Is Music Theory Useless?

[ejwhite09]

I'm beginning to think theory is useless. It's so easy to fall into becoming an academic musician, arguing over minor fourths in the 5th bar or why is the minor scale different ascending and descending in the harmonic sense. And truthfully the answers no matter how complex and satisifying usually come down to 'it sounds good that way.'
Generally I'm satified to know, if it sounds good, it is good. It need not a theoretical explanation.
Practically I think ear training is where it is.
I know enough to do what I want. I can pick out a melody in my head, and can pretty much harmonize a note to make the chord I want....what more can theory really do for me?

I don't want to be great at talking about music I want to be great at playing music.

I came to this conclusion after listening to one of my idols, Georges Brassens....he did a jazzed up version of one of my favorite songs and I think its interesting where it goes when you just have the idea....'i want to make something sound jazzy' you don't need to know ten scales and 20 chord qualities...if you have the ear to lead you to beauty....

[mr. beaumont]

Well, I've always argued you don't need any scales to play a lot of jazz, but you certainly need some knowledge of what lives inside those chords you're playing.

If your ear is good enough, God bless ya and go for it! I still need to do a little analysis to get things right...

I see theory as only worth knowing when it helps...every yer I'm ready for a little more, but I think you can play a lot of great jazz knowing A. the fretboard, B. Basic Harmony and C. How to build chords and arpeggios.

All of that is covered in the first week of a basic music theory course!

[jmstritt]

I'm beginning to think theory is useless. It's so easy to fall into becoming an academic musician, arguing over minor fourths in the 5th bar or why is the minor scale different ascending and descending in the harmonic sense.

Just to clarify, fourths aren't major or minor, and the minor scale is the same ascending and descending.

The melodic minor scale is different descending than it is ascending although in jazz we just usually play the ascending version of the scale.

If you understand theory, you will understand WHY things sound the way that they do. Your ears can tell you a great deal, but they can't tell you WHY things work the way that they do. You can hear a great chord voicing, but unless you understand the notes in the chord and their relation you won't ever be able to plug the chord in anywhere else.

I have heard people start rants like this before, and the advice I give is always the same. Don't take shortcuts, just buckle down and learn it and you will be better for it. You don't have to learn all of jazz harmony in a day, heck you have a lifetime to learn it, better get started now. ;-)

[ejwhite09]

Well, I've always argued you don't need any scales to play a lot of jazz, but you certainly need some knowledge of what lives inside those chords you're playing.

If your ear is good enough, God bless ya and go for it! I still need to do a little analysis to get things right...

I see theory as only worth knowing when it helps...every yer I'm ready for a little more, but I think you can play a lot of great jazz knowing A. the fretboard, B. Basic Harmony and C. How to build chords and arpeggios.

All of that is covered in the first week of a basic music theory course!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking theory, I just think after those things covered, as you say, in the first week...really are all I need as a person geared towards being a playing musician.
I've found myself lost in the weeds, trying to understand things that really aren't relevant from an actual playing music stand point.
It's like if I wanted to buy a microwave and I decided but to truely compare the microwaves I need to learn quatum mechanics first.
So I kind of find myself racking my brain over theoretical concepts when really that time would benefit me and my playing more to be doing ear things.

I just found I was learning theory at the expense of learning music.

[ejwhite09]

Just to clarify, fourths aren't major or minor, and the minor scale is the same ascending and descending.

The melodic minor scale is different descending than it is ascending although in jazz we just usually play the ascending version of the scale.

If you understand theory, you will understand WHY things sound the way that they do. Your ears can tell you a great deal, but they can't tell you WHY things work the way that they do. You can hear a great chord voicing, but unless you understand the notes in the chord and their relation you won't ever be able to plug the chord in anywhere else.

I meant a fourth chord, sorry should have been more clear. And the harmonic minor scale is not the same ascending and descending...the harmonic descends exactly as the natural scale.
See what I mean, it was just an exaggerated example of how assine and in the weeds theory makes things.

My point is I don't need to understand why something sounds good, if I understand it and understand it sounds good, and build my ear to recognize these contexts, I can plug the chord in anywhere my ear says it can go.

I think theory's best purpose is so when you're at practice or in a situation you can say 'play up the fifth and descend chromatically to the second five one home.'
Instead of saying 'it goes like this, then dun nuh nuh nuh nah then down da da da da da dum.'

It's not that I'm not trying to learn it or find it irrelevant, I just find it not very helpful past very basic concepts. Knowing why a Submediant chord can replace a Tonic, I don't think will make one a better musician especially if you have no idea what submediant means, and if you do, do you need to know 'well Em can replace C because they share E and G as notes.' I mean I really think these are things I would find out just sitting around noodlling.
I looked over a song I wrote two years ago, when I basically knew four chords and two scales, and I subbed Em for C...I had no theoretical reason to do this, I just did it because it sounded good.
I learned blues for alice by ear, I have no idea why Charlie Parker chose those chords, other than they sound good and interesting.
I just think if you build your ear up and have interesting sounds in your head, there's no reason to learn theory to the point of academic standards.

[fep]

If I label something a:

VI II V I when I'm analyzing it and listening to it then:

Next time I hear that relationship it will be much easier for my ear to recognize it.

The theory behind it helps me organize it and categorize it in my head which in turn enables me to recognize it when I hear it next time. (That's relative pitch ear training, if you've got perfect pitch then what I'm saying ain't so important.)

Theory is a big help to me in my ear training.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I believe that a little theory goes a long way, and that, if you haven't applied it, it hasn't done you any good.

That said, theory helps me appreciate and understand what's going on in music.

One more: language. Theory helps you communicate with other players.

[ejwhite09]

If I label something a:

VI II V I when I'm analyzing it and listening to it then:

Next time I hear that relationship it will be much easier for my ear to recognize it.

The theory behind it helps me organize it and categorize it in my head which in turn enables me to recognize it when I hear it next time. (That's relative pitch ear training, if you've got perfect pitch then what I'm saying ain't so important.)

Theory is a big help to me in my ear training.

right all I'm saying is being able to label something VI II V I, which I could easily just say, 'oh that sounds like the progression blue moon or la mer....so I could just call it the 'blue moon' or 'la mer' chords and whenever I hear it, I don't need to even think VI II V I, I can just think 'la mer' or 'blue moon.' It's the same thing.
Which is my point, theory is just helping you organize information. But I think instead of just reading a book. I should learn songs. And get them and their chords ingrained in my soul. So when I hear a progression, I don't have to think VI II V I, I can think 'blue moon'.

[ejwhite09]

I believe that a little theory goes a long way, and that, if you haven't applied it, it hasn't done you any good.

That said, theory helps me appreciate and understand what's going on in music.

One more: language. Theory helps you communicate with other players.

I think communicating with other players is the only thing theory really helps with(assuming they also know theory, and assuming they know their theory correctly).

I don't know I think beauty even speaks to the philistin. The song I posted on youtube when I first heard that I had no idea about French. But the music was so beautiful, not only did I spend years learning every song I could find by the guy, I even taught myself French, to understand the words. A perfect parallel to theory. YES, I'll admit understand French has given me a GREATER appreciation for the art, but my appreciation of it wasn't intellectual to begin with, the music just hit me. And 'one good thing about music, when it hits it feels no pain.' Until you start to learn the theory or french behind it

[fep]

right all I'm saying is being able to label something VI II V I, which I could easily just say, 'oh that sounds like the progression blue moon or la mer....so I could just call it the 'blue moon' or 'la mer' chords and whenever I hear it, I don't need to even think VI II V I, I can just think 'la mer' or 'blue moon.' It's the same thing.
Which is my point, theory is just helping you organize information. But I think instead of just reading a book. I should learn songs. And get them and their chords ingrained in my soul. So when I hear a progression, I don't have to think VI II V I, I can think 'blue moon'.

Yep that's just as good if not better.

The best musicians I know do both. For instance they might say, "it's confirmation changes and the bridge modulates up a 4th and it's just a VI II V I".

But they never (or just about never?) say "it's F Em7b5 A7 Dm Cm7 F7alt etc..."

[ejwhite09]

Yep that's just as good if not better.

The best musicians I know do both. For instance they might say, "it's confirmation changes and the bridge modulates up a 4th and it's just a VI II V I".

But they never say "it's F Em7b5 A7 Dm Cm7 F7alt etc..."

Exactly! And I think ( JAZZ CLICHE COMING) it's more hip or whatever, to know changes to (and melodies of) a lot of songs, rather than know the functional harmony of them.

A vocab of progression (in context of song) I feel will help more practically than knowing a lot about functional harmony.

[metalmike31216]

I meant a fourth chord, sorry should have been more clear. And the harmonic minor scale is not the same ascending and descending...the harmonic descends exactly as the natural scale.
See what I mean, it was just an exaggerated example of how assine and in the weeds theory makes things.

The melodic minor scale descends differently in classical music. Not the harmonic minor scale.

But do whatever you want. It doesn't affect anybody but you. If you think you'll do better without it go for it. For me personally, theory has been an incredibly valuable resource for me. Before I knew it I felt like I was always searching in the dark to find things. Now that I understand how things work and why, I'm never in the dark anymore. I know what to do in just about every situation. That, to me, was an incredibly valuable landmark. Learning theory helped me play music much better. It did not detract from my musicality in any sort, it only enhanced it.

I look at it like this:
This note sounds great over this chord. Because I know how that note functions I can use it over any chord in any key. Or, this chord voicing sounds great(lets say a minor iii chord superimposed over a IMaj7). Because I know why that works and how it works, I can use it any time I see a Maj7 chord, not just in this one situation.

Obviously, learning songs and melodies is incredibly valuable. That can never be discounted.

[ejwhite09]

The melodic minor scale descends differently in classical music. Not the harmonic minor scale.

But do whatever you want. It doesn't affect anybody but you. If you think you'll do better without it go for it. For me personally, theory has been an incredibly valuable resource for me. Before I knew it I felt like I was always searching in the dark to find things. Now that I understand how things work and why, I'm never in the dark anymore. I know what to do in just about every situation. That, to me, was an incredibly valuable landmark. Learning theory helped me play music much better. It did not detract from my musicality in any sort, it only enhanced it.

I look at it like this:
This note sounds great over this chord. Because I know how that note functions I can use it over any chord in any key. Or, this chord voicing sounds great(lets say a minor iii chord superimposed over a IMaj7). Because I know why that works and how it works, I can use it any time I see a Maj7 chord, not just in this one situation.

Obviously, learning songs and melodies is incredibly valuable. That can never be discounted.

See melodic natural harmonic just seems convoluted. Like for me its easier to associate the sound.
I dont even have to think m7 goes with these notes. I just think this sounds like that and in that they played these notes, I know my major minor intervals.
I just have found as a practical matter an encylopedic knowledge of songs is a far greater asset than an encylopedic knowledge of theory. Like ive heard a million 6 2 5 1 progressions a million solos and melodies over those chords, so ive found it much better to pull from that. Theory has honestly not helped me play better its helped me talk about music with music majors, but talking with music majors isnt improving my playing either.

And it takes (some) people from doing things that sound good to things which are theorectically clever.
I understand in many ways this a tomateo/tomahto argument. Im just saying I find learning by application more useful than learning by concept.

[morroben]

Im just saying I find learning by application more useful than learning by concept.

I don't see a reason to choose one over the other or separate the two. They work together. There's no such thing as application without something to apply.
I don't think that knowing the name of the color blue made Van Gogh less of an artist. Sure, he could have just "known it when he saw it", but why would you want to work that way?

[cjm]

See melodic natural harmonic just seems convoluted. Like for me its easier to associate the sound.
I dont even have to think m7 goes with these notes. I just think this sounds like that and in that they played these notes, I know my major minor intervals.
I just have found as a practical matter an encylopedic knowledge of songs is a far greater asset than an encylopedic knowledge of theory. Like ive heard a million 6 2 5 1 progressions a million solos and melodies over those chords, so ive found it much better to pull from that. Theory has honestly not helped me play better its helped me talk about music with music majors, but talking with music majors isnt improving my playing either.

And it takes (some) people from doing things that sound good to things which are theorectically clever.
I understand in many ways this a tomateo/tomahto argument. Im just saying I find learning by application more useful than learning by concept.

If heard some astoundingly good guitar players who knew no theory...I suppose they probably grasped the theory more or less intuitively from what they heard...but they couldn't explain it...in many cases couldn't even name the notes of a chord they were playing.

I've also heard some astoundingly bad guitar players who also knew no theory.

Perhaps the problem stems from how we define "knowing theory."

I've known some guys who threw a mean curve ball too...but didn't know classic Newtonian physics from the hole their dog dug in my yard. But they sure as hell knew how to make it break at just the right time.

Playing the guitar isn't just an artistic or intellectual endeavor. It's also athletic, and brings a lot of different senses into the game along with both fine and gross motor skills.

And when you're just messing around with a tune and trying some different things to see how it sounds...you're studying and learning theory whether or not you know the formal language to describe what you just did.

The thing is, music is innate to our species. The music came first, and it wasn't until after we were playing music and listening to music and sharing ideas about music that some one began thinking hard about it and took the first steps to codifying rules.

All of which begs the question of why would a cycle of fourths sound like it was "resolving" to something to a human ear anyway...and not all ears from all cultures, at that. Why half tone scales or quarter tone scales?

In the west, starting with Pythagoras, theorists sought to define what musicians -- who had no theory to guide them -- were already doing.

I don't advocate ignoring all theory...but there are times to set it all aside and actually just listen to what you're playing.

[ejwhite09]

I don't see a reason to choose one over the other or separate the two. They work together. There's no such thing as application without something to apply.
I don't think that knowing the name of the color blue made Van Gogh less of an artist. Sure, he could have just "known it when he saw it", but why would you want to work that way?

Perhaps it works that way for you, not for me. Im not saying application exists apart from concept, but application does not require conceptual knowledge. Reckon you manage your bank account without reading about economic and accounting theory?
Im saying knowing the color blue made Van Gogh no more of an artist.
I think youre getting a bit extreme im not pontificating ignorance.
Im saying if you see enough paintings and paints, you dont need to know blue, which,is relative, in other languages, its another word.
obviously 'why would you want to work that way' is a question vincent was probably asked daily. But thats what makes art and genius when someone comes from a place that baffles.
Knowledge of hue and template dont make the painters hands any more deft, nor does knowledge of shadow make the minds image any more accesible.

Use theory,if it works for yah buddy. Ive found it useless. I used the song I posted as an example, I didnt know a word of french,but when I heard that song I understood it internally I found a soulmate in that music, knowing french really only made it easier to communicate to people it didnt speak to internally.
I find I learn way more sitting in my living room with a friend copping lines off records challenging each other to noodle out progressions, internalizing music.

[ejwhite09]

If heard some astoundingly good guitar players who knew no theory...I suppose they probably grasped the theory more or less intuitively from what they heard...but they couldn't explain it...in many cases couldn't even name the notes of a chord they were playing.

I've also heard some astoundingly bad guitar players who also knew no theory.

Perhaps the problem stems from how we define "knowing theory."

I've known some guys who threw a mean curve ball too...but didn't know classic Newtonian physics from the hole their dog dug in my yard. But they sure as hell knew how to make it break at just the right time.

Playing the guitar isn't just an artistic or intellectual endeavor. It's also athletic, and brings a lot of different senses into the game along with both fine and gross motor skills.

And when you're just messing around with a tune and trying some different things to see how it sounds...you're studying and learning theory whether or not you know the formal language to describe what you just did.

The thing is, music is innate to our species. The music came first, and it wasn't until after we were playing music and listening to music and sharing ideas about music that some one began thinking hard about it and took the first steps to codifying rules.

All of which begs the question of why would a cycle of fourths sound like it was "resolving" to something to a human ear anyway...and not all ears from all cultures, at that. Why half tone scales or quarter tone scales?

In the west, starting with Pythagoras, theorists sought to define what musicians -- who had no theory to guide them -- were already doing.

I don't advocate ignoring all theory...but there are times to set it all aside and actually just listen to what you're playing.

Thank you for two very apt analogies im not out to be a physicist, im out to throw that speedball by yah.

And yes, im not saying, and I,dont think it can be inferred im saying im engaging in a non reflective exercise, im saying I dont need to bother learning circles and progressions by,roman numerals.

I dont think theres a volume of books that has as much theory as spending the day learning completely by ear to play the opening stanza to west end blues.

[AmundLauritzen]

To each his own.
Personally, the knowledge of alterations and extensions that sound good helps me come up with new material to play with. It doesn't matter what triggers your inspiration. But I think you are unlikely to stumble upon some symmetrical diminished intervallic sequence by accident than figuring it out by knowing about the diminished scale. It might spark you to think "Hmm... what if I play these intervals in sequence." And then you play around with that which again sparks something new.
It provides a framework of organizing your knowledge. Without having a system for yourself, every chord sequence and melody you discover are just going to be separate entities unrelated to the rest of your vocabulary.
I think it is invaluable to have the ability to see how one thing is part of another and how you can twist and turns things to make up your own.

I don't think anybody here wants to force you to learn more theory. But it can't hurt to have an open mind. There is not one way in theory. If you feel chord scale theory is not for you, then there are dozens of other approaches in organizing the fretboard. When you learn more melodies to play on a tune, you are subconciously organizing them and associating them to one another. Knowing what makes them tick can only help you to find more applications and may help you to get more mileage out of what you know.

Just saying

[ejwhite09]

To each his own.
Personally, the knowledge of alterations and extensions that sound good helps me come up with new material to play with. It doesn't matter what triggers your inspiration. But I think you are unlikely to stumble upon some symmetrical diminished intervallic sequence by accident than figuring it out by knowing about the diminished scale. It might spark you to think "Hmm... what if I play these intervals in sequence." And then you play around with that which again sparks something new.
It provides a framework of organizing your knowledge. Without having a system for yourself, every chord sequence and melody you discover are just going to be separate entities unrelated to the rest of your vocabulary.
I think it is invaluable to have the ability to see how one thing is part of another and how you can twist and turns things to make up your own.

I don't think anybody here wants to force you to learn more theory. But it can't hurt to have an open mind. There is not one way in theory. If you feel chord scale theory is not for you, then there are dozens of other approaches in organizing the fretboard. When you learn more melodies to play on a tune, you are subconciously organizing them and associating them to one another. Knowing what makes them tick can only help you to find more applications and may help you to get more mileage out of what you know.

Just saying

I disagree.
And I have learned a lot of theory.
I guess I just see it different.
There would be no theory on diminished intervals if someone didnt muck around and play it because it tickled them.
Theory is the result of musicianship, musicians are not the result of theory.
Basic theoretical literacy,is not what im avoiding, I,thought that,was clear.
To me theory just seems how peope hold it their heads. To form a general appliable concept as opposed to drawing on a huge bank of individual samples.
Its not like im advocating the abolishment of the major scale.
But take modes. I learned about them spent a month reading taking lessons got the sound in my head, realized id been using modes alll the time. Because I was just writing wierd songs that I thought sounded cool. I was trying to write an irish ballad(got really into Behan) changing chords to qualities they dont have in the major scale harmony. So while knowing you can mixolydian here or there improves my ability to participate in musical discussion, it didnt improve my playing. or when I staryed listening to django and heard dimished chords and licks, or georges brassens and navigating F#7 Bm7 Gmaj. That month seems it would have been,better spent trying to write a song listening to music fiddling with melodies. because thats,how I learned modes. But all the talk,about modes made them seem like a great key.
So beyond basic literacy theory seems like that saying about college: 'taught me the words for things I already knew.
I still dont know the dimished scale but I know how it should sound and so I can sus out contexts when that sound would sound good, so I can use that chord. I might call it a django chord or gypsy run as some might call a 7#9 a hendrix chord or a maj/min7 a steely dan chord. But as billy shakes said a rose by any other name

[morroben]

To a certain degree, I understand where you're coming from, but some of what you're saying is contradictory.

Perhaps it works that way for you, not for me. Im not saying application exists apart from concept, but application does not require conceptual knowledge. Reckon you manage your bank account without reading about economic and accounting theory?

I find it very useful to understand the basics. How interest rates work, compound, variable rates etc when doing my banking. Further knowledge of economic concepts helps my decision making on investments. I suppose I could just put my money in the bank and take their word for it that things were going to go well, but it doesn't seem like a very wise decision.

I think youre getting a bit extreme im not pontificating ignorance.

I'm beginning to think theory is useless.

Sounds like you are pontificating ignorance to me. Did you mean to say "not the most useful" rather than "useless"?

Im saying if you see enough paintings and paints, you dont need to know blue, which,is relative, in other languages, its another word.

So you're saying that you want to learn your theory through playing, but that learning the terminology drags you down? To each his own, I guess.

obviously 'why would you want to work that way' is a question vincent was probably asked daily. But thats what makes art and genius when someone comes from a place that baffles.

I expect he knew his brushes and colors, shading, texture etc. The cutting off the ear thing...that baffles me...

Knowledge of hue and template dont make the painters hands any more deft, nor does knowledge of shadow make the minds image any more accesible.

I think knowledge helps.

Use theory,if it works for yah buddy. Ive found it useless.

Another vote for ignorance?

I find I learn way more sitting in my living room with a friend copping lines off records challenging each other to noodle out progressions, internalizing music.

I agree with this 100%. I just don't see it as a reason to avoid theory. Just because theory isn't the most useful thing, doesn't make it useless. I absolutely learn more from playing music, particularly playing with others, than I do from studying theory...but I still learn something when I'm studying theory. It's not useless.

But hey, we all find our own path. I'm sure we agree that the end result, the music, is what really matters.

[JonR]

IMO, the problem (and it's a common one) is a disconnection between the sound the concept. It's hearing all these theoretical terms and not really seeing how they help in grasping the sound (either in understanding it or in producing it). And often not seeing even how they might help in just talking about it.
But all musicians conceptualize what they do in some form - that's "theory" of a kind. IOW, we all use whatever theoretical terms we see the need for. I don't suppose any of us would want to refer to a chord as "look, I put my fingers in this shape", rather than "C7", or whatever. "C7" is a theoretical label: it contains assumptions about theoretical rules that many of us take for granted, having forgotten that once upon a time it would have looked like a bizarre symbol. We learned that theory and absorbed it as a natural part of what we know.
Then further down the line we come up against other bizarre, arcane formulations: stuff like "melodic minor", or "secondary dominants", or "tritone substitutes", or "augmented 6ths". We'll go "huh?" at those too - until we find ourselves playing some music which puts flesh on them. "Oh - is that all it is?"

IOW, if we say "we don't need theory", what we mean is we don't need theory whose application we haven't encountered yet. We don't mean the theory we already know, that we've forgotten we ever learned.

Theory is only labels, in the end. We may not need labels. But they can be useful.

As another analogy, it's a map of the strange country we're all exploring. The map doesn't show everything; and it also shows a lot of places we're not interested in visiting (at least not right now...). We can get by pretty well in the local area with no map at all. We learn the various routes by trial and error, and if we get lost we can follow other people who look like they know where they're going. In this way, we make our own map. If it works, it's a good map. And if it's a good map, then it will match the official one (that we think we don't need), at least in the details that concern us. The place names might be different - but we know where they all are and how to get there, which is what matters (usually).
The important thing about a map is it doesn't tell you where to go! It just lays everything out, and the choice is yours.
At the same time, there are people who love maps, and will wander around with their head buried in it, making sure they stick to the paths, rather than enjoying the scenery. If they encounter anything that's not on the map, they'll assume it's unimportant and ignore it; the trust the map more than their own experience.
But it would be wrong to dismiss the whole idea of a map just because of those dumb people who give it too much authority. You can just stick it your back pocket and pull it out if and when you need it. Maybe you never need it; but it's there in case you do.

[ejwhite09]

To a certain degree, I understand where you're coming from, but some of what you're saying is contradictory.

I find it very useful to understand the basics. How interest rates work, compound, variable rates etc when doing my banking. Further knowledge of economic concepts helps my decision making on investments. I suppose I could just put my money in the bank and take their word for it that things were going to go well, but it doesn't seem like a very wise decision.


Sounds like you are pontificating ignorance to me. Did you mean to say "not the most useful" rather than "useless"?

So you're saying that you want to learn your theory through playing, but that learning the terminology drags you down? To each his own, I guess.

I expect he knew his brushes and colors, shading, texture etc. The cutting off the ear thing...that baffles me...

I think knowledge helps.

Another vote for ignorance?

I agree with this 100%. I just don't see it as a reason to avoid theory. Just because theory isn't the most useful thing, doesn't make it useless. I absolutely learn more from playing music, particularly playing with others, than I do from studying theory...but I still learn something when I'm studying theory. It's not useless.

But hey, we all find our own path. I'm sure we agree that the end result, the music, is what really matters.

Lots of things are useless. I think that requires knowledge of it to determine it has no use.
I know a lot of guns and economic theory but I find them useless.

And your analogy,is what im saying. You know the applications of economic and accounting theory, yont know value theory, propensity to save, price theory. You need to jnow the interest rate, not how the future price of capital affects its effect on the labor supply.

Im sure vincent knew a lot about painting technique, I also know from theos bio he learned alot about that through experimentation trying to pull his minds image out and on to canvass.

[morroben]

EXACTLY! So you're not really saying that theory is useless. You're saying that there is a certain amount of theory that is useful, and that you want to learn it through experience and experimentation, but you don't see the need to go further.
That's not what "useless" means.

And for what it's worth, I studied economics in college, and I do find it useful.

[ejwhite09]

IMO, the problem (and it's a common one) is a disconnection between the sound the concept. It's hearing all these theoretical terms and not really seeing how they help in grasping the sound (either in understanding it or in producing it). And often not seeing even how they might help in just talking about it.
But all musicians conceptualize what they do in some form - that's "theory" of a kind. IOW, we all use whatever theoretical terms we see the need for. I don't suppose any of us would want to refer to a chord as "look, I put my fingers in this shape", rather than "C7", or whatever. "C7" is a theoretical label: it contains assumptions about theoretical rules that many of us take for granted, having forgotten that once upon a time it would have looked like a bizarre symbol. We learned that theory and absorbed it as a natural part of what we know.
Then further down the line we come up against other bizarre, arcane formulations: stuff like "melodic minor", or "secondary dominants", or "tritone substitutes", or "augmented 6ths". We'll go "huh?" at those too - until we find ourselves playing some music which puts flesh on them. "Oh - is that all it is?"

IOW, if we say "we don't need theory", what we mean is we don't need theory whose application we haven't encountered yet. We don't mean the theory we already know, that we've forgotten we ever learned.

Theory is only labels, in the end. We may not need labels. But they can be useful.

As another analogy, it's a map of the strange country we're all exploring. The map doesn't show everything; and it also shows a lot of places we're not interested in visiting (at least not right now...). We can get by pretty well in the local area with no map at all. We learn the various routes by trial and error, and if we get lost we can follow other people who look like they know where they're going. In this way, we make our own map. If it works, it's a good map. And if it's a good map, then it will match the official one (that we think we don't need), at least in the details that concern us. The place names might be different - but we know where they all are and how to get there, which is what matters (usually).
The important thing about a map is it doesn't tell you where to go! It just lays everything out, and the choice is yours.
At the same time, there are people who love maps, and will wander around with their head buried in it, making sure they stick to the paths, rather than enjoying the scenery. If they encounter anything that's not on the map, they'll assume it's unimportant and ignore it; the trust the map more than their own experience.
But it would be wrong to dismiss the whole idea of a map just because of those dumb people who give it too much authority. You can just stick it your back pocket and pull it out if and when you need it. Maybe you never need it; but it's there in case you do.

I agree alot with that, but id say this. Its like once I learned to read, and learned what the signs on the,interstate mean as far as routes and spurs and the cardinal directions, who needs a map. I dont believe in getting lost, I know where I came from, where I wanted to go, I can find my way back to where I was so anywhere I end up must be for reason and everywhere has something interesting about it to learn(even in winnipeg)! And when yah find something cool yah make a note of it file it away pull it out when yah need it.
I just find theory erroneous to making music. And if I,have to learn a concept and then learn what it sounds like, why not just avoid the classroom time and jump in.

[ejwhite09]

EXACTLY! So you're not really saying that theory is useless. You're saying that there is a certain amount of theory that is useful, and that you want to learn it through experience and experimentation, but you don't see the need to go further.
That's not what "useless" means.

And for what it's worth, I studied economics in college, and I do find it useful.

Yes beyond basic literacy its useless. I studied econ too, its pretty useless, the theory, you seriously didnt feel like micro theory was putting labels on concepts you already sussed out? I learned game theory in a police car trying to avoid getting busted in high school, the concept, so all I learned was when a cop tells you youve been ratted on so you should just rat, thats called a prisoner dilema, but the concept of gaming a situation,to your advantage is intuitive, or learned by experience, all the label does is shorten the story. So id say game theory, though I learned a lot about it is,useless to me(and remember im not telling people to not learn,theory im saying for me its just labeling experience.

Useless means I have no use for it. Learning a scale never helped me, I,have,use no for theoretical labels. What I have a use for is sound. Which learning theory isnt doing for me. Theorys produced no eurekas. Basically im forming my own theorems in,essence. But I have,no use for books or scales or arppegios, to me they are useless.
I know the notes intuitively from so much playing by ear, I dont need theory to map it out. My ears good so I just hear a note I know where it,is I know what chord is playing. Could I name it no. but I could hear it, and I know enough music to find an idea and play,it.