Can you be an Academic Theorist and performer at once?

[stillofthenight]

Do you think studying music theory with people who hold Advanced Degrees in Music Theory is necessary? What if one just learned the basics of theory and just listened to recordings and then left it to the way they would like to think of how the intervals/scales/ all elements of music are working in the piece instead of others.

I think it would be great to exchange ideas and have information from people who dedicated their lives to studying music , but is it really necessary to go that deep and theoretical into music using the techniques and explanations of analysis everyone is used to?

Also do you think it is possible to be an academic theorist such as someone who holds a doctorates in theory and still be a great improviser and or performer? Is that rare to happen?

[awesom_o]

What if one just learned the basics of theory and just listened to recordings and then left it to the way they would like to think of how the intervals/scales/ all elements of music are working in the piece instead of others.

What do you consider to be 'the basics of theory' ?

[stillofthenight]

The general concepts of what one would learn in an real university theory I course such as time, rhythm, consonance, dissonance, tonality and keys, and just telling a story through phrases. I think if I knew that I could just leave many pieces of music up to my own analyses.

But I could be dead wrong due to me being extremely ignorant.

[m1469]

Do you think studying music theory with people who hold Advanced Degrees in Music Theory is necessary? What if one just learned the basics of theory and just listened to recordings and then left it to the way they would like to think of how the intervals/scales/ all elements of music are working in the piece instead of others.

I think it would be great to exchange ideas and have information from people who dedicated their lives to studying music , but is it really necessary to go that deep and theoretical into music using the techniques and explanations of analysis everyone is used to?

Also do you think it is possible to be an academic theorist such as someone who holds a doctorates in theory and still be a great improviser and or performer? Is that rare to happen?

Well, I do not think it takes long to get one's fill of what comes across as mere rules.  So, if that is how "Music Theory" is viewed -by the students and/or the teacher- then no, a super deep knowledge isn't necessary in order to make music.  I personally don't think it's about rules in the way many people seem to think.  However, I do think there are fundamentals to music and tones and their combinations in time that are not what we typically believe we are learning about in a "fundamentals of music" class, or even a first or second year theory class.  I mean fundamental as though it is a physical law about how sounds/vibrations behave, and even how that relates to the universe; I mean fundamental, like gravity is to celestial bodies.  Adhesion, cohesion, and attraction; consonance and dissonance; Contrast, and an ultimate Harmony, in a seemingly big, universal way (and beyond our greatest comprehension of what the Universe Is), but which is also mirrored or reflected in even the finest, most infinitesimal details.  

I believe that what we experience in music, and what we learn about its fundamentals, should ultimately be enlightening and revealing for humankind about what the Universe is, how it works, and who we are in relationship with it.  So, if you mean talking with somebody whose understanding even slightly points a person in that direction, then by all means, that is utterly invaluable in my opinion.

[Bob]

I looked up advanced degrees in music theory quickly.  Saw what I expected.  Teaching and research.  Not really 'practicing' music theory.

The better performers I've met knew their music in and out.  They could 'read' the concepts in a piece of music.  Some of it you need to know to understand what the composer meant.  Some of it is just the composer's style.  And then there are basics of music like tension and release.  Being able to read that off the music is useful. 

So I could see...
A great performer... who really knows the music.  As well if not better than an academic. 
Or someone on the academic side being able to improvise and being creative. 

Timewise, if they're a performer, they'll probably focus more on performing and teaching performance over teaching theory.  It probably pays better.  Great performer, in demand.  Theory 101?  A grad student can do that (and colleges will pay them just enough to).  How many high level music theorists are there?  Not many.  No demand for a great music theorist.  The high level theory people I've seen are usually getting paid squat teaching theory, doing something else like admin work, and might be doing something with avante garde music with their group of grad students.  Even then... "new" theory.  They're not off 'reading' and analysis of music that's been around for hundreds of years. 

Is deep understanding necessary?  Yes.  That's how they know the piece, know what the composer meant/does, know why they're interpreting things a certain way, etc. 

[m1469]

So I could see...
A great performer... who really knows the music.  As well if not better than an academic.  
Or someone on the academic side being able to improvise and being creative.

From my own perception, I agree, simply because I think to be able to apply it in a way that is illuminating of the ideas, is an ultimate understanding.  And, I don't personally know what it would be like to want to learn about music theory but not have the desire and some ability to apply it to an instrument (or to compose).  But, perhaps I just can't imagine it, when in reality there are people who could actually understand theory so deeply even without the physical application of creating sound in some way.  Maybe there is a Mozart mind without the Mozart fingers?  I don't know.  Somehow I think Mozart's understanding itself, wouldn't allow him to simply understand without manifesting it further.  And I would think that even Mozart understood his music better as he was given the opportunity to manifest it.  It works hand in hand:  Idea --> Manifestation --->  Greater Idea --->  Greater Manifestation ---> Even greater idea ---> Even greater Manifestation ... etc. for infinity.

[quantum]

IMO, theory or music theory in particular is frequently misrepresented to be a linear meta state: i.e. an unbreakable rule that governs all things, and judges all things.  One of my teachers in grad school encouraged his students to think of theory as an interpretation, as one person's view or explanation of how a particular thing worked.  Just as many performers interpret a given piece of music differently with perfectly convincing results, so to can ideas of a theoretical nature be interpreted. 

I think it is unfortunate that all to often performers and musicologists self-segregate themselves into their own camps.  So much can be gleamed by examining alternate perspectives.  Yet there is a tendency for people to gravitate to an activity that is familiar and that brings comfort.  Ultimately it is knowledge itself that suffers from this course of action. 


To the OP's inquiry.  It is not necessary to study past theories in order to come to an understanding of a topic.  Knowing what has been previously written and though out can give context - certainly it will assist a person in gauging if they are thinking up new ideas, or just trying to reinvent the wheel so to speak. 


There are certainly excellent performers that are also inquisitive academicians. I've come to know quite a few such people. 

However, there is a flip side: people that can endlessly engage in academic discourse, giving the impression they know a whole lot about something, boldly flaunting their virtuosic prose; yet almost never touch an instrument, utter a sung syllable, attend a live performance, or open their ears to a recording.  One would caution against going to that extreme, but these kinds of people do exist.