really the "main tool" I use for composing, while my prodigal friend doesn't know a thing about it put in words, it's all intuition.
This! As someone who knows a lot of music theory, but feels _woefully_ unpracticed with composition, this makes sense. I think they can be co-constitutive skills, useful knowledge pools for eachother, but they _are_ separate skills
Wonderful video. I wish more people had insights like this. I'm at the opposite end - I have no musical theory background, and can't read or write music, or even play a keyboard very well, but I've just got set up with Cubase and am starting to write orchestral music. I find it comes very intuitively, and would never swap this uninhibited approach for a theoretical understanding. BUT - I do feel a bit wobbly sometimes - I don't know some very basic things that would make life easier. For example, while i was very happy with my first piece (just last month), I know it didn't sound as good as it would have if I'd had a better understanding of how the orchestra works together or how not to crowd any particular register with too many sounds, etc. I'd love to learn the practical side of music theory - the parts I can actually practically use to improve the sound I come up with, perhaps based on real life examples of great works. But there's so little out there on that. It's all either about abstract theory or about the technical aspects of music production (which is even more terrifying to me). Maybe this is a gap you could fill. Not sure how many people there out there like me though...
I really get a lot out of your posts. Greatly appreciated. I've been a bassist for 50 years and have always wanted to compose. Your points are well taken. Thanks
I'm kind of on the opposite end of what you were talking about. When I was learning to play the piano in college, there was some music theory involved. It was pretty basic, though. And the whole point I wanted to learn how to play the piano was so I could compose my own music. I took a music fundamentals class because I wanted to learn music theory. So I had to take that class first and pass it to proceed. While I did pass, I never went further. I ended up taking all the knowledge I had and went from there. While I can only tell someone what certain chords are, I went out of my way to learn more music theory, because I want to imitate a video game compose. I believe music theory can make you a better composer. I pretty much tell anyone who wants to compose to at least learn the basics just so they have a general idea of how they can make their music more interesting. Funnily enough, when I was telling my brother about music theory, to him, it sounded like it was limiting. In some ways, I can see how someone might think that. But I think it allows you to explore more options when composing.
I take your point about “Music Theory” in capital letters as we understand it from college courses dealing largely with the analysis of common practice, extended common practice music, and to a slightly lesser degree also approaches like serialism, Riemann etc. However, it’s a mistake conflating analytical “Music Theory” and what many composers actually do, which includes a great deal of theoretical thinking and pre-compositional planning. As a composer, music theory (or theoretical thinking about music) is what fills the majority of every waking minute of my compositional life. The difference, perhaps, is rather than applying someone else’s theories to understand other people’s music, I apply my own theories and systems to inform and structure my own work and musical materials. And while I agree that we are not music theorists in the sense in which you mean it, it’s my experience that most contemporary composers-including myself-have more in common with those music theorists than with the (probably inaccurate) view of 19th century composers noodling around on a piano and “transcribing the spontaneous creations of their inner ear” as if by divine inspiration. I think a lot of contemporary composers view this latter way of generating music as a bit immature, ego-indulgent, and prone to proliferating musical prejudices and cliches. The the older I get, the less interested I am in “expressing myself” and the more interested I am in composition as a form of pointing to something that feels like a logical discovery. And to do this effectively one must be able to draw on a greatly expanded world of diverse music theory, as well as music-adjacent theory from mathematics, physics, computer coding, data science, biology, and the vast resources of our accumulated human knowledge-all of which transmogrifies into a deeply personal, exciting, and theoretical set of musical tools.
Really interesting thoughts here! I'm guilty of feeling I have to fixate on theory. I'm constantly thinking about 'reverse engineering' songs to understand why they 'get me'. Part of my behaviour is that I'm just not a very good musician. However, I do have an ear for music, and a sizeable amount of my compositions have come from either trial and error, or from within dreams - typically just before waking up, I'll have a tune in my subconscious mind. If I catch it (i.e. hum into a recorder) within 10 mins of waking then I can progress it. If not, then it's gone forever (quite a profound thought). None of this involves crunching the theory! However, I still find myself reverse engineering my own tunes to figure out what the hell I did there! Maybe I should be following more intuitive clues - if an instrument is playing those notes, then best to avoid them with an other instrument... or deliberately break the rules by going there. Visual cues could be useful too - many DAWs allow you to layer tracks in the MIDI editor - then you can visually see overlaps / harmonies etc. None of this requires theory... but yet I still keep going back to understand the relationship between modes, scales, chords etc...
Use syllables in words as starting point. This vi-de-o is good. 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 notes across 1 or two bars. Decide if the last note ends on high middle or low note, high note more intense music. Copy paste the two bars make the second one slightly different. Start humming and improvising and scramble everything. Like a jigsaw until you got a full melody line. About 32 bars. Chorus, verse, verse, intro, outro, lots of copy pasting so realistically about 16 bars slight variations. Harmonize, come up with progression from scale and remember the effects of different intervals. Create counterpoint line either by moving segments of melody line down one octave and filling in the gaps with notes that goes with underlying rhythm or improvise together music and carefully listen back to music until something bothers you about it. Add rhythmic lines like percussion, ostinato lines, riffs. Make sure intro and outro seamlessly transitions into the melody. Arrange the music to preferred genre. (Falling back on tropes makes a huge difference) Make sure the melody is exclusively played either high range or low range so the music doesn't become noisy because different parts are fighting over same ranges. The hardest part is the melody and harmony, you could work exclusively on the piano for most of this. Minimalism, ambient music and repeating rhythms is also a thing. You don't always need a melody or counterpoint.
James such a compelling video, thank you sooo much, i like u have done some piano theory when i was a kid, i was improvising early on doing my own pieces of music, and so i got away from sight reading, now its very challenging to sight read, i can honestly say i could hear faster than most guys can read, what you said was true, you just gotta take something you like and use the structure, the alarm bells went off when you made this point, thanks again for your insight, Shimi the Entertainer, Rochester NY may 12 2024
I completely agree that they are different skills. But every composer should absolutely study theory. Otherwise you're a rock collector, not a geologist.
Nice video again, congrats ! I am very interested by this subject with a complete opposite experience than yours : I was a self taught guitarist who switched to keyboard, because I realized its simple and logical layout. I also did it to escape guitar "positions" and scales when soloing and to escape "mechanical" soloing and went for composing instead melodic solos coming out of my head rather than my hands. I learned on RUclips these last two years some theory related to composing which helped me finishing or enriching many pieces I was stuck with. You mentioned so many topics I made by myself, including analyzing nice pieces and apply the "recipes" I discovered to my own work. I discover you channel with pleasure and I hope you will keep on with this series. I guess (hope?😊) that you will gradually come up with practical examples.
Thanks Mark! The video in the end screen and my free pdf composition guide (linked in the pinned comment) have more practical examples and actionable advice. More to come for sure!
I quit playing the electric organ so I could go play with the other dropouts. Now I play guitar. I could read music when I was in grade school. Now I just play guitar.
My relationship with music theory is rather young and it showed me how little I ever learned about music even though I took violin in K-12 school. It was like a new world opened up to me. And so was music composition. So I guess I sort of learned both at the same time by roaming RUclips and learning from both theory and composition videos. But I'm glad I found this video, because I was feeling somewhat restricted or at least in an information vacuum because every type and culture of music has it's own "grammar", just like every language does. So in trying to learn these other styles, I'm more interested in composition than theory, and due to the info vacuum, I pretty much had to go this route and trial and error.
I agree with you completely! Creative pursuits come from feelings, one's condition, life experience. Theory is a tool to help one achieve turing that into music. (not the only tool either...) They're not mutually exclusive. (grew up on 14 years of classical piano as well, from a world travelling symphony pianist). She tried and tried to teach me theory, but none of it ever sank in. I just told her what I wanted to learn to play, then she helped me learn and commit to memory. I got the music, while the theory floated right out of my head. I do study a bit more theory now, because I'm at a place where it can help me go a bit beyond a plateau that I hit at some point in my composing. I don't think it's deficient, but I know I can be better. Not heavily, but I go look things up when I think it might help. Like reference material, more than blueprints. I also found that having that classical background (such as it was due to my broken brain :D ) has been more of a hinderance to creating new music than helpful. It does give me starting points, but sometimes I fall into a classical rut, that doesn't lend itself to a style of music that I'm working on. I find it hard to be funky or jazzy sometimes, or let go enough to create a minimal techno track or something like that because I've got all these busy musical notions in the back of my brain buzzing around. I've developed ways to deal with that, but it comes up occasionally. The one thing that I wish I could do, as dumb as it sounds, is have someone shout out a key and progression, and I join into the jazz. :D (I'm not a jazz muscian, but I think you get what I'm saying.) I can write music of many styles, but couldn't play with other musicians on the fly like that. Collaborate yes, but just join into people playing, not really. Maybe a bit, but.... Really enjoying your videos BTW.
Some of us who are compelled into rebellion on a deep level, keep an obvious and sub consious theasarus of rules all over the emotional spectrum. We HATE them! This forms the basis for what can be creative rule breaking. An outlet for this pent-up explosive talent is difficult to sphinkter with imaginary "faucets". This can even result in...comedy of expression. I feel that I have been way over-constrained throughout my life, and I am compelled to write songs and fashion the arrangements. They do seem original to others and naturally to me. However, it becomes second nature aparently to alarm others of that which may prevent liberty both macro and micro. This seems to form wave patterns in my musically undertrained mind. What we DO know is a constant surprize for me. Like a late birthday gift. Thank you for these precious videos!
The ear compose the music. Theory writes it to a sheet. ;) IMHO theory keep people stuck into certain patterns, like being locked up in a small room and never able to discover the universe.
I've onyl delved into theory over the last 3 years, after 30 years of basically no theory. I'm not a professional just a hobby guy going back to 15 in speed metal, then hardcore, then dance techno. I memorized tones of guitar scales when 15 and figured out the metal ones and just went by sound after that. I've always been able to create things quickly and learn quickly by ear and not notes. Theory seems to be great for some things but to get he connection with other people you really only need to know feel it seems. Example early ac/dc a lot of feel all in the same Key, great stuff. But Bach, different very deep feel with like an A, A minor and then an A mixolydian or something? I would be very lucky to come up with that. very! And his stuff makes me want to cry sometimes it's so powerful. Anyway, cool video.
The piano does lay it out so you always see the relationships but it's far easier to transpose on a guitar. My anecdote is that I sort of deduced the diatonic system before learning about it but was using non-diatonic chords and scale changes and knew they worked anyway, so it was a case of breaking that rule before I fully knew it. Naturally a bunch of rules also govern how you break the rules of diatonic harmony. Dred Scott of Alphabet Soup once told me "if it sounds good, play it".
As someone who taught themselves music theory online, I was always confused at why people kept referring to music theory as "rules". I never viewed them that way. To me music theory was like a map that showed me all the different places I could go musically, or it's like legos, you have 1000's of pieces you can mix and match to create something new and unique. I think why people start viewing music theory as rules is because that's how it's taught to them in University. When I took my first music theory class in college my professor would say a certain way of doing things was "just better" and if I hadn't already learned music theory on my own I probably would've grown to resent it as well.
Great valuable content, once more. Keep on going! I think everyone here can understand your level of expertise around these topics and you are actually helping a lot more than you think. Thanks!
Thanks for putting into words things every musician should know, but no one on youtube is able to tell. There is a great advice about theory and creativity I've got from book on story, my english isn't great, so I hope translation is coherent enough: When creating go from abstract to concrete, make a plan with knowledge of what you love in art and what is truth to you, and after structure for piece is ready - you should write piece with creativity, and then you should correct it with theory, and then you should repeat until it's done.
Something that taught me a lot was jazz solo improvs. With the bass and rhythm already established, it was about time I could get a catchy melody that could accompany very well whatever the original song was. Ofc, I only took music seriously for like two years, and now that I have to learn how to actually write those bass and rhythm is where I'm having trouble
It seems like most theory I've seen was written after the fact, not as rules to write music, but a way of interpreting music that was already written to explain why it sounds good. So in that sense, learning theory has been useful to me, but for sure it's more of a way to analyze existing music from my (considerably shorter than yours) experience.
Once you learn theory you can learn how your favorite composers use it. It's kinda like the musical version of an artist finding his style through studying other artists.
Self taught guitarist here. Regarding your comment about piano being better for learning theory with... in terms of the "book knowledge" theory, piano is definitely better, and actually a lot of guitar teachers will teach very little classical theory at all. But in terms of the application of theory for the instrument itself, i think guitar makes more sense, and i think that is best summed up in the beauty of the Nashville chord system. You designate the key and everything is easily understood with I IV V etc (at least, once the player has learned to think that way. With so much guitar teaching being so light on theory, a great many guitarists would likely have no idea what the 3rd of C major is). If you really wanted, you could play a whole song with barre chords, change the key, and the only thing you have to change is where on the neck you play it.
This was a very interesting video and I enjoyed it thoroughly. I was a general music major in college (after changing said major a few times... long story); I completely understand what you're saying, but I did find those music theory classes fascinating. Growing up, I played the piano by ear starting around age 7 but didn't have lessons until much later (about age 12 or 13), so if I got stuck on the notes, I was just stuck. This sort of led to my own composition in the sense that I was making up for what I couldn't hear, but it wasn't until I did start taking those theory classes that I was able to understand not only what those missing notes were but why. I know you're not saying theory has no place in composition, and some artists rely far too heavily on it (like those lame-os who compose strictly with the I-V-IV-III chord progression), but it did help me. Also, knowing about theory has deepened my own appreciation of some particular bands, including the Beach Boys. Brian Wilson is definitely a musical genius and was completely ahead of his time. I'd say the same about Frédéric Chopin and Scott Joplin. Even the Moonlight Sonata, when you think about it, is an entire piece of broken chords. I couldn't start fully appreciating things like this until I took those theory classes. Sorry to go on such a long rant, but music is one of my favorite things of all time. Thanks again for this video.
My experience is the complete opposite! I loved learning about all kinds of musical concepts, weird time signatures, chords, rhythms, scales etc, and wasted no time getting to play around with them myself! I am sorry if your teachers failed to bring that out in you. "Music theory" is usually referring just knowing the very basic musical terminology, bedroom musicians often don't even know what is the difference between a major an minor scale and basic intervals. As a result, their music will always be limited, and it will be very hard to communicate with others. Complex academic analysis, on the other hand, is more questionable, but if you want to write like Wagner, you must know what he was doing. Not knowing your craft is not cool.
I think you may have misunderstood my point here. I’m not anti-theory, and have studied it quite extensively. It does have very applicable uses, but it is typically analytical in nature rather than creative. Definitely good information to know, but not always helpful when staring at a blank page. I didn’t fully understand the difference until studying composition 1-on-1 with a composer. It is a different mindset.
@@JamesonNathanJones This depends on how you define "music theory". I understand you can question if knowing if a DD chord is German or Italian matters, but today, many young musicians can't read sheet music and don't understand how basic scales and chords are constructed. You will also struggle changing keys if you don't know the circle of 5ths, which is at the very foundation of western music. This is why being critical of knowing theory in general is a very slippery slope. Both playing and writing music is a craft, and it must be worked at to be learned, including "boring" basic theory.
I wonder if the issue is the way in which music theory is taught or learned. Because anything learned by rote lacks the deep connection, understanding and spontaneity to enable creativity. It would seem best if people have a clear understanding for why they are learning music theory and have a clear purpose for how they will use that information when it's learned. On the other hand, music theory is likely least useful (and most counterproductive) if it's learned because we think or someone tells us we "should". Because if we understand what music theory is and how it can be used, we'd also be clear that learning music theory is a separate (but connected) activity from learning how to compose. The concept seems quite clear when Jameson points out the analogy using music, specifically with learning grammar and learning how to write. Along those lines, I'd point out that one doesn't need to understand grammar to begin writing. And, of course, focusing too much on grammar or structure can stifle writing or creativity. Perhaps it might help to think about the difference between learning to play an instrument from written music versus learning to improvise. With the right approach those separate activities can compliment each other. With the wrong approach they can become impediments to each other. Finally, I wonder if the problem of learning music theory is one of timing, goals, and progress. What I mean is that it's quicker and easier to make progress if we learn by rote without too many questions or too deep an understanding. For example, when I learned to play an instrument in grammar school my teacher wrote the fingerings on the sheet music. That certainly was faster and allowed for greater progress (in some senses) than taking the time to teach or have me learn how to read or understand sheet music And I guess what I'm saying is that at times there can be a lot of pressure on people (from outside or inside) to make "progress" and sometimes that can get in the way of learning things well.
The intersection between theory and practical application, occurs at the point of intersection, where your imagination interprets the elements of transition between the ideal and the real. What I mean is this a normal song has a logical construction in the elements of composition that lay out the construction or architecture looks based on a logical progression of what is familiar. The elements of theory that underline, the construction or the architecture of a song create breaking points that bring reason and logic into the creative process. The sonic construction of this song usually follows a familiar pattern. What separates one song from the next are the subtle differences between the enter play of the theoretical elements that form a holistic blending of those elements that differentiate one similar sounding song from another.
I have been trying to teach myself music in order to be able to write music and to be able to compose music for film. And I had the feeling a lot that I am just capable to understand certain things about theory and therefore music was just not for me. For example the teacher who is by the way great and his channel is music matters - teaches that in when writing a melody in a minor key we have to use the melodic minor. That’s ok however he also adds that when the melody is ascending we have to use the melodic minor but when is descending we have to use the natural minor. But to harmonise all this I have to use the harmonic minor scale. I asked several times to explain how this works in practice only to have the answer to basically just use what sounds good?????? I am glad that You made this video because music has been my passion and I am not going to give up but it is very hard to work out what to study and practice to get where you want to be - in my case a film composer and to put together suites and just enjoy the creation of music. Having said that I think the next step will be studying music composition. Thanks
When I took the usual Freshman and Sophomore Theory and Ear-Training classes at the local (but actually quite good!) community college, the instructor asked us all why we want to learn Theory. Another fellow student replied what I would have replied, which was “to get into composition,” and he immediately replied, “studying Theory does not help you with Composition!” We were all puzzled! He went on: “Before you study Theory, you come to a point in your music where you say, ‘I have no idea what to do here!’ Then after you take Theory, you get to that same point and you instead say, ‘there must be a thousand different things I could do here!’” His point of course is that Composition is ultimately about Creativity!
Very salient point here - "Using a proven forumla to eliminate some of your decisions and focus your creative energy" As someone who holds degrees in Compositio and Music Theory, I have come to a similar conclusion that you present in your video. What I find to be a huge block is that so many individuals try and 'sell' theoretical concepts as tool to compose with. In finding things like the Schillinger System of Musical Composition, my eyes were opened - so to speak. No longer was I trying to apply an analytical concept to something that didn't exist. (In your analogy, tying to identify the body before there was even a crime scene) I was instead, using tools and methods to CREATE musical material. It got me back into the frame of mind or creation rather than analysis. I, too, would not trade my theory knowledge away. Similarly, I have not sat down to do a full analysis of a piece since finishing school - and I think that much of my composition and music making is better off for it. I was watching a video of a marble sculptor last night, they referred to the process of sculpting and changing out/sharpening/selecting tools as like driving a car. Over time, the concept of shifting gears, using your blinker, the pedals, all becomes second nature and you can then see more of the scenery around you. In the same way, in learning how to CREATE musical material and let the ideas of Circle of Fifths progressions, modification of a primary theme, modulatory section become second nature rather than the prime focus, you free yourself to once again be the composer and to be the creator. Visit the SSMC discord if you're interested. discord.gg/KUbMnCKmd4 Thanks for a great video! It's been a lot of fun watching your channel this past year or so.
Just joined the Discord and started looking this over. This system is massive! Looks super interesting. I've been playing around with rhythmic and harmonic symmetries lately, both of those popped up in the introductory video I just watched. Thanks for the link.
Well I be damn or darn. You said exactly what I had thought although I only took piano for a month as a very small child. I figured most of music theory was unnecessary as well, especially when it comes to teaching you quickly how to compose music for an intro / 1st verse / 1st prechorus / 1st chorus ---- 2nd verse / 2nd pre chours / 2nd chorus --- 3rd verse / 3rd pre chorus / 3rd chorus / outro and maybe an interlude. Most piano teachers don't explain why to play this note with that note and what emotional feeling that playing certain notes make. They slowly teach you music theory basics with basic piano beginner lessons and charge $20 to $30for every freaking 30 minutes. A sleek way to rip off a new beginner at piano if you ask me. Instead of teaching the piano little secrets to new beginners by teaching when, where, and how to play exciting / sad / and or mid emotional chords & melodies on a piano. So, I discovered that little secret my self using the advice of a piano teacher who asked me: Do I know the scale I'm playing in / the relative major and minor / and the chord inversions of that scale? I figured everything else with a little research on emotional chords, and how to create exciting mid or sad emotional feelings with different key techniques in piano. You are so right about the music theory classes being too complicated.
It's a very Zen concept, as within every tool is useful in the hands of a creative the opposite will always be true when rules and limitations are imposed. Trial and error are fundamental aspects of creativity. Courage maybe more formidable as evidence of the poorer quality music created. Love the topic and wealth of perspective.
I started music with my voice, learning to modulate using the shape of my mouth and throat to first emulate and then expand upon my own paths from the styles of my heroes. When there was something I wanted to sing outside of my range, I was forced to learn to shift my performances down in octaves to compensate. And so it's gone on for the past 40 years, one musical step before the other, just as inspired or required... My early exposure to Blade Runner and Gary Numan started a lifelong love for synthesizers, and so I naturally learned about synthesis. Most synthesizers have keyboards, and so I learned to play the keyboard. I learned to do music production in order to produce my own backing tracks. Most of what I know about music theory and song structure has come to me naturally over the years, either by ear and by the absorption of the thousands of songs for which every note, temporal tessellation and detail is perfectly stored within my mind. I have friends with years of training and tons of talent who get bogged down in adherence details, whereas I have no choice but to just follow my instincts and just run with what I have. I haven't hit any walls yet ;)
Ya the real trick is an engaging motif Then to fill in the blanks is an insurmountable task of either intuition and what anyone else has done before you which in effect could be theoretical or you simply wore out a record learning note for note what Bill Evans just played.Which actually seems counterintuitive because Mozart didn’t even have an 8 track
If I understand you correctly, I think trying to be “original” is too creatively paralyzing. Nothing is original. Mozart wrote in the “Common Practice Period,” meaning there were very specific guidelines in place that composers followed. It was very formulaic. And even within those limitations he found ways to be remarkably creative, and if he chose to step outside the lines a bit it was with purpose.
“i was so afraid of doing things the wrong way that i never did anything”
damn i felt this one
Man, definitely can't relate. Once I learned that the entire goal of music theory is around using intervals to create harmony and a create a feeling and (have some language to describe it)- I threw out the language part and just learned harmonics and scales and how to create and relieve tension and create specific feelings and then how to use circles of fifths and fourths to move around and bam... Done. That's all I really wanted to get out of theory. I took what's useful to me, left the rest. (Wrong or right? ) Who knows. I make a lot of mistakes. But that's the whole idea!
I still watch stuff like this to learn a bit more but, only where it's practical for me.
Its funny because I grew up writing music starting at the age of 14, then I went to college and learned all the theory, Schenkerian Analysis, etc... and once I was aware of the "rules", it stagnated my created muse. In my third year or so I finally mustered up the nerve to ask one of my Professors why we had all these rules. He explained it the way you did and then he added, "Once you know the rules, you can break them." That freed me up again to write. Today, when I`m composing, I do my best to follow the rules. Why? As you mentioned, parallel 4ths, 5ths, and octaves just sound off. I guess thats what years and years of training your ear does. However, nothing beats those power chords when writing some rock tune. My point is: Learn the rules but don`t be afraid to break them.
Some advanced music theory concepts are about breaking the more fundamental ones.
Polytonality, polymodality, polychords and microtonality let you to follow your instinct and make your own rules.
There is room for parallel fourths and fifths when it comes to rock and modal music because they create a sense of near-unison or even tonal suspension.
What's the point of learning the rules just to break them? 🤔
If the theory inhibits you then why should I inhibit my self by learning theory? I don't see the lesson in learning rules just to beeak them. 🫤
@@thekingsmatter5845 You got it wrong.
You don't break them just for breaking.
You learn the fundamentals behind the theory and then selectly remove, modify or subvert the theory in accordance to your needs.
Something that holds much more value than randomly hitting notes.
@@bazookaman1353 Understood. Sounds a lot better explained that way 😄
It took me more than 20 years studying, making and recording music, to understand that one of my first teachers was right when he tried to teach me more about improvisation than "composition" or theory, even when I knew I didn't want to go the performance route but rather the writing route. The truth is that getting better at improvisation, living life, and simply making more and more songs are the 3 things that have really helped me improve as a songwriter/producer
Improvisation is an excellent tool for mining ideas. The refinement process is composition. The issue with relying only on improvisation is the tendency to rely on muscle memory and follow your hands only to places they’ve been before.
@@JamesonNathanJones truly! I guess that's why subconsciously I started writing on instruments that are foreign to me. Do you recommend other ways to avoid falling into muscle memory?
@@SalvatoreCremeOfficial That’s an effective method for sure. If it is an instrument you’re more comfortable with, improvise at a slower tempo and force your hands to go into uncomfortable places. Recording that process can be really helpful.
@@JamesonNathanJones I understand the point you're trying to make about improvising. But, (in an overly simplistic way) if a person relies on muscle memory to improvise then they aren't really improvising. :)
What you are describing is precisely what happened to me. All the formal theory education sucked any inspiration out of me. It felt so much easier to improvise and compose before all the rule checks in the brain started to run in parallel and dictated the outcome. To make things worse, I tended to get stuck in simple diatonic schemes without the grit to use out-of-scale notes and harmonies. I went from just painting to painting with numbers and dull templates. And it took so long to find the confidence to throw it all out and start fresh without any inhibitions. I've only just arrived at this point and I'm rediscovering my own music now.
I understand where you’re coming from, but for me it was more about learning to understand what the purpose of all of it was - and more importantly, what it wasn’t. I didn’t throw it all out, but certainly no longer try to analyze things while I’m in creative mode.
what formal education usually does is, gives us an understanding from a different perspective, supposedly through a broaden comprehension of what is going on. It is not unusual for this extra amount of information to hamper the creative process because now there is an added need to justify the legitimate use of our imaginations. What some jazz composers do is they take the concepts of abstract applications of ideas from physical art and in the same way that a visual artist would throw paint onto a canvas say, throw sound into the air from their imaginations. In the mist of the chaos comes order, and once the idea is on paper, the fundamental elements that create a logical progression of sound intelligible to the concept of music, becomes the raw material from which to create.
Your statement: “I was so afraid of doing things the wrong way that I never did anything”. really hit home. Glad I'm not the only one who's been stuck there. I still kind of am, but you give me inspiration to move on, as well as pointers on how to get my feet out of that mud.
Music theory is to great music what Calculus(math) is the physical world. It's a way to retroactively explain things that weren't being considered during inception. Rick Beato (last week) did an analysis of Nirvana's song "you know you're right" and was breaking down the absolute genius of "this and that" theoretical techniques, suspensions and genius intervals - which we all know Kurt wasn't considering when writing the song. Theory is the answer to a question I didn't ask. Another great video, James. Thumbs up given. (yeah I still have my OG copy of hanon and czerny)
(I'm not a native english speaker)
1. Beato has good ears, but not good knowledge of music theory, even if he talks about Bach he knows almost nothing about him.
2. Let's say you are improvising with your instrument and you discover a combination of notes that you like, let's say for example you are making a suspension, if you know music theory you know that is called "suspension", but you are not just putting a label on it, you also know how to replicate that effect and you know how to make it sounds good ( maybe it already sounds good to your ears, but it could be even better if you know what you are doing), in other words you have a lot more control on what you are doing.
I'm a guitarist who has been trying to learn piano on off for a while and I definitely agree that starting with piano is likely to set a better foundation for understanding music in the long run.
My experience was virtually opposite. A violinist by age 11, and a dedicated orchestra & instrument geek after that, I had minimal theory training & good natural talent for music & math. Somehow, I became fascinated by composing & arranging, and, while still in high school, spent much time scribbling out transcriptions & arrangements of music I heard. I knew both treble & bass clef, and memorized all the instrument transpositions, but my “original compositions” were of the most rudimentary & insignificant sort. I had tried to read some theory texts, but I needed a teacher or tutor. Going to college as a music major made the difference for me. Though a violin major, at first, I was eager to learn theory/solfège, work on improving my compositions, and get some piano skills. By third year, I switched to theory/comp and started to really feel free to create new music! I loved learning music theory, and it actually guided me & gave me a template by which I could write the music I wanted - then, of course, I began to disregard the rules…
Yes...that's kind of what I was saying above (not that you have to read my other comments, of course.) Music theory was useful to you because you learned it when you had a reason and a purpose in mind for understanding it. The problem isn't music theory per se, but rather that it's often learned by rote or without a clear understanding on why or how it can be useful....
When I started with composing (which maybe be too big of a word for it - but there is no other word unfortunately) I did not knew *any* music theory. I did not even know scales or rules for chords, other than that a chord I thought consisted of 3 notes. So I used all sort of chords, borrowed chords, sevens, suspended etc chords just by the idea that If I threw 3 notes together that was the chord. I transitioned to different keys without knowing it all pretty much based on trial and error. I just did whatever sounded interesting, not too predictable and felt that it gave an emotion or vibe that resonated with me, often with a degree of tension (which I'm a sucker for) before it resolved into some chord at the end that felt like it broke the tension.
Oddly enough though, I liked not knowing too much, because then I could just use my creative intuition without thinking too 'logically' about it. Everything was new and exciting about it. I've always been into unknowns more and liked the act of sort of learning in an autodidact manner in everything I did, so this was no exception. I felt afraid that if I knew too much official rules about it, that it would would take the exploratory nature out of it and would stop exciting my brain.
Recently though I've somewhat randomly been watching some youtube videos about theory and found out things like the names for the chords or scales i've been using, which in one way is handy to know. I learned basic things like that the "vibe" I gravitated most to in my favourite music is apparently called the harmonic minor scale. So it definately saves time knowing such things, as you can just start out using these scales more conciously. However, at the same time playing around with music feels a bit more of a robotic or overly concious process once you know a bit more rules (and I still hardly know anything other than very basics). Somehow it feels like such a big and concious choice to either break a rule or not break a rule while normally I would just pick whatever resonated with me most without the feeling I made any big and important choice.
So on one hand I like knowing more because it definately speeds up things as trial and error without knowing anything in a concious manner can be quite a time consuming process, but on the other hand I tend to get the best results when I feel like I'm just playing around in a manner that children tend to do.
I have the same sort of issue outside of music too, like for example whenever something is broken and there is a 'good and propher, official' way to fix it. Suddenly, that feels more complicated to me than when I use some uncommon, out of the box way to solve it. That seems to come natural and much more effortlessly to me. I guess it's just my brain works. However, since we can not really alter the way our brain functions best, maybe the best solution is try to present things to your brain in a manner that it responds best to it . However, I'm not an expert on any of this.
So all in all, this video quite resonalted with me!
By the way, are you an intp personality type? (you kinda look like one). Have a great day!
Great video. It puts me in mind of a quote from a different context. "Anxious, inexperienced writers ignore rules; rebellious, unscheduled writers break rules; an artist masters the form." This comes from Robert McKee and his book "Story. Substance, structure, style, and the principles of screenwriting". It also chimes with videos from 12tone. I often watch those and wonder whether the musicians who wrote the songs actually thought about their compositional choices the way they are analysed or just did something that they thought sounded kind of neat. And one last thought. I created a little guitar piece where my goal was to use only two fingers on my left fretboard hand. Years later I saw an interview where Paul McCartney said he did the same thing. But I then broke the rules and ended with FM7 to E. Because I thought it sounded kind of neat.
I believe theory gives you tools to communicate ideas, identify problems and sometimes solve a problem w something you wouldn't come w if you are only composing.
As a very intermediate guitarist, I've watched a lot of music theory vids about chords, time signatures and scales that have helped me composing.
I would've never used a diminished chord in my life if it wasn't for the theory I learned (yes, I'm basic).
Idk about advanced theory like the things ppl are learning in music school, but some basic theory does wonders for every composer IMO (yes, I may be saying obvious shit, sorry for that lol).
To me what you're saying is that music theory was useful for you because you had a purpose in mind when you learned it. In my never humble opinion, that's exactly the point. It isn't necessarily whether or not one should learn music theory or at what level, it's WHEN we learn it and for what purpose. And, the dividing line in my (never humble) opinion, is that a person has to first decide that there's a reason they need the to learn more about music theory. They must decide there's a need for some additional information or some additional context or structure. And then in seeking the answer to whatever problem they are trying to solve for they look to and possibly find that answer in music theory. Or, they might not find the answer IN music theory but rather WHILE they are learning about music theory.
Really great video! I'm primarily a songwriter who usually composes on guitar. I have no formal training, but my partner is a music educator and has begun teaching me theory for specifically the reasons you mentioned. Theory is not (generally) going to inspire ideas, but it can help you problem solve. As I've started incorporating more sonic elements into my writing with synths, drum machines, samples, etc... the theory I am learning helps me recognize when something is not working and gives me the tools to fix it.
Please do more content like this!
The music theory is needed to become sensible to how voice leading, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration and other tools can help you amplify a certain mood. You're not supposed to just learn the rules, but rather, for example "how does adding an instrument affect the mood of the piece". Or "what effect does sudden switch from polyphony to unison create?". The counterpoint is needed to create lavish backgrounds instead of simple boring chords. Harmony allows you to fix a chord that does not "sound right". When you have a weak chord in the culmination of a piece, that just weakens the effect of the culmination. And if you know harmony, you can fix that, because the harmony teaches you the strong chord progressions that have a strong sense of direction, what is best to put in the lowest note of the chord, what note of the chord is best to double and what not to double and so on. Of course, you might have situations where a weak chord progression is needed, but how would you know which one is weak or which one is strong without music theory in the first place?
Good analysis. To paraphrase 'Too much technique may stifle creativity. '
I have a similar story. I did my bachelors and masters in theoretical chemical physics. Once I started my doctorate studies, while I could do the theory, I now had to do REAL EXPERIMENTATION to test my theoretical models. Experimentation was a completely different monster. I thought theory and experimentation would coincide nicely. It didn't. In experimentation, you're not dealing with ideal conditions that make theory easy to utilize. Real world experimentation requires different equations, thought processes, and stress.
I'm both humbled and happy with your comment that music theory and composition are not the same. However, like you stated, theory is still important. Currently, learning the major and minor scales (using Tenuto and Music Theory apps to practice everyday). I've realized, I don't necessarily have to learn to play them but just know what they are. Why? Because that's what everyone keeps telling me but I still don't see the importance of the scales. I just wish, as you learn the theory, you could apply to it music to understand its utility. I know with the sequencers I have, the Toraiz Squid and Squarp Hapax, in the configuration mode, the major, minor, modes like Dorian, and so forth are options. Hence, I know modes, scale, and so forth are vital in music education. Again, the hick up is how much do you have to know before you can start composing. I've actually created some simple compositions (by trial and error) and adding delay, reverb, modulation on a filter... which can make simple composition can sound grandiose. It's just hard to believe that trail and error has been the most helpful tool in my arsenal.
What you stated here is so incredibly valuable, and you're the first producer that has had to make the claims you do about theory vs trail and error. I'm new to this game. Hence, I always listen to practitioners in the field. It's a hard lesson to learn in wisdom.
Yes, please, more on your journey and what aspects of your musical journey have been the most pragmatic.
Scales are important because all the relationships the notes you're gonna use have with each other are derived from the scale. The scale is the map with which you navigate the creation of music. But what is a scale? I'm curious what your answer would be, since you mentioned that your learning sources are telling you that you need to know what they are. With your current understanding, can you tell me what a scale is, or what you know it to be? If you telll me what you know about scales, it should give me an idea where you're at as far as what I might say to be helpful. What I'm trying to avoid is going over things you already know, or delving into aspects of theory that will just confuse the hell outta you for being too advanced.
I'm happy to help if I can; I'm even happier if I can do so efficiently..
My son starting writing his own songs and composing his own music when he was 12. And that was only after taking a handful of piano lessons and without understanding anything about music theory. What he did learn was how to use music software to produce songs and he began by creating different versions of existing songs. Over time he took drum lessons and taught himself how to play the guitar a little, but until recently he's resisted our offers to get guitar lessons or to take music classes. Notwithstanding that minimal formal background and lack of understanding of even basic music theory and concepts, he's written many wonderful compositions and songs. And, he's become pretty skilled as a producer (he's 16 now and has worked on some projects with a number of well-known, recording artists). The reason I mention this story is that what my son's progress showed me is that there's no "right" way to come at these things. I have taken a completely different approach to music from my son and could never do things in the way he did. But, what I think I've learned from him is that one needs to learn to experiment and be comfortable experimenting from wherever we are at the moment. Because the longer we wait to experiment the harder it gets. That being said, as long as we're pursuing deeper knowledge and understanding for the right reasons -- and not as a way to avoid the discomfort of being a newbie when it comes to improvising or composing -- then I think there's no reason to worry about how long it takes us before we improvise or compose.
Reminds me when my music teacher telling me about why I need to know the "rules" in music theory. He told me I must learn it so I may break those rules. At first it didn't make sense but this video gave me some insight to that.
Thank you very much for this video!I have never studied theory and was somehow still blessed with being able to improvise on the spot, something guided more by ear, heart, joy and curiosity. It also felt like magic just being able to pull music out of thin air (which isn't thin at all). I could relatively easy push through trial and error y until I had a piece of music. But the idea of not having studied music haunted me my entire life, making me learn disjointed bits and pieces of theory which in the end clogged up my ability for carefree creation. I had come to believe that there was an x- amount of knowledge that I needed to become fluent again, but the worst was, that I had become scared and boxed into the little amount of theory I possessed. Hearing from you and your professor, people who have been with theory most of their lives, that composition it is trial and error and the comparison of theory with a forensic department really gave me what I needed to hear, to regain trust in my joy, love and appreciation for creating music. Now it all just boils down to, courage, the passion for adventurous experiments and appreciation for what music is to me in this life. So, again, thank you for having made this video, it changed something for me today, blessings!
I feel so aligned with your view and experience through music- I've been feeling exactly like this lately. Thank you for writing this comment, you literally materialized my thoughts.
I’m no musician….but listening to your fascinating talks on several different topics relating to music has me hooked. Having been an avid listener to many genres over the years, these are really appreciated in order to gain a greater degree of understanding . Thank you so much 🙏🏼👌🏼
VERY well put 👏 As a music teacher, I can confirm this haha. I’ve got lots of students well versed in theory but no idea where to begin when putting a song together. Others (who critically listen to music on the regular) will begin writing catchy songs when they barely understand what a key is and only know 5 chords. Great point about piano being laid out in a way that’s conducive to music theory too. I started on guitar, gigged professionally, and even then felt like I only “sort of understood” music until I became proficient in piano 🎹
Great comment.
I very much enjoy hearing about your musical journey, as well as your dive into instruments. Really great work and I hope you continue with it.
Thanks so much! Definitely have more planned and on the way :)
This video was appearing on my home page for a while and I'm glad I finally clicked it, after trying to write my first piece and having no ideas coming to my head I think this video is the thing that kept me trying to compose
Study Ebenezer Prout's "harmony:its theory and practice" 16th edition or later, complete all exercises, even if they seem insignificant, and compare them to the author's completion of them in the book "analytical key to harmony: etc.".
lemme be honest. Two years ago, I thought the songs I composed were not good, because I had no idea about chord progressions, harmonics, notes, call and response, intervals, velocity, tonal range, octaves, scales, etc. I could go on with that list until eternity, but here's my point. I actually wanted to learn how to analyze music I like and know in what key the songs are I love. So I reached out to my aunt in law, who is a studied music psychologist and she gave me piano lessons about the basics. I always wanted to learn reading sheets, because that way it would be far more easy, to analyze music. So here I am after two years, watching that video, seeing a note sheet and still having tons of questionmarks above my head. Yes, theory helps to understand progresses, but to be fair, my composing didn't improve that much. I learned the difference between minor and major, woohooo but that's it.
I did your back copying piece once with a final fantasy piece (VII Main theme) and I feel like it kickstarted my composing so much
sod the music
your video creation and editing techniques are impressive, Nathan 🙂
I love the humor you put in and the slight comedy with playing and stopping that emotional music behind!
And I'll disagree with some statements. Learning and making music theory is what got me from a small composer, doing things almost in a "random logic" to someone with an awesome toolbox to choose from. What I find though is that the more stuff you do, theory you learn about for new genres etc, the more you'll internalize them, with less need to label them more. Everything that I'm doing is coming from stuff I've analyzed, it's only combinations and questions but nothing inherently new.
Synthesis theory, harmony theory, melody theory, and making your own theories for example about the making of sonic palettes or anything else... Music theory IS just the best way to become a better composer.
Furthermore, music theory is what made most of today's music in the first place. It's thanks to scientists and mathematicians that most of Western music has this set of tools we use. And as long as you always seek practice, along with the theory you learn, you'll be good as a composer, for example knowing what a perfect fifth sounds like when you learn about its highly resonant value, on sounds with a harmonic spectrum.
My first degree is in ceramics. It's a discipline requiring a lot of technical knowledge, craft skills, there is a plethora of historical styles and orthodoxies to be learned and hopefully one will get through all of that and find one's own mode of expression somehow. Although our department was somewhat looked down upon by the so-called 'fine arts' students, I learned enough about art school to realise that for all the theory and orthodoxy there was a maxim of great value "There's no right or wrong way to do something." That is to say, there are ways that work and ways that don't work. You choose. Personally, this has been the most liberating and enlightening outcome from my arts education. When I was writing songs in my twenties, my ex. ,who had had cello lessons to grade 8, heard one of my songs where my intro had a bold key change into the first verse. His response was "You can't do that!" I never played him another song and shortly after I gave up writing songs for about 35 years. IMHO the big question for any artist is "Is this working for you?" and not at all "Is this working for your audience?" Once I stopped making things for other people and started whatever the hell I wanted to make, I found an audience, or rather they found me.
When I do music theory, I try to make it an activity that promotes creative exploration (as opposed to the "corpse forensics" method). I think you’ll dig what I do, and you can see some examples over on my channel.
LOVE IT!!! I feel like I am in school in a very good way. I am self taught and I think these videos will help me to better express myself. Thank you.
Thanks as always for the support, Michael! I’ve really enjoyed re-exploring my own thoughts on these topics.
Im a guitarist and a composeur ... and you re right ^^ Nice channel thx
from the title and thumbnail alone, i agree 100 %
Beautiful thing to watch as I am about to go to music theory.
The way you're talking about feeling inhibited by all the theory you learned in school is something I thoroughly relate with. It seems that ever since I started leaning theory, I became less concerned with the feeling of the composition and instead acquired a laser focus on writing by the rules.
I also was surprised to hear you mention that you harbored some sort of jealousy toward musicians and songwriters who were not academically or classically trained, because this is something I've found my self struggling with; especially as of late.
I've been composing, in some fashion or another, going on almost 19 years. The last 10 or so with more of a focus working within DAWs. The thing that never fails to get me starting to contemplate my ability, however, is when I hear music that someone has made after only starting their hobby like 6 months or a year ago. To be honest, a lot of the time I think my music sounds like trash in comparison. Then to salt the wound I come to realize they know virtually nothing about theory or synthesis, recording techniques, arrangement, post production and can still cobble a piece of music together that I feel I couldn't have thought of in my wildest dreams. It's like I've acquired so much knowledge that it's actually debilitating me, and all I want to do is somehow regain the naïveté I see in many others..
Anyway.. I don't mean to sit here and type out a novel; believe me, I could. Lol.
I just really wanted to let you know how fundamentally I connected with what you said in this here vidjya.
-- Including being a southern boy. Yeehah, parter. 🤠
I've been thinking about picking up composing again. I've thought up some exercises to do. Maybe these are completely trivial first-year stuff, maybe some inspire you. My main thought is that I want to learn things experientally first, conceptually second.
So here are some inane drills:
- Play every interval (minor second, major second, ..., up to whatever limit you choose). Turn your focus inwards. How does this interval feel? Write down three to five adjectives which capture your feeling. Review your notes every now and again. When you listen to music, see if your ideas about intervals in isolation work in context.
- Do the same for every chord, in every inversion, and try leaving out each of the notes one at a time.
- Transpose a piece to every possible key. Engage in the same thought process.
- Formulate your own hypotheses ("pitch going up sounds triumphant"). Lots of them. Test them, by listening and judging.
Most generally: I want to think about the elements of music that go into a composition and the decisions I make as a composer. I want to try them out, all of them, to develop a sense for how they feel.
Here's one conjecture of mine: I've been told that too much predictability is boring which causes disengagement, and too little is chaotic which causes disengagement, Aristotelian golden mean yada yada. My enjoyment of food happens not when I'm full but when I'm eating; not when my calorie battery is large but when it's growing. I think we all experience some intrinsic reward when correctly predicting the world; or rather, not by being able to predict the world but by _becoming_ able to predict the music. Not after having reached a high level but when making progress. Thus, to hit the golden mean of predictability, introduce many new elements such that their arrival is unpredictable but their behavior (once they have arrived) is predictable. At least that's one strategy for maximizing the number of learning moments.
Suggestion: take a lesson you've been told and think about the mechanism that makes it true. Then make a small piece which explores that mechanism.
Sorry to hear your teachers didn't give you better practical advice.
@@jonaskoelker That's some genuinely good advice, thanks!
@@brailyndsummers I'm happy to hear it sounds helpful to you. After writing my previous comment, it occurred to me that I didn't state _why_ I picked _those_ exercises. Maybe that's valuable too.
I assume composers want to compose a piece of music that _feels_ a certain way, and that the feeling is the goal. [Either your own feeling or someone else's; and in the latter case you probably use your own feeling as a proxy indicator for the feelings of the target audience. So in both cases you are guided by how the music feels to you.]
I don't know of any good formula, model or theory that lets me _predict_ feelings from sheet music (or any other informational representation)-I have to _experience_ those feelings to know them.
Hence my drill regimen: connect the most primitive building blocks (intervals, chords, etc.) to the ultimate outcome variable the only way I know how: experientially. [And then write stuff down and review your notes to reinforce your episodic memory of the feeling, but that's secondary; experiencing the feeling is primary.]
My idea about composing a small piece which focuses on some technique, rule, idea, pattern or whatever is more of the same idea: it lets you observe the element and the feeling it elicits, in full context (at least for some value of "full context").
I get the impression that much of the theory and technique you've learned is prescriptions like "don't double up the octaves/fifths/..." without the _why_ being explained, at least not often. In other words, the connection between technique and the ultimate goal was lost, and therefore the technique or rule seemed arbitrary and without purpose.
That's not to say the rules are bad, just that they weren't properly justified to you-i.e. in terms of their impact on your desired outcome.
Thank you! It was very motivational.
Man, I am really digging your latest videos. Valuable info and great presentation, thank you and keep up the good work!
P.S. definitely keep the humour in there too, love it 😊
🙏🙏
I think, what a lot of people dont unerstand about music theory is that it's not restrictions, or an idea to hold yourself up to, it is also not immediately going to make you a brilliant composer. Being a brilliant composer takes practice. Music theory is a tool to help you build your music, it is not required, but it is very useful.
Speaking from a perspective of someone who always dreamt of making noise (I won't dare to call it "music" for a long time) but only recently started learning music theory, I'll say for me music theory IS composition. It's a way to put my disjointed ideas into coherent forms. I finally know what to do to get the sounds I want. :)
Having said that, I get what you mean. I'm a professional visual artist and I know too much theory can be suffocating. But that's an expert's perspective. If you're only starting, knowledge is liberating. It turns out there's a language to all you want to say!
I think the full answer is, as almost always, "it depends". I have two good examples: A good friend of mine has had a musical gift since we were kids and he hates theory and can barely read notes. He can play many instruments and has composed whole film scores for smaller movies with the help one orchestrators etc that could turn what he pressed on a keyboard into something a 80 person orchestra could play. Music literally lives inside him. I am a biomedical engineer and I love music but I don't have that "natural gift". I still want to make some music as a hobby and I use theory to help me synthesize music in a more "mathematical" way. I think of emotions I want to produce, I know which chords and sequences are associated with them. I know how to turn chords more interesting, change the mood etc. I "doodle" in chosen scales to find interesting melodies and I know how to harmonize them. etc etc. So I might never be a great musician but it helps me to have fun with a hobby. To me, it is not only helpful but really the "main tool" I use for composing, while my prodigal friend doesn't know a thing about it put in words, it's all intuition.
This! As someone who knows a lot of music theory, but feels _woefully_ unpracticed with composition, this makes sense. I think they can be co-constitutive skills, useful knowledge pools for eachother, but they _are_ separate skills
Wonderful video. I wish more people had insights like this. I'm at the opposite end - I have no musical theory background, and can't read or write music, or even play a keyboard very well, but I've just got set up with Cubase and am starting to write orchestral music. I find it comes very intuitively, and would never swap this uninhibited approach for a theoretical understanding. BUT - I do feel a bit wobbly sometimes - I don't know some very basic things that would make life easier. For example, while i was very happy with my first piece (just last month), I know it didn't sound as good as it would have if I'd had a better understanding of how the orchestra works together or how not to crowd any particular register with too many sounds, etc. I'd love to learn the practical side of music theory - the parts I can actually practically use to improve the sound I come up with, perhaps based on real life examples of great works. But there's so little out there on that. It's all either about abstract theory or about the technical aspects of music production (which is even more terrifying to me). Maybe this is a gap you could fill. Not sure how many people there out there like me though...
Insightful and nuanced perspective that motivates to compose, thanks!
Thanks Daniel 🙏
First video I've watched on music composition. Very insightful. Thanks!
I really get a lot out of your posts. Greatly appreciated. I've been a bassist for 50 years and have always wanted to compose. Your points are well taken. Thanks
I'm kind of on the opposite end of what you were talking about. When I was learning to play the piano in college, there was some music theory involved. It was pretty basic, though. And the whole point I wanted to learn how to play the piano was so I could compose my own music. I took a music fundamentals class because I wanted to learn music theory. So I had to take that class first and pass it to proceed. While I did pass, I never went further. I ended up taking all the knowledge I had and went from there. While I can only tell someone what certain chords are, I went out of my way to learn more music theory, because I want to imitate a video game compose.
I believe music theory can make you a better composer. I pretty much tell anyone who wants to compose to at least learn the basics just so they have a general idea of how they can make their music more interesting. Funnily enough, when I was telling my brother about music theory, to him, it sounded like it was limiting. In some ways, I can see how someone might think that. But I think it allows you to explore more options when composing.
plz is there a video or whatever anywhere with someone who is composing a music and tell us everything they do and why, why don't i see that
I take your point about “Music Theory” in capital letters as we understand it from college courses dealing largely with the analysis of common practice, extended common practice music, and to a slightly lesser degree also approaches like serialism, Riemann etc.
However, it’s a mistake conflating analytical “Music Theory” and what many composers actually do, which includes a great deal of theoretical thinking and pre-compositional planning.
As a composer, music theory (or theoretical thinking about music) is what fills the majority of every waking minute of my compositional life.
The difference, perhaps, is rather than applying someone else’s theories to understand other people’s music, I apply my own theories and systems to inform and structure my own work and musical materials.
And while I agree that we are not music theorists in the sense in which you mean it, it’s my experience that most contemporary composers-including myself-have more in common with those music theorists than with the (probably inaccurate) view of 19th century composers noodling around on a piano and “transcribing the spontaneous creations of their inner ear” as if by divine inspiration. I think a lot of contemporary composers view this latter way of generating music as a bit immature, ego-indulgent, and prone to proliferating musical prejudices and cliches.
The the older I get, the less interested I am in “expressing myself” and the more interested I am in composition as a form of pointing to something that feels like a logical discovery. And to do this effectively one must be able to draw on a greatly expanded world of diverse music theory, as well as music-adjacent theory from mathematics, physics, computer coding, data science, biology, and the vast resources of our accumulated human knowledge-all of which transmogrifies into a deeply personal, exciting, and theoretical set of musical tools.
Really interesting thoughts here! I'm guilty of feeling I have to fixate on theory. I'm constantly thinking about 'reverse engineering' songs to understand why they 'get me'. Part of my behaviour is that I'm just not a very good musician. However, I do have an ear for music, and a sizeable amount of my compositions have come from either trial and error, or from within dreams - typically just before waking up, I'll have a tune in my subconscious mind. If I catch it (i.e. hum into a recorder) within 10 mins of waking then I can progress it. If not, then it's gone forever (quite a profound thought).
None of this involves crunching the theory! However, I still find myself reverse engineering my own tunes to figure out what the hell I did there! Maybe I should be following more intuitive clues - if an instrument is playing those notes, then best to avoid them with an other instrument... or deliberately break the rules by going there. Visual cues could be useful too - many DAWs allow you to layer tracks in the MIDI editor - then you can visually see overlaps / harmonies etc. None of this requires theory... but yet I still keep going back to understand the relationship between modes, scales, chords etc...
Use syllables in words as starting point.
This vi-de-o is good.
1 1 1 1 1 1
6 notes across 1 or two bars.
Decide if the last note ends on high middle or low note, high note more intense music.
Copy paste the two bars make the second one slightly different.
Start humming and improvising and scramble everything.
Like a jigsaw until you got a full melody line.
About 32 bars. Chorus, verse, verse, intro, outro, lots of copy pasting so realistically about 16 bars slight variations.
Harmonize, come up with progression from scale and remember the effects of different intervals.
Create counterpoint line either by moving segments of melody line down one octave and filling in the gaps with notes that goes with underlying rhythm or improvise together music and carefully listen back to music until something bothers you about it.
Add rhythmic lines like percussion, ostinato lines, riffs.
Make sure intro and outro seamlessly transitions into the melody.
Arrange the music to preferred genre. (Falling back on tropes makes a huge difference)
Make sure the melody is exclusively played either high range or low range so the music doesn't become noisy because different parts are fighting over same ranges.
The hardest part is the melody and harmony, you could work exclusively on the piano for most of this.
Minimalism, ambient music and repeating rhythms is also a thing. You don't always need a melody or counterpoint.
This is super interesting. Keep them coming! I learnt something today -- so, thank you!
James such a compelling video, thank you sooo much, i like u have done some piano theory when i was a kid, i was improvising early on doing my own pieces of music, and so i got away from sight reading, now its very challenging to sight read, i can honestly say i could hear faster than most guys can read, what you said was true, you just gotta take something you like and use the structure, the alarm bells went off when you made this point, thanks again for your insight, Shimi the Entertainer, Rochester NY may 12 2024
I completely agree that they are different skills. But every composer should absolutely study theory. Otherwise you're a rock collector, not a geologist.
Nice video again, congrats ! I am very interested by this subject with a complete opposite experience than yours : I was a self taught guitarist who switched to keyboard, because I realized its simple and logical layout. I also did it to escape guitar "positions" and scales when soloing and to escape "mechanical" soloing and went for composing instead melodic solos coming out of my head rather than my hands. I learned on RUclips these last two years some theory related to composing which helped me finishing or enriching many pieces I was stuck with.
You mentioned so many topics I made by myself, including analyzing nice pieces and apply the "recipes" I discovered to my own work.
I discover you channel with pleasure and I hope you will keep on with this series. I guess (hope?😊) that you will gradually come up with practical examples.
Thanks Mark! The video in the end screen and my free pdf composition guide (linked in the pinned comment) have more practical examples and actionable advice. More to come for sure!
This was great. Excellent vid. And kudos to your mom... what a wise decision she made!
Yeah she’s pretty cool haha
I quit playing the electric organ so I could go play with the other dropouts.
Now I play guitar. I could read music when I was in grade school. Now I just play guitar.
My relationship with music theory is rather young and it showed me how little I ever learned about music even though I took violin in K-12 school.
It was like a new world opened up to me. And so was music composition. So I guess I sort of learned both at the same time by roaming RUclips and learning from both theory and composition videos.
But I'm glad I found this video, because I was feeling somewhat restricted or at least in an information vacuum because every type and culture of music has it's own "grammar", just like every language does.
So in trying to learn these other styles, I'm more interested in composition than theory, and due to the info vacuum, I pretty much had to go this route and trial and error.
I agree with you completely! Creative pursuits come from feelings, one's condition, life experience. Theory is a tool to help one achieve turing that into music. (not the only tool either...) They're not mutually exclusive. (grew up on 14 years of classical piano as well, from a world travelling symphony pianist). She tried and tried to teach me theory, but none of it ever sank in. I just told her what I wanted to learn to play, then she helped me learn and commit to memory. I got the music, while the theory floated right out of my head. I do study a bit more theory now, because I'm at a place where it can help me go a bit beyond a plateau that I hit at some point in my composing. I don't think it's deficient, but I know I can be better. Not heavily, but I go look things up when I think it might help. Like reference material, more than blueprints. I also found that having that classical background (such as it was due to my broken brain :D ) has been more of a hinderance to creating new music than helpful. It does give me starting points, but sometimes I fall into a classical rut, that doesn't lend itself to a style of music that I'm working on. I find it hard to be funky or jazzy sometimes, or let go enough to create a minimal techno track or something like that because I've got all these busy musical notions in the back of my brain buzzing around. I've developed ways to deal with that, but it comes up occasionally.
The one thing that I wish I could do, as dumb as it sounds, is have someone shout out a key and progression, and I join into the jazz. :D (I'm not a jazz muscian, but I think you get what I'm saying.) I can write music of many styles, but couldn't play with other musicians on the fly like that. Collaborate yes, but just join into people playing, not really. Maybe a bit, but....
Really enjoying your videos BTW.
Some of us who are compelled into rebellion on a deep level, keep an obvious and sub consious theasarus of rules all over the emotional spectrum. We HATE them! This forms the basis for what can be creative rule breaking. An outlet for this pent-up explosive talent is difficult to sphinkter with imaginary "faucets". This can even result in...comedy of expression. I feel that I have been way over-constrained throughout my life, and I am compelled to write songs and fashion the arrangements. They do seem original to others and naturally to me. However, it becomes second nature aparently to alarm others of that which may prevent liberty both macro and micro. This seems to form wave patterns in my musically undertrained mind. What we DO know is a constant surprize for me. Like a late birthday gift. Thank you for these precious videos!
Jameson. All of the pieces playing on the background.. Yours? Absolutely beautiful!
Yes! Thank you 🙏
The ear compose the music. Theory writes it to a sheet. ;) IMHO theory keep people stuck into certain patterns, like being locked up in a small room and never able to discover the universe.
I've onyl delved into theory over the last 3 years, after 30 years of basically no theory. I'm not a professional just a hobby guy going back to 15 in speed metal, then hardcore, then dance techno. I memorized tones of guitar scales when 15 and figured out the metal ones and just went by sound after that. I've always been able to create things quickly and learn quickly by ear and not notes. Theory seems to be great for some things but to get he connection with other people you really only need to know feel it seems. Example early ac/dc a lot of feel all in the same Key, great stuff. But Bach, different very deep feel with like an A, A minor and then an A mixolydian or something? I would be very lucky to come up with that. very! And his stuff makes me want to cry sometimes it's so powerful. Anyway, cool video.
dude I just found your channel and wow my hat is off. loving your humour, pacing, content, and delivery!
The piano does lay it out so you always see the relationships but it's far easier to transpose on a guitar. My anecdote is that I sort of deduced the diatonic system before learning about it but was using non-diatonic chords and scale changes and knew they worked anyway, so it was a case of breaking that rule before I fully knew it. Naturally a bunch of rules also govern how you break the rules of diatonic harmony. Dred Scott of Alphabet Soup once told me "if it sounds good, play it".
As someone who taught themselves music theory online, I was always confused at why people kept referring to music theory as "rules". I never viewed them that way. To me music theory was like a map that showed me all the different places I could go musically, or it's like legos, you have 1000's of pieces you can mix and match to create something new and unique.
I think why people start viewing music theory as rules is because that's how it's taught to them in University. When I took my first music theory class in college my professor would say a certain way of doing things was "just better" and if I hadn't already learned music theory on my own I probably would've grown to resent it as well.
Heresy! But for real - amazing talk. Thanks!
Great valuable content, once more. Keep on going! I think everyone here can understand your level of expertise around these topics and you are actually helping a lot more than you think. Thanks!
I appreciate that Samuel!
Dude!!!... thanks 😮
Thanks for putting into words things every musician should know, but no one on youtube is able to tell. There is a great advice about theory and creativity I've got from book on story, my english isn't great, so I hope translation is coherent enough:
When creating go from abstract to concrete, make a plan with knowledge of what you love in art and what is truth to you, and after structure for piece is ready - you should write piece with creativity, and then you should correct it with theory, and then you should repeat until it's done.
thank you for touching this tabu topic.
Something that taught me a lot was jazz solo improvs. With the bass and rhythm already established, it was about time I could get a catchy melody that could accompany very well whatever the original song was.
Ofc, I only took music seriously for like two years, and now that I have to learn how to actually write those bass and rhythm is where I'm having trouble
That's exactly what I wanted to hear! Thanks for the advice!
If you ever did a full composition course, I’d buy it in an instant.
www.jamesonnathanjones.com/compositioncourse
:)
It seems like most theory I've seen was written after the fact, not as rules to write music, but a way of interpreting music that was already written to explain why it sounds good. So in that sense, learning theory has been useful to me, but for sure it's more of a way to analyze existing music from my (considerably shorter than yours) experience.
Once you learn theory you can learn how your favorite composers use it. It's kinda like the musical version of an artist finding his style through studying other artists.
Great content and perspective. Really helpful.
Thanks Eddie!
Self taught guitarist here. Regarding your comment about piano being better for learning theory with... in terms of the "book knowledge" theory, piano is definitely better, and actually a lot of guitar teachers will teach very little classical theory at all. But in terms of the application of theory for the instrument itself, i think guitar makes more sense, and i think that is best summed up in the beauty of the Nashville chord system. You designate the key and everything is easily understood with I IV V etc (at least, once the player has learned to think that way. With so much guitar teaching being so light on theory, a great many guitarists would likely have no idea what the 3rd of C major is). If you really wanted, you could play a whole song with barre chords, change the key, and the only thing you have to change is where on the neck you play it.
This was a very interesting video and I enjoyed it thoroughly. I was a general music major in college (after changing said major a few times... long story); I completely understand what you're saying, but I did find those music theory classes fascinating. Growing up, I played the piano by ear starting around age 7 but didn't have lessons until much later (about age 12 or 13), so if I got stuck on the notes, I was just stuck. This sort of led to my own composition in the sense that I was making up for what I couldn't hear, but it wasn't until I did start taking those theory classes that I was able to understand not only what those missing notes were but why. I know you're not saying theory has no place in composition, and some artists rely far too heavily on it (like those lame-os who compose strictly with the I-V-IV-III chord progression), but it did help me.
Also, knowing about theory has deepened my own appreciation of some particular bands, including the Beach Boys. Brian Wilson is definitely a musical genius and was completely ahead of his time. I'd say the same about Frédéric Chopin and Scott Joplin. Even the Moonlight Sonata, when you think about it, is an entire piece of broken chords. I couldn't start fully appreciating things like this until I took those theory classes.
Sorry to go on such a long rant, but music is one of my favorite things of all time. Thanks again for this video.
My experience is the complete opposite! I loved learning about all kinds of musical concepts, weird time signatures, chords, rhythms, scales etc, and wasted no time getting to play around with them myself! I am sorry if your teachers failed to bring that out in you.
"Music theory" is usually referring just knowing the very basic musical terminology, bedroom musicians often don't even know what is the difference between a major an minor scale and basic intervals. As a result, their music will always be limited, and it will be very hard to communicate with others.
Complex academic analysis, on the other hand, is more questionable, but if you want to write like Wagner, you must know what he was doing. Not knowing your craft is not cool.
I think you may have misunderstood my point here. I’m not anti-theory, and have studied it quite extensively. It does have very applicable uses, but it is typically analytical in nature rather than creative. Definitely good information to know, but not always helpful when staring at a blank page. I didn’t fully understand the difference until studying composition 1-on-1 with a composer. It is a different mindset.
@@JamesonNathanJones This depends on how you define "music theory". I understand you can question if knowing if a DD chord is German or Italian matters, but today, many young musicians can't read sheet music and don't understand how basic scales and chords are constructed. You will also struggle changing keys if you don't know the circle of 5ths, which is at the very foundation of western music. This is why being critical of knowing theory in general is a very slippery slope. Both playing and writing music is a craft, and it must be worked at to be learned, including "boring" basic theory.
An untalented but experienced music theorist can write captivating music.
A super talented naive composer cannot. Not for so long atleast.
I wonder if the issue is the way in which music theory is taught or learned. Because anything learned by rote lacks the deep connection, understanding and spontaneity to enable creativity. It would seem best if people have a clear understanding for why they are learning music theory and have a clear purpose for how they will use that information when it's learned. On the other hand, music theory is likely least useful (and most counterproductive) if it's learned because we think or someone tells us we "should". Because if we understand what music theory is and how it can be used, we'd also be clear that learning music theory is a separate (but connected) activity from learning how to compose. The concept seems quite clear when Jameson points out the analogy using music, specifically with learning grammar and learning how to write. Along those lines, I'd point out that one doesn't need to understand grammar to begin writing. And, of course, focusing too much on grammar or structure can stifle writing or creativity. Perhaps it might help to think about the difference between learning to play an instrument from written music versus learning to improvise. With the right approach those separate activities can compliment each other. With the wrong approach they can become impediments to each other. Finally, I wonder if the problem of learning music theory is one of timing, goals, and progress. What I mean is that it's quicker and easier to make progress if we learn by rote without too many questions or too deep an understanding. For example, when I learned to play an instrument in grammar school my teacher wrote the fingerings on the sheet music. That certainly was faster and allowed for greater progress (in some senses) than taking the time to teach or have me learn how to read or understand sheet music And I guess what I'm saying is that at times there can be a lot of pressure on people (from outside or inside) to make "progress" and sometimes that can get in the way of learning things well.
I love these types of videos on writing music.
Thanks for watching, Paul!
You hit the nail in my head. Awesome!
VERY inspiring. And kinda truth.
The intersection between theory and practical application, occurs at the point of intersection, where your imagination interprets the elements of transition between the ideal and the real. What I mean is this a normal song has a logical construction in the elements of composition that lay out the construction or architecture looks based on a logical progression of what is familiar. The elements of theory that underline, the construction or the architecture of a song create breaking points that bring reason and logic into the creative process. The sonic construction of this song usually follows a familiar pattern. What separates one song from the next are the subtle differences between the enter play of the theoretical elements that form a holistic blending of those elements that differentiate one similar sounding song from another.
Good analogy
What a beautiful music behind what you say! Thanks a lot!
I have been trying to teach myself music in order to be able to write music and to be able to compose music for film. And I had the feeling a lot that I am just capable to understand certain things about theory and therefore music was just not for me. For example the teacher who is by the way great and his channel is music matters - teaches that in when writing a melody in a minor key we have to use the melodic minor. That’s ok however he also adds that when the melody is ascending we have to use the melodic minor but when is descending we have to use the natural minor. But to harmonise all this I have to use the harmonic minor scale. I asked several times to explain how this works in practice only to have the answer to basically just use what sounds good?????? I am glad that You made this video because music has been my passion and I am not going to give up but it is very hard to work out what to study and practice to get where you want to be - in my case a film composer and to put together suites and just enjoy the creation of music. Having said that I think the next step will be studying music composition. Thanks
I need another musical corpse to investigate lol
Enjoying; benefiting from your content.
Cheers from Texas!
🤟😺🤟
Michael
When I took the usual Freshman and Sophomore Theory and Ear-Training classes at the local (but actually quite good!) community college, the instructor asked us all why we want to learn Theory. Another fellow student replied what I would have replied, which was “to get into composition,” and he immediately replied, “studying Theory does not help you with Composition!”
We were all puzzled!
He went on: “Before you study Theory, you come to a point in your music where you say, ‘I have no idea what to do here!’ Then after you take Theory, you get to that same point and you instead say, ‘there must be a thousand different things I could do here!’”
His point of course is that Composition is ultimately about Creativity!
This is poetry, discovery and enlighting in one :) All the best!
Very salient point here - "Using a proven forumla to eliminate some of your decisions and focus your creative energy"
As someone who holds degrees in Compositio and Music Theory, I have come to a similar conclusion that you present in your video. What I find to be a huge block is that so many individuals try and 'sell' theoretical concepts as tool to compose with. In finding things like the Schillinger System of Musical Composition, my eyes were opened - so to speak. No longer was I trying to apply an analytical concept to something that didn't exist. (In your analogy, tying to identify the body before there was even a crime scene) I was instead, using tools and methods to CREATE musical material. It got me back into the frame of mind or creation rather than analysis.
I, too, would not trade my theory knowledge away. Similarly, I have not sat down to do a full analysis of a piece since finishing school - and I think that much of my composition and music making is better off for it. I was watching a video of a marble sculptor last night, they referred to the process of sculpting and changing out/sharpening/selecting tools as like driving a car. Over time, the concept of shifting gears, using your blinker, the pedals, all becomes second nature and you can then see more of the scenery around you. In the same way, in learning how to CREATE musical material and let the ideas of Circle of Fifths progressions, modification of a primary theme, modulatory section become second nature rather than the prime focus, you free yourself to once again be the composer and to be the creator.
Visit the SSMC discord if you're interested. discord.gg/KUbMnCKmd4
Thanks for a great video! It's been a lot of fun watching your channel this past year or so.
Great points here! Thank you!
Just joined the Discord and started looking this over. This system is massive! Looks super interesting. I've been playing around with rhythmic and harmonic symmetries lately, both of those popped up in the introductory video I just watched. Thanks for the link.
Thank you, this is very freeing.
Please more videos like this! I think it'd be filling a gap on synth related RUclips.
i like when u end up down a road of depression while explaining something
Looking forward to it!
Awesome video, man! Diagramming sentences is a great analogy.
Thanks Andy!
definitely going to be trying out this method. thanks for the insights!
Well I be damn or darn. You said exactly what I had thought although I only took piano for a month as a very small child. I figured most of music theory was unnecessary as well, especially when it comes to teaching you quickly how to compose music for an intro / 1st verse / 1st prechorus / 1st chorus ---- 2nd verse / 2nd pre chours / 2nd chorus --- 3rd verse / 3rd pre chorus / 3rd chorus / outro and maybe an interlude. Most piano teachers don't explain why to play this note with that note and what emotional feeling that playing certain notes make. They slowly teach you music theory basics with basic piano beginner lessons and charge $20 to $30for every freaking 30 minutes. A sleek way to rip off a new beginner at piano if you ask me. Instead of teaching the piano little secrets to new beginners by teaching when, where, and how to play exciting / sad / and or mid emotional chords & melodies on a piano. So, I discovered that little secret my self using the advice of a piano teacher who asked me: Do I know the scale I'm playing in / the relative major and minor / and the chord inversions of that scale? I figured everything else with a little research on emotional chords, and how to create exciting mid or sad emotional feelings with different key techniques in piano. You are so right about the music theory classes being too complicated.
I really enjoyed the other video. Looking forward to this one!
It's a very Zen concept, as within every tool is useful in the hands of a creative the opposite will always be true when rules and limitations are imposed. Trial and error are fundamental aspects of creativity. Courage maybe more formidable as evidence of the poorer quality music created. Love the topic and wealth of perspective.
I started music with my voice, learning to modulate using the shape of my mouth and throat to first emulate and then expand upon my own paths from the styles of my heroes. When there was something I wanted to sing outside of my range, I was forced to learn to shift my performances down in octaves to compensate. And so it's gone on for the past 40 years, one musical step before the other, just as inspired or required... My early exposure to Blade Runner and Gary Numan started a lifelong love for synthesizers, and so I naturally learned about synthesis. Most synthesizers have keyboards, and so I learned to play the keyboard. I learned to do music production in order to produce my own backing tracks. Most of what I know about music theory and song structure has come to me naturally over the years, either by ear and by the absorption of the thousands of songs for which every note, temporal tessellation and detail is perfectly stored within my mind. I have friends with years of training and tons of talent who get bogged down in adherence details, whereas I have no choice but to just follow my instincts and just run with what I have. I haven't hit any walls yet ;)
You sound so narcissistic 😂 ugh
It's like critiquing and analyzing art vs creating it. Both valuable things, not the same.
Ya the real trick is an engaging motif Then to fill in the blanks is an insurmountable task of either intuition and what anyone else has done before you which in effect could be theoretical or you simply wore out a record learning note for note what Bill Evans just played.Which actually seems counterintuitive because Mozart didn’t even have an 8 track
If I understand you correctly, I think trying to be “original” is too creatively paralyzing. Nothing is original. Mozart wrote in the “Common Practice Period,” meaning there were very specific guidelines in place that composers followed. It was very formulaic. And even within those limitations he found ways to be remarkably creative, and if he chose to step outside the lines a bit it was with purpose.