Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge no creativity in music theory

vanityx3:

It's easy for me to sit here and share thoughts secondhand, remember..

*You* are the one "In The Driver's Seat".

*You* are the one taking the music courses.

*You* are the one who ultimately has control over what you do and do not decide to do. You, not your teacher, no one else.

It sounds like a great learning opportunity. I bet you will take away valuable away from it.

And, hey, I hope you keep your rebellious streak, if that's what you want to call it! As you said, some of the Best of the Best had that same kind of streak, wanted to go their own way. They stretched music in new ways and a whole lot of people are glad they did.



Jeanne W

I seldom regret learning something new. Is theory needed?, Depends on your goals. Many great pieces and songs are written by people who knew what they liked, but maybe didn't know the mechanics of why. Will it make you less creative to know how and why certain sound patterns cause certain reactions? Only if you let it.

Usually a new species of music requires a revolution of the mechanics of sound generation.
Instrumentation, that is.
Hard to rock without an electric guitar and an overdriven tube amp. But does chamber music, jazz, rock, blues, zydeco, electronica, bluegrass, rap, punk, etc... and even the next big thing not yet "discovered" have to 'deal' with music theory on some level? You bethcha. Music exists naturally. It only needs to be captured and played on demand. Theory is one tool that can help.

"Western Music" and it's theory and representation can be viewed as arbitrary on some higher level. The reason I know and love it is somewhat simply because I have been exposed to it all my life. I do not understand other musical systems and without learning the theory say for example of traditional Chinese music, I would be lost.


-g

You guys are keeping me awake. Nearly 3 a.m. and I cannot sleep for thinking about this thread.
I think it is so sad if someone misses out on theory and the joy of understanding what one is really doing. It is like the school of thought that allowed children to write without correcting their grammar or spelling or punctuation for fear of spoiling their creativity. It works up to a point But get serious about writing, try to discuss philosophy, for example, and you are at a huge disadvantage without that foundation of knowledge, that theory of writing.
Theory is a tool that will help to build a firm structure. The firmer the structure, the better it will support your creativity, your flights of fancy.
Music, like all the arts, is about communication. Theory ensures we are all using the same vocabulary and will understand each other.
Besides, there is that sheer pleasure of "knowing" what you are doing which lends even MORE freedom finally.
There, now back to bed.
Iris

I'm awake too! Night owl.

Basically I like theory a lot! It interests me.

But what I don't like is when it stifles my creativity.

Do you think Mozart or Chopin or any of the great composers of that time thought theoretically when composing their works?

I doubt it.

They used their ears. Naturally. Which is what theory is based on if we are to analyze what naturally sounds correct.

I feel that music educators need to differentiate
the difference between theory and creativity.

To me creativity comes first then the theory. No need to worry it will be there, of course only if it sounds good!

Hey USAPT,

Welcome to wonderland. I believe as an older student many of your teachers will cut you more slack. There may be a multitude of reasons such as you may be older than your professor, they may respect the fact that you chose to come back to school after so much experience in real life. OR they may hold you to the exact same standards as all the other students and they may be picky fartheads who will mark you down because you didn't write in the style of (choose genre or composer)... People are human and that includes professors, some are wonderfully flexible and encouraging, others not so much. The difference is how you respond to it, as an older student I would expect you could bring more interpersonal acumen than the typical 20 year old college student. So I agree with how you put it, "Things will be fine."

We'll let you lurk, just don't post anything unless you have something good to say, OR ELSE!

or else what?.... I dunno.

The performers point of view seems all left out of this discussion. True that the great masters did break the rules frequently. When they did they were always aware about the fact that they wrote something that wasn't quite ordinary, something that would surprise the audience - it was meant as a special effect. Today our harmonical ears have been exposed to so much romantic harmonies that we don't neccessarily recognize these as special effects anymore. However, the performer should acknowledge these effects and try to bring them out the way the composer intended. If you do your theory excercises strictly according to the rules, you'll learn to recognize when Mozart broke these rules and you know where Mozart wrote a chord that was supposed to surprise the listeners.

It's not surprising at all that you don't feel comfortable writing within the strict rules, neither would the great masters have. Beethoven would hardly have passed a test in Sonata form and there's even proof that Händel cannot write a decent fugue - a lazy student at the Sibelius Academy once decided to use an unknown Händel fugue as a theory assignment. It was so full of errors that it didn't even pass...

The majority of those taking theory classes will never compose.

Theory class is not meant for creativity. If you want to bend rules of theory, you can practice all you want composing. Composing is for applying (or not applying ) the rules of theory.

In one of the composition classes I took, if you bent the rules either rules of theory or guidelines given for the piece, as long as you could convince the professor you had a good reason for it, you weren't marked down for it. You had to be able to explain why you wrote what you did beyond "it sounded good".

"Beethoven would hardly have passed a test in Sonata form."

Yes he would have, and Handel practically wrote a textbook on figured bass realization. (And the fugue to that Messiah thing is pretty darn impressive.)

Just because Beethoven experimented with sonata form and Handel wrote a bad fugue now and then doesn't mean they didn't understand the theory.

Let me see if I can clarify something:

Theory and composition are two different things.

The study of theory is analyzing the basics of what OTHER composers did. Since learning by doing is a very effective pedagogical tool, completing writing assignments using classic voice leading and formal procedures can be a good way to learn the material.

There's nothing wrong with being frustrated with or refusing to follow the "rules." You just won't learn classical theory in the process.

Kreisler, no need to clarify. That was exactly my point as well. They were not comfortable writing within the strict rules of musical theory as composers. Therefore they in many cases broke the rules to the extent that it wouldn't suit todays theory classes. They probably could have written music that didn't break any rules at all, but as many creative theory students of today, they didn't find that very interesting. But, as everybody else here has pointed out already, they had the right to do it, theory students should stick to the rules and start breaking them only when they go composing.

Dear Vanityx3,

I was immediately interested in your original post. Why? Because I had an opportunity to study theory with a gentleman who I admired for many years (he died unfortunately about 10 years ago).

He was an excellent educator, philospoher, psychologist, musician, and theory teacher (he had the distinction of providing guidance to many top level musicians, singers, and composers).

Almost from the very beginning of my taking lessons from this gentleman did I hear what you mentioned in your last sentence...this thing about traditional theory (that which is taught in schools, etc.) was in his opinion restrictive and limited.

He taught the Joseph Schillinger Method of Orchestartion & Composition. And, used that as a basis for any training that he provided.

I learned a great deal from that course of study, and it provided me with limitless possibilities rather than restrictions and limitations.

One of the exercises suggested by Schillinger (Schillinger authored a two-volume work on Orchestration & Composition) was to use a telephone book as a source of inspiration.

In effect, the telephone number (e.g., 364-295-8765) would provide the basis for a composition.

For instance, the numbers could be viewed as a chord progression where the first chord is say "C-Major," and the next chord is 3 semitones above that chord which would make it an Eb, then following the same idea (moving upwards) you'd have Ab (6 semitones from Eb), etc., etc. The qualities of the chords could all be the same or different depending on your choice.

Note, you don't have to continue moving upwards; instead you could move downwards as well...or, mix them alternating between the two.

Schillinger's method is highligthed by the freedom to mix and match as you'd see fit.

Going back to the telephone number...you could approach it differently by using the numbers as a series of notes...sort of like a "motif" for the beginning of a tune, etc.

In effect, the possibilities are limitless.

Needless to say, I've found Schillinger's concepts and methods to have provided me with a great deal of fun and enjoyment. I never feel that I have to be inspired to write a tune, etc....all I have to do is open up the phone book and pick out a number!

Riziero, you are also confusing theory with composition. The phonebook might give you lots of inspiration for composing, but it will teach you nothing about classical music theory.

Witold.....no, I wasn't confusing theory and composition (at least I didn't think that I did); rather I was just giving an example of the kind of "theoretical" application you'd find in the Schillinger System (and, a simple one at that).

My response was more in line with the "limitations" statement in the original post (thus, using the telephone book as an example of an easy to use application of theory).

BTW, Joseph Schillinger has an extensive treatment of traditional (classical) harmony in his two book set. And, he gives numerous examples on how to apply his theories for original "classical" composition.

You can't teach someone to be creative!

We are taught music theory because it is in the language of musical symbols and techniques that we employ.

Say you want a hard brittle timbre within the Orchestra, how would you go about doing that with no knowledge of Orchestration?

You might know what you want but don't know how to put it across - that's where music theory comes in.

Of course they won't teach you to be creative, that's like telling a magician they should know how to do magic!! It's kind of a given, you know.

Just my 2p's worth

Sure you can!

I just love it when someone rebuts another's argument, but offers no substantiation. Just being contradictory won't win a debate.

I'd like to explore the question of whether you can teach someone to be creative. If you teach concepts and then pose problems that will force students to explore possibilities then you are teaching them to seek their own solutions to problems, i.e. be creative. If you present problems and their solutions then you are not teaching students to find their own solutions. So, in a sense you can teach someone to be creative by not supplying answers and encouraging students to seek solutions on their own based on the concepts you wish to teach.

When I think about it composition is essentially problem solving. Whether the problem being solved is one of dictation (devising a melody), harmonization, instrumentation or something else simply indicates where one is in the compositional process. The first problem in composing is always the one of "what do I wish to express?"

Well, there wasn't much substance to the original claim either.

Maybe it is true that creativity cannot be taught: that there's a portion of the world's population that has creative potential and there is a portion that doesn't. In that case, all you can hope to do is to make those lucky people realize their potential, which *is* something you can teach.

But I do not believe this. I believe, without having any proof, that there is a core of creative potential in everyone. And that everyone can be taught to let this creative side come out. Although this doesn't seem to happen very often in traditional piano lessons...

I do not think of composition primarily as problem solving, by the way. To me, composition is something that happens way beyond what the analytical mind is capable of grasping. In fact, the main problem to be solved in composing is getting the mind out of the way.

Creativity is kind of a mystery isn’t it?

Sometimes I use the word “arranging” rather than “creating”. It’s probably more accurate; since composers arrange the same raw materials in an effort to create something new.

Now where does this come from…?

Take two people, with the same education, using the same rudiments of music, one creates beautiful gems and the other one creates mush. Both are creating, but creating what?

My piano instructor (who BTW, recently passed away at 95), was a Julliard graduate and the greatest musician I ever knew. His knowledge of music, and remarkable ability on the piano put my similar achievements to shame. He was my mentor.

However, with his vast amount of knowledge, he was still unable to create anything original. He could take the model of a great piece of music and craft a new work using its design, but couldn’t create an original from scratch.

Though he far surpassed me with his vast knowledge and piano dexterity, he also admired me for my “natural” compositional skills.

He often wondered where my magic came from. I often wondered too. Sometimes I’ll listen to a composition of mine, and can’t believe I composed it. It’s almost like I was on auto-pilot, or a puppet with some higher power controlling my strings.

I don’t wonder about this phenomenon anymore. I accept the gift, and use it regularly.

I imagine part of the substance of our creative work is due to our “sense of life”. Maybe part of it has to do with wanting more from life that meets the eye. I’m not sure.

Best, John

Gershwin was reported to have said that too and I think every composer can relate to it.