What’s your biggest problem with learning theory?

[yjieim]

Hey everyone!

-What’s your biggest problem with learning theory?

Just thought I’d put the question out there, so that we could help each other overcome our challenges. If we see another member’s problem that we know how to solve, or have solved in the past, we can reply to their thread and help them out. Hopefully someone will do the same for our problem’s as well!
So let’s get posting everyone! We can use this thread to help out our fellow members, and also get guidance from other members in turn. Let’s see how many fellow members we can help! =D

Jie

[pianoplayjl]

Cadences and key signatures. It took a while to get how those work.

[m1469]

For me it's always been that it's seemed like a different language than what I could possibly wrap my head around in relation to what I had felt and thought of as music.  So, for years I've been in a flux between wanting to grasp theory in book form and throwing it out altogether.  I've not wanted to throw it out and potentially limit myself by doing so.  Yet, there's always been some part of it that has been ... unmunchable for me.  

One of the biggest "situations" has been for me that I have viewed music and the piano through the mind of a (musically-isolated-)child which, in my case, had basically equaled not through the mind of a book or a "class" or formal lessons (for years).  However, I am coming to a place in my life where much of the book information will -I think- be more directly usable for me as a pianist/musician.  The way I've always thought of "theory" once I started formal classes in it, is certainly not the fundamental layer for me, nor is it the last.  I have, since my childhood, seen the piano and thought of music in different ways, and that is becoming more clear to me.  I value the way that I see it - however, I am finding that as I explore this view, the "classifications" I have learned about in theory classes can serve as very nice organizing tools for me.  I'm just not sure I'll end up with exactly what I read in books, as the final product.  

[birdbrain]

Theory has stolen my rawness.  I used to stumble on the coolest melodies and progressions by noodling around.  Now I argue with my creations, and find a way to relate it to another song in another key from another era.
But I still strive to understand it.
I currently realize how limited I am rhythmically.  I cant count to 6 very well and maintain a swinging melody and a loose feeling left (not robotic). That might not be theory, but it still is where I am at.  And I have no clue about modes and struggle playing minor scales still.

[ajspiano]

As I child I took theory and thought it was a stupid completely unrelatable waste of time.. I sore no reason to follow rules when its the sound should be paramount. And since I was busy learning rock/punk guitar by ear I certainly saw no issue with the sound of consecutive 5ths. Cadences can go to hell I thought.

I also regularly pointed out examples in classical compositions that broke the rules - and the response that "he was a genius, he could do that - you are not" made me want hit things. Theory made me feel stifled and constricted musically. Additionally, my teacher(s) provided no practical application of the concepts so it was just book work. HORRIBLE.

However, when I stopped paying attention to my teachers (rebellious teenager) and started applying theory to actual music it became an awesome tool for understanding that means I learn faster and better.

I tend to like this definition of theory - remember it well, even if you have or had a teacher that doesnt put it across this way.

Theory - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation

[williampiano]

My biggest problem with learning music theory is that I don't find it at all interesting. I always have to take a playing and theory test every year for Certificate of Merit and I always have trouble getting through the theory preparation book because I just find it boring (and its soooo long!). As much as I love playing music, I never feel overly compelled to study the theory anymore. I have enough of an understanding of it that I can learn music easily, but I just can't bare doing the monotonous theory pages I am assigned in preparation for theory tests! I find music history MUCH more interesting.

[pianoplayjl]

My biggest problem with learning music theory is that I don't find it at all interesting. I always have to take a playing and theory test every year for Certificate of Merit and I always have trouble getting through the theory preparation book because I just find it boring (and its soooo long!). As much as I love playing music, I never feel overly compelled to study the theory anymore. I have enough of an understanding of it that I can learn music easily, but I just can't bare doing the monotonous theory pages I am assigned in preparation for theory tests! I find music history MUCH more interesting.

Great post and I had to agree with you. I usually find myself while in the library studying music theory instead to stray off into the music history section where I usually read composer bios. THe funny thing is that I'm better in theory than in history IMO, reflected by theory results. In Australia we have 3 different but similar exams all to do with theory: Music theory, Musicianship and music craft. Music theory is the easiest out of the 3 so I went for it. The exam was a piece of cake. Theory is boring IMO but once you get the gist of it it is all easy. I wish there was a music history exam alternate option instead of taking theory exams. 

JL

[jgallag]

My biggest problem in regards to Theory was staying awake while we discussed key relationships and sonata theory in assorted symphonies. It got to be especially a pain when we worked on composers like Bruckner who don't really feel much like cadencing that often and Sibelius who write chords that simply elude analysis. I think my paper on Brahms 2nd was awful. I also had a rough time in orchestration since I didn't take fondly to the idea of rewriting beautiful compositions for piano for the orchestra. Also, try reading scholarly articles on Rock theory. My professor had gotten her doctorate with a thesis on Paul Simon's music, and it was all I could do to get through her paper before class. However, if you ever need help, PM me. I can't guarantee I'll be online and get back right away, but it's worth a shot. Next semester I should be especially helpful, since I have Pedagogy of Theory at 8 am. 

[larapool]

Parallel fifths, and stuff along those lines.  Also, learning to use seventh chords.  Generally when I write music, I see nothing wrong with using regular chords, and if I use a seventh chord it always ends up being a V7... I still don't really know how to utilize, say, a IV7, or a phrygian half-cadence... ahh!

However, learning about modulation seriously improved my ability to perceive and write my own music, so there are good things to go with the bad 

[duoplicity]

My biggest problem at the moment is not knowing what to learn exactly. I can't afford a teacher so everything I do learn I learn from the internet. I'm thinking about ordering a book but I don't know which will be good for me.

Mostly I'm trying to learn music theory in order to write my own songs in the future. Unfortunately since I don't know what I need to learn I can't find much information on it :S

[pianoplayjl]

This is something I haven't studied but I'm merely just making a hypothesis: perhaps I'm going to have a big probelm with counterpoint. Counterpoint is something I am goign to have to study in the future, possibly theory grade 5-6 or 7 if I'm going to continue learning. I'm always pondering, why is counterpoint something everyone studies?
RIght now I am in g4 and I'm having a bad time memorising scraps of information.

JL

[j_menz]

I have a general problem learing anything which I find neither inherently interesting or practucally useful. 

In general, this has not been a problem - I've studied subjects as diverse as mediaeval political theory, law and computer programming.  It does seem to stop me remembering most music theory, though.  Maybe I just need to see the point.

[yjieim]

My biggest problem with learning music theory is that I don't find it at all interesting. I always have to take a playing and theory test every year for Certificate of Merit and I always have trouble getting through the theory preparation book because I just find it boring (and its soooo long!).

HAHA totally agree!

Yeah I think theory would be more interesting if you were taught how to apply it, for example for song writing. It does also come in handy a bit if you're trying to figure out stuff by ear, or you want to jam with other people and need to figure out which scales and chords to use.

[keyofc]

Theory is often taken so out of context of music - I agree that combining songwriting would be wonderful.
I'd go back to school and take theory all over again if they did that.
I remember once a person in my theory class passed a piano and tapped a few notes on his way to his seat and the theory teacher became enraged.
As an older adult - I found it very humorous and telling of the approach of the professor.
It was like sound and theory were mutually inexclusive.

[brianvds]

I am a complete amateur for whom "Für Elise" is about the height of my virtuosity, so I cannot really make sweeping statements. I have on occasion tried to study a bit of theory. It seems like it should be interesting; somehow it isn't. I found it so mind-numbingly boring and seemingly divorced from actual music that I could never see the point.

But it occurred to me that the problem isn't the theory itself, but the fact that it is usually presented in the form of dots on paper, instead of actual music. Put a different way, it seems to me that learning theory without learning to hear the music you read in your head is about as pointless as teaching colour theory to a blind person, or learning to play piano on a silent keyboard without ever playing a real instrument. Thus my guess is that however boring music theory may be, students should perhaps consider it as an opportunity to develop their inner ear?

Of course, learning to do this takes huge amounts of time (I never learned the knack myself), and amateur players in all probability simply do not have the kind of time required. Thus one could perhaps make a good argument that for anyone except full time or at least very serious students of music, learning much theory is a waste of time that could have been more meaningfully spent in front of a keyboard?

[nystul]

I think ideally, whether you have dedicated lesson time for theory or not, that teacher will work these concepts into the material you are working on.  What key is this piece in?  Are we still in that key here or have we modulated?  What overall form is the piece (form of a pear?)?  What is the first theme?  What are the motives?  What chord is this?  Where is the cadence?  Where is the syncopation? Etc.  At whatever depth that student is ready for.

If these ideas aren't being reinforced in the learning, writing, or performance of actual music, then the whole thing is pointless.  Even physics class has lab time to test the theories in concrete experiments.

[brianvds]

I think ideally, whether you have dedicated lesson time for theory or not, that teacher will work these concepts into the material you are working on.  What key is this piece in?  Are we still in that key here or have we modulated?  What overall form is the piece (form of a pear?)?  What is the first theme?  What are the motives?  What chord is this?  Where is the cadence?  Where is the syncopation? Etc.  At whatever depth that student is ready for.

If these ideas aren't being reinforced in the learning, writing, or performance of actual music, then the whole thing is pointless.  Even physics class has lab time to test the theories in concrete experiments.

Yes, this is also an important point: analyzing the pieces you happen to be playing. This way you'll perhaps learn to recognize various chords, what a modulation looks like on paper and sounds like when played, and so on.

I think to some extent the keyboard is so convenient a thing that perhaps it makes pianists lazy to learn theory. On a guitar message board I used to belong to some years ago, when I dabbled a bit in that instrument, I was struck by how well-informed guitarists seem to be in music theory.

I remain a bit mystified as to how it all fits together though. As far as I know, modern music theory was invented by Rameau. What kind of theory did they use before him? E.g. when Tallis composed his monstrously complex "Spem in alium," how did he go about it? Did he have some sort of formal theory of counterpoint? Did he perhaps mostly just rely on an exquisitely developed inner ear? How do you develop that sort of inner ear in the first place?

One might ask the same sort of questions about Bach. It seems to me it should be very difficult to compose a fugue entirely in your head, without having the various voices in front of you on paper. But if you do have the sort of inner ear and musical memory to be able to do it, then do you still need any knowledge of theory?

I would very much like to have the skill that professional musicians have, to look at a score and hear it in my head without having to play it. But I'm not sure how one goes about even starting. It's a skill that seems almost like magic to me; I struggle to do this with even a single line of simple melody. :-)

I suppose practice makes perfect, but it seems to me it would require hours of practice per day, for many years, to acquire the kind of skill necessary to read even a string quartet, let alone an orchestral piece.

Incidentally, I read in a biography of Benjamin Britten that when he was around twelve or thirteen, he lived in a school hostel, where his class mates were astonished to see that instead of the typical boys' adventure stories they would read, he would lie on his bed in the evenings reading through musical scores. So I guess prodigious talent also helps. :-)

[nystul]

I remain a bit mystified as to how it all fits together though. As far as I know, modern music theory was invented by Rameau. What kind of theory did they use before him? E.g. when Tallis composed his monstrously complex "Spem in alium," how did he go about it? Did he have some sort of formal theory of counterpoint? Did he perhaps mostly just rely on an exquisitely developed inner ear? How do you develop that sort of inner ear in the first place?

One might ask the same sort of questions about Bach. It seems to me it should be very difficult to compose a fugue entirely in your head, without having the various voices in front of you on paper. But if you do have the sort of inner ear and musical memory to be able to do it, then do you still need any knowledge of theory?

The principles of counterpoint were a big factor in what both these guys were doing.  They knew their stuff.  But I would say you don't know it unless you know what it sounds like.  These guys had the practical experience on the organ, working with choirs, etc.  They  know what a major triad is going to sound like.  So they can get that sound when they want it.  They know what it will sound like when a suspended fourth resolves to the third.  So they can get that sound when they want it.