To all those versed in music: Music Theory vs. Music Improvisation

[FearTheMateria]

An interesting topic recently surfaced from the Creative Minds category of SWF. Someone had asked a question to improve musicality through sight reading and improvisation.

Throughout the responses; I am shocked that some people do not have much respect to find out through theory and perfer learning through Jam Sessions and messing around on an instrument.

I personally lean toward theory, that being my major, but I also enjoy improv. I do jam sessions on occasion and have picked up a few good licks to play in later pieces.

------------------------------------------------
Just a little background info on both sides:

Music Theory's Importance
-Almost all popular music is based on the I-IV-V-I progression, especially rock songs.
-Without Mozart, Beethoven, and other Classical/Modern composers, what would music be shaped like? Mozart naturally solidified the system and Beethoven optimised it in popularity.
-Scholarship auditions and the like are judged upon musicality and ability to read music.
-Alot of succesful composers in this day in age live and breathe a more complex form of theory

Improv!
-Jimi Hendrix, B.B. King, Ray Charles, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, [place random improv muscian here] have all recieved mainstream success through improvisational techniques.
-Creativity is much more easily expressed in this manner
-----------------------------------------------

If you have a stance, or are even neutral, post why and support your argument with anything varying from what you feel to whom you idolize to what you enjoy. Music is subjective, and so are you arguements in this thread. Have at it!

 

[KrazyGlue]

Though I don't have a lot of music knowledge myself, I have self-taught myself about hip-hop history and I'm working on throwing some beats together. From my experiences, it's important both to learn how the masters did it as well as doing some experimenting of your own.

Music theory is a great place to start. You need to learn the basics of how to compose your own music, and a great way to do so is to study the work of those who have done it before you. After getting down the basics, however, you really need to start working out your own ideas, just experimenting with whatever instrument or software you are going to use. Figure out what works and what doesn't. What sounds awkward or out of place? What enhances to your composition? You can read about these things in books, but until you mess around with your instrument/software, you won't have grasped the full concept yet.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Awesome topic!

I will have something here posted very soon, as I used to be a musician (violin) for a while.

Also FTM, maybe it would have been a bit better to put this in the PG, as activity has picked up there. But here is fine too, I guess...

 

[CRASHiC]

-Almost all popular music is based on the I-IV-V-I progression, especially rock songs.
-Jimi Hendrix, B.B. King, Ray Charles, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, [place random improv muscian here] have all recieved mainstream success through improvisational techniques.

hmmm. . . . Funny because you posted musicans who use that very chord structure heavily in the other category.

Honestly, I don't see why it matters how the music is created. They are only tools of the trade. If you paint with water paints if your art less valuable then someone who paints with clay based paints? Hardly not. The method does not matter, only the outcome. Its why I attempt to avoid anyone who attemps to bring up drug usage in an attempt to discourage an artists work. Damon Albarn wrote the first Gorillaz album off of two suit cases of weed, does that make him any less valuable of a composer or Gorillaz any less valuable a face on the music scene? Certainly not.

Also, I'm not sure that seperating it into improv and theory is the right route to go, as things are more complicated than that now. I'll use Venetian Snares as an example here. Venetian Snares doesn't actually know **** about music. He couldn't tell you a scale, he couldn't tell you the difference between an quarte note and a half note, never the less, no one in the anti-drum and base/electronical movement is as large a face as him in directing the movement, each album a drastic dystinction from his past and from everything around him, which is generally followed years after him by his other fellow breakcore/noise and drill musicians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PBeKzVhWHY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIdWaFQ5ciY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jQfWYsgIPQ
However, you can't call his music imrpov by any means. No, its all planned out, laid down on a computer. None of it is improved at all, simply him knowing how to work the tools around him to his best abiliity, which brings me to my original point, that its not different, simply people working their tools, either their ears or their minds.

To bring another example, probably a better example, Kid Koala. Another untrained, self taught, ear based musican, Koala is a Dj unlikely any other, scratching true music, using a single note and bending the pitches to his likeing, everysingle one. Not a sound goes unscratched or altered on his music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR-i0qRHLpM
As with all sampled based music, this must be planned out, this can not be truly imrpoved. So, here is a very prominent, very influential music who uses neither theory nor improv.

And to continue with the sample based music for examples, DJ Shadow, probably the most known out of all the examples in here. Now, sample basic music ALL based on ear and manipulation. Even more, DJ Shadow's music is all made 100 percent in studio, very little work done on an actual turntable. His work is, in this regard, some of the most forumlated out there, almost completely bipassing the traditional methods of searching to make music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG8zTww6h4U
Again, no true musical training, all ear, talent, but no improvsatonal techniques either.

Even more, I don't believe you can so easily separate improv from composition any more either. They have become interchangeable really, and have been for some time. Charles Mingus despised the fusion of the two, and mentions it in the preface to his album Mingus Ah-Um, referring to the jazz composition conventions he would hold that had reached the point to where he felt it wasn't even jazz anymore because of how close composition and improv had become to one another. Most imrpov musicians we hear today are following a chord set or chart of some kind, even if by ear.

Now, if what you meant was trained versus untrained, then I still continue on with my original point, the means do not matter in the art, only the result. My example for this: Geinoh Yamashirogumi, musical perfection from the slums of the earth. Hundreds of people: none of which were actual musicians per say, brought from all around Japan simply because of their love of music. The albums they created I can personally describe as nothing short of perfection. Even more, they proved ahead of their time, making world music as classical music years before anyone else in their field had thought to do the same (though they are no way responsible for it).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdRAQWp73S4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDwckN3-bu8

Now, does this make their music more valuable then those that came after them or does it make the music of those that were trained less valuable? No, I find equal beauty in their music as I do in that of Philip Glass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_55qMExFs00

The beauty I find, the the ability to reach that level of expression by the artist remains constant and doesn't change despite any training the artist might have received, and it shouldn't mean that the listener should value it any more or less either way.

I should probably sum this up better but I'm way to tired and sick, so I do hope I understood the purpose of this thread correctly.

 

[Sucumbio]

Music Theory at its core, is a way of understanding the fundamental relationships in and organization of sound.

Lets have an example: Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" - Symphony No. 9 in D minor, Op. 125 "Choral"

Just about everyone with working ears has heard this extremely simplistic (and yet strangely attractive) melody, but in case you are unfamiliar: -source

Now why do I note it's "strangely attractive?" What IS it about this song, or other songs, that just... sound right? Why is that when you hear a specific sound, your brain seems to know which one "should" follow... that when you hear the wrong note following, you wince at it?

These questions are at the heart of Music Theory. It attempts to answer these questions, by breaking down music, especially of past eras such as Baroque, Classical and Romantic, and providing a language by which one can assess a piece of music, and understand it.

Now, a theme like the one in Ode to Joy, though able to be played by most first year music students, still employs "rules" of Music Theory. The notes that are played, are in a "logical" order... the music takes a shape, and is "correct" ... none of it sounds wrong, as if a note were missing, or "off key."

There are many fundamental principles in Music Theory that go a long way to explain why music ... works. Why it sounds right. Things like, the "relative minor." Its interesting the mathematics behind this one principle, but in essence every "Major" scale has a relative "minor" scale, in which the "notes" in each scale are identical, and yet when played back to back, have very different "moods." Why, even the concept of "Major" vs "minor" requires quite a bit of study. Here's an excellent resource for anyone interested: Tonal Harmony a textbook on Music Theory you may find in your local library and through this link for purchase. It's a must-have for anyone serious about learning Music Theory.

Now that we've established -what- Music Theory is, why its important... we now move on to Improvisation.

Improvisation, is at its core, everything that Music Theory employs, without employing it! Example, Ode to Joy. Yes, Music Theory can be used to disect the song, and yes the song fits the mold well, its tones and measures are identifiable, its structure sound. But why did Beethoven choose the EXACT notes he did. His chord progression makes sense, in Music Theory terms, but the notes themselves, which make up the "melody" ... that was him. All him. He improvised that melody from his very soul, it came to him like all melodies come to all musicians that write them. There's no ... mathematical equation to create that melody, no Music Theory to explain it, only to explain why it works.

This is key in understanding how good music is written vs bad music. Yes, Music Appreciation is highly subjective, but you'll notice that you can hear a piece that will make you cringe, the veritable lemon to your ears, vs a nice melody, one that makes you go "ah, that's nice." Maybe it's Slayer, lol "ah, that's nice." But it's nice, and you like it. Why? Because it's honest... it can be applied to Music Theory and deconstructed thus, but ultimately it is rooted in creation from thin air, from the mind outward, and this gap... this "where did it come from" is at the heart of Improvisation.

Music Theorists often attempt to write original music employing the rules of Music Theory without employing any Improvisation. The result? Sounds terrible, usually, lol. Because there's no... soul behind it. It's just math. A computer program can even write its own music with enough variables programmed in. Will it sound right? Hit or miss really, it -can- write something that sounds good, but it's by chance. A human on the other hand, commands the music. The musician brings from within and displays outward the "next note" to the previous one, and it falls in line, a string of sounds that not only sound right, but sound good. Even Great if you're a great composer. Soloist. Improv artist. I won't say great musician, because often times you will find many musicians who are excellent at copying what someone else has written, and they can even give it their own feeling, their own "take" if you will, but they still can't come up with anything original on their own. This fundamental difference is at the heart of Improvisation, as it continues to elude many people to this day.

So this begs the question, which is more important to learn? Theory? or Improv? Well, the answer is simple. You LEARN theory, you DEVELOP improvisation. You cannot attack both the same way, and hope to get results. When it comes to Theory, it's as much learned as is Geometry or Algebra. When it comes to Improv, it takes as much practice as painting, or writing a poem. Some will get it right away, or will be seemingly "born" to improv, others will painstakingly practice for years, never quite getting the knack of it. How is this possible? Well my own personal view on this is that some folks have the improv switch turned on in their brains, others do not, and no amount of forcing the switch on will work. But this is just me.

How does this relate to Popular Music? Well, unfortunately, the lines have blurred over the years, the quality of musician has lessened, the Pop-music genre has been dumbed down from its roots ... but there's no mistaking a great melody, the kind that sticks in your head. And so long as people exist, so too will music and its ability to enthrall.

 

[Riddle]

The thing is music theory and improv are just tools. It's how you use them thats important. I truly believe that they're equally important.

True talent comes from good improvisation with a solid base of theory.

I like to think of it like this:

Music Theory is the building block of all music. If I can go ahead and make a metaphor here, Music Theory is the shapes and the patterns in a work of art. They are indispensable to any work of art and define it. They are the basis for anything but alone they lack creativity and flair.

Improv on the other hand is the colors and the embellishments. These make the art truly interesting. Alone they are baseless they need the support of the shapes to make a true picture.

Music is similar. Theory provides a strong basis and gives the music its form, wheareas improv gives the music its character and makes it special. Without the other they are useless and make for a boring and/or baseless painting.

 

[Sucumbio]

Music Theory's Importance
-Almost all popular music is based on the I-IV-V-I progression, especially rock songs.
-Without Mozart, Beethoven, and other Classical/Modern composers, what would music be shaped like? Mozart naturally solidified the system and Beethoven optimised it in popularity.
-Scholarship auditions and the like are judged upon musicality and ability to read music.
-Alot of succesful composers in this day in age live and breathe a more complex form of theory

Improv!
-Jimi Hendrix, B.B. King, Ray Charles, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, [place random improv muscian here] have all recieved mainstream success through improvisational techniques.
-Creativity is much more easily expressed in this manner

hmmm. . . . Funny because you posted musicans who use that very chord structure heavily in the other category.

This.

To expand on this idea, I'd like to also point out that the I-IV-V progression is actually the Blues Progression, born in the North Mississippi Delta following the Civil War. It is from THIS that all popular music and rock stem from.

Music Theory actually bares very little importance in terms of mainstream music. However this is also true for Improvisation. Pop music, for example is pedantic, relying on familiar (and boring) chord progressions like 12-bar blues. The 'solos' that are improvised are very short, employ very little technical difficulty, and can easily be recreated on paper for sheet music purposes/kids to emulate in their garage.

Most of today's musicians often command large audiences while knowing very little about Music Theory themselves. Music Theory, again, is really more of a way to understand music that's already been composed, less a means of composing.

Today's music forms would still be as they are regardless of Mozart or Beethoven's popularity. They were the Michael Jackson's of their time. Their influence on actual compositional techniques has all but landed in the puddles of Movie Sound Tracks, and Post-modern works that very few in comparison listen to.

 

[Riddle]

I see where you are coming from but I have to disagree. While many popular musicians have a lack of knowledge of music theory it doesn't change the fact that there songs are based on it. The I-IV-V-I chord progression is based off of musical theory.

However todays music has been ridiculously dumbed down. It doesn't take musical theory to write rap and it takes very little for other types of pop music. However different genres require different amounts of theory and the same goes for improvisation.

 

[Sucumbio]

I see where you are coming from but I have to disagree. While many popular musicians have a lack of knowledge of music theory it doesn't change the fact that there songs are based on it. The I-IV-V-I chord progression is based off of musical theory.

However todays music has been ridiculously dumbed down. It doesn't take musical theory to write rap and it takes very little for other types of pop music. However different genres require different amounts of theory and the same goes for improvisation.

I'm not sure what it is you're disagreeing with? was it perhaps my wording on "bearing little importance?" just to clarify I mean that in the sense towards musicians, not that it's non-existent. The importance of knowing music theory is small when considering pop musicians. ergo taylor swift probably has no idea what the circle of 5ths is, but she doesn't need to.

 

[Riddle]

Music Theory actually bares very little importance in terms of mainstream music.

This is what I'm disagreeing about. While knowledge of music theory may not be important the theory itself is.

 

[Sucumbio]

yeah ok we are in agreement then, it's definitely important just not to the musicians themselves.

 

[Riddle]

Okay, yeah. While Musicians may not have to learn music theory its till important to their music.