From: steyn@cs.rochester.edu (Gavin Steyn)
Subject: Re: Music Theory
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:15:28 GMT

In article <12217@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ccmnate@othello.ucdavis.edu (The Jester) writes:
>
>  Music Theory is merely a cataloging of "musical observations."  Many
>generations of music theorists studied the works of the great masters
>and hacked out a set of specific musical qualities that applied to 
>them all....in varying degrees of success.  The music came first.  Then
>came the theory.

This is not exactly accurate.  We've got a lot of music theory books
written from Renaissance periods, and possibly before (I'm not sure
about the before part, though).  A lot of those works were written
by the composers themselves.

>  To use Music theory as a set of RULES is wrong.  If you do, you are
>moving the art of music from the artistic to the academic.  I have
>heard MANY pieces that follow these "rules" that sound awful.  On the
>other hand, I have listened to pieces that break the "rules" right and
>left that sound wonderful.

This is a silly argument, on two counts.  First of all, there are
lots of bad pieces, period.  Some follow the rules, and some don't.
The other is that no-one advocates following all of the theory rules
blindly.  If it were that easy to write music, we'd all be brilliant
composers :-).  In fact, EVERY really good piece breaks "the rules"
at some point or other; this lends the piece spontaneity.  However,
the only reason this spontaneity surprises us, is because the piece
actednormally up until that point.  Of course, some pieces are more
predictable than others, but I would argue that most every composed
piece (ignoring, say, Cage and his ilk here) is built within some
sort of framework; otherwise the listener just feels confused.

>  To use a somewhat obscure example, let's consider Beethoven.  He is
>considered by many "academic" (for lack of a better term) musicians as
>the master of the Piano Sonata.  In school, we are taught that he was
>one of the pioneers of that form of music.  We learn the "rules" of the
>piano sonata and starrt our own composition efforts...only to learn
>sometime later that Beethoven, the pioneer himself, routinely broke 
>those rules.  He turned them around, twisting them with impunity.  Yet
>those "rules" mongers STILL insist that he is the greatest composer
>to have lived.

Beethoven was certainly not a pioneer of the sonata form (in fact,
you could argue that he helped lead to its demise), but that's
not really relevant here.  The main point is that Beethoven knew
exactly what the sonata form was supposed to do.  He could break the
rules right and left because he knew when he could get away with it
and when he couldn't.  He certainly didn't take all of the theory he
knew and forget it.  He just applied it in new directions.

>  Basically, I agree with those who say that studying music theory is
>important...if only for the fact that you will begin to understand
>how other musicians have made their music.  But I feel strongly that
>a musician should learn them...then forget them.  Don't use them as
>rules.  Play what you want.  Have fun.  Entertain people with your 
>OWN music.  And please, don't lord it over everyone else just because
>you know every chord type known to man...that's just asinine.

Here, I pretty much agree.  If you use "the rules" properly, as a 
sort of framework, which you move in and out of, rather than as
a straightjacket, you'll write better music.  As a side note,
I can't imagine lording over anyone knowing all of the chord types (aside
for the fact that I don't know most of them, myself).  It's a waste of time
to memorize most of them, anyway, since you can construct them as needed.

Gavin Steyn
steyn@cs.rochester.edu
"There are times, Jeeves, when one wonders, 'Do pants really matter?'"

Newsgroups: alt.guitar