Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Why study theory.

It is not that at all. Debussy and Bartok probably used the scales on top of a chord progression. There are no chords in Chinese Traditional music. I can also point out that even the number of keys are more limited than in Western music. There are two ways to tune a piano, and one of them makes it such that you have a "wolf fifth." Since that was never developed here, then you will also not hear modulation within traditional music because the scales don't make sense relative to one another. (Stevie Wonder's "Superwoman" starts out in C and then moves to F#minor. There has probably never been a traditional song written that does that.) If you go to places where people are playing zithers, they are also quite challenged to find any chords--because they just aren't in the habit of using them.

You still haven't said anything. Lang Lang plays classical music, and that is playing music that was already written out centuries ago. If you put him at a piano duel against that jerk Keith Jarret and asked them to improvise something, I think I know who would win.
Nope. It is just a statement of fact.

Hi,

I have never understood the worth of stuying theory.

Music is IMO expressing or recepting feelings "painted" with sounds instead of colours and words.

A musical ear, a sense of rhythm, and good piano playing technique are the prerequisites of playing the piano. By studying and performing different kinds of music, you will gradually learn to know scales, harmonies etc, a knowlegde that you can apply when memorising pieces or even improvising or composing. A good musical memory (melody and harmony) is also required. Absolute pitch not. Theory????

You cannot write anything with the support of plain theory without mastering the playing technique and knowing the physical restrictions. You cannot improvise what you want if you have no feelings or musical ideas and do not have enough technique.


Can anybody explain the theories and musical laws behind every note in Rachmaninoff's Etudes-Tableax? I do not think so... Perhaps it is possible with Bach or some folk music. That kind of music can, to some extent, be produced by a computer program. But hardly anything in the style of Rachmaninoff or Chopin. Sorry!

So how can I benefit from theory when working on Rach, Chopin, Grieg, Debussy?

- - - - -

Just finishing Rachmaninoff's Prelude Op 3/2, which I find quite easy. Repeating Heino Kaski's "Pankakoski" prelude. Dreaming of beginning on Chopin's Fantasy-Impromtu.

Uh, I'm agreeing with you?

Feels good to get some support, as most comments in this thread have emphasized the importance of knowing theory.

Further - I am sure most traditional tunes has been born the natural way, by inspiration and not by applying musical theories.

By analysing music you will find some patterns or elements that match each other in a good way. And I agree that there are certain combination or of notes that will not be accepted neihter now or in the future....Hm you never know about the future. Who had been able to digest romantic music, modern classical, or Jazz in the era of Palestrina? Stravinskij would have been declared insane or even burned.

Theory helps with understanding. The more you understand the music the more you can work with it, and the easier it will be to play and memorize.

An example using the 12 bar blues in E...

No theory: See the notes play, play the notes, make sure you play the 4 sharps where you see F,G,C & D.

Some theory: I know this starts on E and I will be playing A and B chords.

Known theory: Since I know my I,IV,and V7 in most keys, and the basic blues structure, when someone says let's play a 12 bar blues, name the key and lets get started!

Is that theory, or simply recognizing what you have learnt to play? Or kind of agreement of what you are going to play?

You can also call it a description in musical terms of what you play, but what is the theory?

In general in music there are innumerous patterns and combinations. There are not rules enough for everything you will encounter.

Eh, jazz can apparently be produced by computer programmes if it that simple.

"Can anybody explain the theories and musical laws behind every note in Rachmaninoff's Etudes-Tableax?"
Of course they can. Music works the way it does, because of certain guiding principles.

"You cannot write anything with the support of plain theory without mastering the playing technique and knowing the physical restrictions."
Yes, you can. One doesn't need to play an instrument (and there are many examples of this) to compose.

But in order not to write music that is impossible to
perform, you must get aquainted with practical piano playing.

And with theory only you will never produce anything similar to Chopin and Rachmaninoff How much did they think about theory when composing? Are there any evidence?

I believe our greatest composers were genial and they mastered the piano technically too. Afterwards you might find some structures in their music that you describe and name universal music patterns. But to create a theory that explains everything will be an overwhelming task.

And it would certainly be so complicated (rules and exeptions) that it would be of no use for performing pianists.

My 2 cents:

I studied theory by myself. Learned the chords, arpeggios, inversions, common progressions, etc. This makes learning and playing music MUCH easier. Since sheet music is just patterns and sequences, theory helps make sense of all of it so you don't have to memorize each single note.

It's kind of like when you're young, you memorize the single digit times tables: 1x1, 1x2, ... 2x3, 2x4 ... up to 9x9. Then later you can multiply larger numbers without writing out a table since you know the underlying principles.

Yes, you recognize patterns. You learn scales and arpeggios. But is that a theory?

If a piece starts with A and B, what is the next note? Which harmony has to be chosen?

I say, in barock music you can predict what follows (a dozen alternatives) but in romantic music not. And now we are only focusing on the melody and harmony....

Music is much more than theory.

You learn music by listening and playing, not by reading books about theory



"Grau, teurer Freund, ist alle Theorie,
und grün des Lebens gold'ner Baum" (Goethe)

Of course composers think theoretically. How do you think Beethoven, for example, in the "Largo" section, that acts as an introduction/transition between the third and fourth movements of the Hammerklavier, was able to do what he did? He modulates through no less than four keys in 46 measures, before arriving at the key of the fugue. Do you think he just sat down and sort of felt his way along? No. In fact, Beethoven was stone deaf at this point. As a result, it's because of his superior theoretical knowledge that he was still able to create such masterpieces. Of course, Beethoven, was one of the most brilliant musical geniuses to ever walk the face of the earth, but he was firmly grounded in theory and a simple analysis of his works is all the proof one needs to arrive at this conclusion. You don't, however, need to analyse his scores to come to this realization, since it's well know that he studied composition with Neefe, Haydn and Salieri. Chopin studied composition with Jozef Elsner. Rachmaninoff studied composition with Arensky and Taneyev. What does one learn when studying composition? Theory and it's applications.
Just because you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it's importance diminishes. The next time you go to hear a great pianist in recital ask them (if they do the meet and greet thing) afterward how they feel about the importance of theory and if it has affected their playing.
By the way, what's barock music?

It's how "baroque" is spelled in Germanic languages.

David Cope, a composer and professor emeritus of the University of California, Santa Cruz, created a program called Experiments in Musical Intelligence, which can compose music in many styles. It can imitate the styles of various composers. For samples of compositions in the styles of Chopin, Beethoven, and Mahler, please visit this site.
Experiments in Musical Intelligence - samples

Yes. That's what I think he did.

Then, no offense, but you're clueless.

Were you there when lovely Ludwig composed? Then how do you know?

I think that Beethoven was extremely methodical in his composition. His works are so structured that they're used extensively in music analysis classes. Also, even though he became deaf, he read the scores of other composers and spent time proof-reading his own compositions. There may be composers who 'go with the flow' and throw formal theory out the window but Ludwig wasn't one of them.

When composing, analysis is the last thing on a composer's mind (hopefully.) It's about 'feeling' and transmitting that to paper. Sure, they're schooled in theory, harmony, etc, but the act of creating is a very fluid one. To stop and think is a no no.

Without going into too much detail, let's look at it this way. Being that, Beethoven, was stone deaf at the time he composed the "Hammerklavier", how, exactly, would he FEEL his way along.