The things one should really know about musical theory

[yuc4h]

I have always had the mind-set that by simply using the time that some people 'waste' studying theory to actually play and study the pieces and playing the instrument. However, I have began to think I should really study some theory. So I would like you to tell me, what are the topics about musical theory that one should really know. The ones that help you to memorize the piece by 'harmonically understanding' it or whatever

So what theory topics have the best efficiency ratio (effort/profit)?

[cfortunato]

It isn't a waste of time.  Learning theory enables you to improvise.  Learn to build chords, and learn how chords relate.

[gyzzzmo]

If you're not planning to play piano in bands, choirs or other things you need to improvise for, as far as i know you dont really need to learn theory.
I have never had any music theory but i do play in bands and choirs, and i would have had an advantage if i had learned the theory.

[alzado]

I don't know much theory, but as time goes by I pick some up here and there.

I feel the lack of theory knowledge limits me.  For example, it would be almost impossible for me to compose.

You ask, what is absolutely basic.  I would say, learn the circle of keys, major and minor.  Their names and what notes comprise these scales.

I would think it would be good to know what the modes are, especially if one were to play pieces by Erik Satie and some others. 

You would need to know a lot of markings in scores, like double sharps, double flats, fermatas, and on and on.

And chord structures.  And intervals -- what is a third, what is a fifth, what is a tenth? 

[fencingfellow]

Not to try to be arrogant or anything, but I know quite a lot of tonal music theory (grad student in musicology...)

I would suppose that the aspects of music theory that a performer should know come naturally by performing.  The must rudimentary of such being recognition of key signatures.  I think the circle of 5ths/4ths would be very easily learned from there as well, if you don't already know it.

Strictly as a performer, I am not sure what else would be needed.  As for becoming a composer, you would be well advised to learn quite a bit of music theory (since many of the ideas would be of great use to a composer).

[yuc4h]

Thanks for your replies.

The topics I already know are all the major and minor scales / arpeggios. I also know the majority of score markings. And I can pretty uch build all the major / minor / 7th  chords. All the pasic stuff. Does it make sence to study the 'weird' scales (referring to everything else excepet major/minor) as a classical pianist?
Also, do you analyze your pieces before starting to memorize them ie. mark down the cadence progression or something? (talking about classical pieces mainly) I'm just asking because I really don't know anything about cadences atm and I'm wondering if I should take a look at them.

[pianowelsh]

I think it is important to support what we do with and understanding of why we do it. for example a performer is playing Pagodes from estampes. It would be very helpfull to look at gamalan tonal patterns and equiv scales construction and make up little exercises to simulate the background to the piece. You need to understand form when you play a sonata movement of any kind. you need to understand nomenclature when you study any slow movenent which has ornamentation etc.  You need a fundamental knowledge of functional harmony when you are learning a Baroque work and trying to work out where the composer is moving to now.  the applications of theory are endless.  Now the question is whether to study them in abstarct form with a theory book and an test paper OR to as you go in the lessons teach ok what do you noticce about this point in the music ('its the same as at the beginning') Yes thats right! we call that the recap because the composer is restating the first idea so the audience will remember it  - now where does it change 'here there are a lot of semi quavers and then some big chords' now this is like the tail on the dog we call it coda and it rounds up the work and puts the full stop at the end of the movement so we can change the mood for the next bit...etc etc  that way they learn lots and can identify features in the music from a very early stage and become musical thinkers - not always dependent on the teacher for interpretation and understanding.

[keyofc]

yuc4h,
I played the piano pretty well with a very limited amount of theory.  (Just key signatures, basic rythym understanding, etc.)
But after taking theory - I was amazed at how helpful it was in reading music and also in creating chord progressions.
Even if you don't read music and play mostly by ear, you begin to understand what chord comes next a lot quicker.
Even though I am a teacher now, I still study it all the time from and periodically have new breakthroughs.  It is worth it! You can't learn too much theory.

[rc]

I think it is important to support what we do with and understanding of why we do it.

YES! This is the heart of the matter. In any good work, there's a meaning/reason behind everything that goes on, and theory is important in understanding what you're playing. Moreso for larger-scale works, like a multi-movement sonata - unless you understand how the parts function as a whole, your interpretation is guesswork.

Also agreed that theory should not be seperated from practice. It's essential to see how those abstract ideas correlate to musical reality.

Us performers really owe those musicoligists and theorists who spend so much time researching these things, we also owe it to ourselves to use this knowledge.

[caperflutist]

Theory is not a waste of time, it gives you a lot more understanding. Without understanding theory, it's like speaking a language without knowing what the words mean. (yes, I am a music geek. I was theory major in uni and almost did a masters in theory:))

[lostinidlewonder]

Music Theory doesn't tell you how to memorise music easier, or sight read easier, two tools essential for all good pianists. Theory allows you to make musical decisions in your own composition/improvistaion, but of course these things also must be practiced at the keyboard. Theory is nice but it must be practiced, there is no use knowing what all the chord progressions are but not knowing what they sound like or how to apply them. So in the end Music Theory is interesting when it is combined with actual playing, not just text.

One might argue that learning theory will allow you to memorise more efficiently what you play, I have to disagree. You do not memorise what to play by observing the theory behind it, you memorise it by acknowledging the physical action and relating what you play to muscular memory. If you keep it all of what you play on the conscious plane of observation through theory, you might never get out of this thinking side of music, you might never play free with memory.

I think you have to know at least all the chords, scale forms, arpeggios and chord progression. Classical or Jazz, Jazz places a lot more emphasis on scale and chord knowledge. Another very important tool would be to know how to use timing signatures to section up the music and guide your counting during sight reading ventures. Key signatures are important simply to define the feeling of the keyboard as you play a piece. A piece in C major feel totally different to one in B major, but how? It is not good enough just to identify it with theory, but you must feel it at the keyboard too.

[cfortunato]

Actually, I find that theory can be helpful with memorizing things that are quite difficult.  Also reading things that are difficult to read.  It helps to stop and say "What chord is that?"  Once you can label it, it's easier to remember (or read, if it has 12 ledger lines or something).

[rc]

Actually, I find that theory can be helpful with memorizing things that are quite difficult.  Also reading things that are difficult to read.  It helps to stop and say "What chord is that?"  Once you can label it, it's easier to remember (or read, if it has 12 ledger lines or something).

Yes, it makes it easier to be able to simplify in the initial stages of memorization, before the body is able to integrate and correlate the motions with the sounds. Even during playing it's useful to know what's going on in the music. Not necessarily to name, but to know that a certain group of notes all belong to the same harmony, for example.

It's all stuff you can do intuitively really... But since the theory is there, why not use it?

[soliloquy]

Here is your general progression of what you should read:

Piston Harmony
Piston Counterpoint
Rimsky-Korsakov Guide to Orchestration


Then obviously you'll have all of the basic knowledge you need, and if you want to read more advanced work:

Progression on Serialist Music

Serial Aesthetics- Grant
Aesthetics of Total Serialism- Bandur
Orientations- Boulez
Set Theory Objects- Castine
Polyphonics and Complexity- Dovern


Progression on Indeterminacy

Silence- Cage
Musicage- Cage
From Chords to Simultaneities- Schoffman



I STRONGLY advise staying away from anything written by Xenakis until you have a COMPLETE and very advanced understanding of Serialist, Post-Serialist and basic stochastic music.