Music Theory for Electronic Music? Don’t Waste Your Time.
On the list of things that you want to do when you get off work, where does learning about Sus9 chords rank? How about augmented 5ths?
Yeah, me neither.
Following an interesting discussion over at the twitter yesterday, I’ve decided to give my two cents about music theory for electronic musicians and why I think you SHOULDN’T waste your time with music theory if you are an electronic musician.
First, full disclosure: I have a HEAP of music theory learnin’. I went to school for classical and jazz bass performance and took all the requisite theory classes up until I was about 18. I still read, in my spare time, books on jazz harmony and 20th century experimental music.
Thus, I’m able to offer you this informed definition of what classical music theory is: Music theory is knowing the “safe way” to put notes together.
Let’s face it, making music is about problems. I put a whole bunch of notes together and then I have to ask myself, What’s next? And, then: What’s next and so on. That’s basically how this works. Well, music theory will provide you a whole bunch of safe answers about what to do next.
But, unfortunately, like all theories, music theory is both a tool AND a method of analysis. As the saying goes, “when you have a hammer in your hand, everything looks like a nail.” So it goes with music theory. And, if you’re not careful, the safe answers are going to be the only answers that you see when you look at a problem. It will tell you what the only “possible” next notes for your bassline can be. It will tell you what notes “have” to be in the chord. And forever and ever, amen.
So, I can tell you from experience that music theory, knowing the “right” way to put chords, melodies and rhythms together, has probably prevented me from coming up with as much music as it has enabled me to come up with. Whenever I do something or hear something that sounds “wrong,” I try to fit it into my little theoretical system. If it doesn’t fit, I disregard it, or I make up some exception to the rule.
And that is why I think, sometimes, that I would be better off with a lot less theory. Because then, I would have learned everything by trial and error and, even if it took triple the time, I’d be more in tune with what sounds good than what is “right” by the standards of music theory.
Of course, you know what my next post is going to be: Why music theory is the most important piece of gear you’ll ever own. I couldn’t decide how I felt about the issue, so I decided to give a post to both sides of the argument. How’s that for indecision?
Let me know what you think in the comments or on the twitter. I’d really be interested to know what people from all over the musical spectrum think about the value of theory!
Interesting conversation. The first example that popped into my head was BT. He’s technically “great”, but . . . kinda leaves me flat a lot with his music. Like, “awww,w you chose to go to “resolve” THAT way? Almost as if he’s mashing in all that proper music learnin’ in a genre that requires much less of that. Or as you said, playing it safe or “right/correct”.
I don’t say that to diss on BT really, BT disses are a dime a dozen, and he’s def had some tracks I was into. And from a technical standpoint, a trailblazer in his own way, but as to the point you made . . .
Then again, I had a couple years of piano as a kid and otherwise am not really trained beyond what I’ve taught myself production-wise over the years – which had admittedly been a lot of hard-won learning, experimenting, trial and error, etc.. I’m obviously much less prolific as I get stuck in places I maybe wouldn’t with more theory. Or then, maybe not?
Anyway, definitely an interesting convo.
Cheers,
Jk
I feel you on that. Nothing worse than a super predictable chord resolution!
Unlearning is sometimes harder than learning!
There’s a lot of truth to this, Anthony. Back in high school, I was showing one of my buddies some chords on guitar, and how to play some Nirvana songs, without explaining any of the theory behind it. As he progressed and started writing songs for our band, he would make up these amazing tunes that I were kind of funny to me, because I knew he only went to certain chords because he had no idea that your were not supposed to go to those chords! He had learned to trust his ear, not the rules. Sometimes I wish I could turn off what limited info I know about theory in order to find those happy accidents. I remember reading an interview with Paul McCartney and he spoke about how music, harmony, and melody have a magically element to them. He never wanted to learn exactly how it all worked because it would take away that magic.
… Now on the other side of the coin, I can think of many tunes of my own that only happened because of a rule or small element of theory I learned that inspired it
I have a lot of friends who are creative writers who say similar things about their writing process: they don’t want to ruin the magic.
But I can’t seem to do that…I always want to take it apart and see what makes it tick!
you have a valid point about music theory limiting you in a way. but I also feel that it’s all in your mind what does and does not limit you. I feel that having at least a basic idea of music theory is important. Some day, those who write electronic music might go through phases of looking into other music, maybe learning instruments if they haven’t already. And knowing theory helps when you meet other musicians who also know theory, and you may find it easier to work with them if you are perhaps collaborating, or jamming together. I think it sort of involves being able to go through a paradigm shift when working with different kinds of music. I really like making electronic music right now, but in the future i might be pretty thankful that I least have a basic idea of reading music. I think it opens up more opportunities, depending on what you’re interested in. If you only plan on making electronic music, then yeah, i’d probably bail on learning theory too haha.
Such a good point about the communication. It is so much easier to interact/collab with other musicians when you can just say “Key of D” as opposed to doing everything by ear.
I’ve never had a chance to learn music theory, but I am picking things up as I go along, mostly playing by ear, and learning to trust what I hear.
If electronic music creation is anything like the many other creative things I’ve learned to do (like cooking, sewing, writing, etc.), the learning track will run like this:
1. Learn the rules.
2. Break them.
3. Enjoy the results.
Couldn’t agree more. And breaking rules is more fun if you know they exist!
Great topic!
I think about this question all the time. Most of my music theory I learned taking lessons from a jazz musician but his teaching method involved site reading but also chord melodies and a lot of improve not only of the guitar lines but the chords and bass because he wanted me to understand how it all fit together.
Now I play mostly keyboards because I am an electronic artist but I find at times the theory serves me well. However, when I improvised my teacher never complained that I was not playing a note for the correct mode. It was more about listening and being intuitive.
That said, he still taught be theory which I use to this day but I don’t take it so seriously that I feel obliged to always use it. But knowing that I can doesn’t hut either.
I also came up as a jazz musician and I have to say that I think that their approach to theory is one of the “best”. Improvisation is a great skill, but wild improvisation will often yield results that can discourage the learner. THat’s why you should at least have a II-V-I to work with!
I think this article is true if you dont’ watch you self while you learn, that you don’t become rules only musician. Education should only be a tool not a stumbling block. If you learn that fossil fuels are bad for the environment, don’t stop driving to be ridged and rulesy (if that’s word) use your new found education to maybe drive a more fuel efficient car or bike a couple of days.
Theory helps you find connections but sometime you need to find your own.
Agreed. Too many people, when they learn, do so passively.
This might be one of the hardest questions for anyone interested in anything other than jazz or classical music. Like your instruments and computers, theory is just a tool. But like every tool it can be a brainwash. The most powerful creative mind is gonna be able to still ask questions like a five-year-old despite all their tools and training.
I just read some Nietzsche quote that said: Being mature means remembering how to be as serious as a child at play.
Lots of truth here, can’t wait to read the Pro theory article as well. Maybe this is why you should learn theory and then forget it? I got into free improvisation in a lot of ways to simply “unlearn” a lot of the theory I had learned. When a composition is made too much “by the rules” it can be cold an bland.
I’m working on the “pro” article now. Hoepfully it won’t disappoint!
Music theory doesn’t limit people. People limit themselves. This goes for any art form. It’s the dilemma of how to become technically proficient while “staying open.” It is true that on that “what’s next?” step of composing – a song, choreography, a painting, a short story – it is easier to do what is safe rather than what one is really feeling. But this happens no matter what. Just based on the type of music you listen to, you will generally only hear in your head what you have heard in the past, and without theory calibrated to a good analytical ear, one will have little to no control over the range or intelligibility of that expression.
With or without theory, one only needs to approach creation with an open mind, and this is a skill that, unless exercised, will always be overrun by what one “intellectually” knows would work next. Unless it’s commercial art, one rarely ends up with what they set out to do, that is, if they’re being honest. Just remember that any art theory is a tool to refine one’s artistic expressions, it is not artistic expression itself. Theory is also a record of what everyone has tried to date. So if you want to be even remotely new or interesting, you need to know the rules to break them constructively.
Great point. I think that approaching theory as a “history” is very useful. And ultimately, it does come down to the discipline of the musician him/herself.
SO many great replies! I’m going to respond to each of you individually, but I just got back from a trip, so give me a day.
Psyched you guys are also interested in music theory. Don’t feel like such a lonely dork anymore, haha.
Well I think you miss a point, the rules/answer music theory gives have a strong reason behind them, and the more you know about the theory the more you can break up the rules to go in to different territories with in theory.
So no, I dont agree. Knowledge well used will only open more posibilities.
Just listen to mid XX century composers which find many new ways in atonal music: Ligetti, Glass, etc. They wouldnt have know how to reach the compositional rules they got if they didnt previously known the current theory.
Also, I dont know you but music with melodies, harmony and polyrythms is quite a a pleasure to listen to.
I actually agree with you, but I was trying to present both sides of the argument.
Nice article. That’s exactly what Vangelis was saying. He never learned formal theory like his parents wanted him too. He wanted to came up with stuff by trial and error.
Whether you want it or not, the more you play the more you discover scales and chords by yourself.
cool cool cool fact about Vangelis! I love him. I’m going to quote this at cocktail parties
“Whether you want it or not, the more you play the more you discover scales and chords by yourself.”
Haha I like that. So you either spend lots of time inadvertantly discovering the rules by yourself, or you learn them from those that have discovered them already. The latter option saves you time, which means more time on your own developments!
As someone who’s played classical, studied John Williams, plays in a jazz big band, analyzed hundreds of hit songs and produced multiple genres of electronic music I respectfully completely disagree. That is of course depending on how the student learns music theory of course!
Theory can be the best thing or worst thing for a musician depending on the method they learn it from! Classical theory is very limiting by today’s musical standards. Many classical students don’t even understand basic harmonic function and can only play notes on a page with great accuracy.
Jazz theory is MUCH more enabling as it teaches students to HEAR and PLAY!
I like to consider music theory the language. Theory allows brief communication of extremely complex ideas. Theory should be used to describe what you like about music and not the other way around.
Music theory exists because the greatest minds of music EVER have defined it for us. Great musicians have continued to expand this harmonic structure as far as it can go such as Cecil Taylor – Stockhausen and Xenakis . Too far IMO
Others, such as Bill Evans, have pushed harmony into new eras while still being extremely tasteful. Truthfully, all progressions and melodies in electronic music are childishly simple compared to the complexities of a Bill Evans Solo and harmony!
Electronic music harmony suffers from extreme harmonic distortion, compression, and loud mixes that prohibit any truly complex harmonies. The harmonics of electronic music notes are far too dissonant as chords similar to the way a guitar through a fuzz pedal only really works with one note or two notes far apart in the harmonic series.
Still, electronic musicians should be armed with a base knowledge at a minimum that allows them to explain what they like about what they are playing! Otherwise, they might create something amazing and never be able to to it again or why they like it.
A little theory knowledge let’s musicians hear other music they like, know why they like it, and emulate it. I can now hear just about any song and immediately know the key, progressions, melody line, notes, etc. That kind of knowledge took 20 years and is extremely empowering.
Writing music without ANY theory knowledge is like writing poetry without knowing English. Sure, you might put together a cool sounding poem, but you couldn’t do it twice or tell anyone why it sounds good.
I had to respond because it’s dangerous to warn musicians to avoid theory. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Do young musicians really think they have a better take on harmony than the greatest musical minds of he last 500 years combined? Well, anything is possible, but it’s best to learn from the masters while not staying in the harmonic box they’ve created before our time.
The final word about music comes not from me, but from the late great Duke Ellington, “If it sounds good and feels good, then it IS good!”