I'm curious what the opinions are on whether taking theory is as beneficial as playing. Looking through the theory books (alfreds adult piano course theory) i'm around book 3 as there are some things in there that I had forgotten all about over the years. (like scale degrees :p)

Does everyone do theory in addition to the practicing or do you just look up new things as they come along?

If you do study the theory books do you find it helps in the playing?

As long as you are just reading the notes from the page, you can play without knowing any theory except for rhythm and key signatures. But if you ever want to play by ear or from a lead sheet you better know some theory. Also if you ever decide you would like to compose, you need to know all the theory you can get.

But theory is also very helpful in reading because it helps you understand what the composer is doing and why. It helps in learning and memorising too if you can recognise the chord changes and chord progressions.

I get the impression most people here are doing a mix.

Everything helps everything else!

There is theory in everything and it helps your playing to understand what you are playing. Like Joe said, even with classical reading, it helps to know what key you're in, what the scale degrees are (to take from your example) etc. Sometimes thinking of the theory can unlock something you've struggled with in your playing. Especially if you get into things like jazz chords. Also, understanding common chord progressions in pop songs can help you identify them by ear. All things to help get more out of your playing.

So I'd say, not necessary, but definitely helpful to achieve great playing.

Depends what you mean by 'theory'. These days, most of what is taught as 'theory' is actually about the mechanics of music notation. In contrast to what most posters have said, I think this kind of theory _is_ essential to performance. For example, many new pianists don't realize that many notes can be written either on the bass or treble clef, and that a division into bass and treble clefs does not necessarily impose an allocation to left hand and right hand (of course, often it does). These are the kinds of 'theory' that are covered in the ABRSM syllabus up to about grade 5, and which I don't really think of as theory at all. Personally, I would argue that theory of this kind is essential for performance -- which is why the ABRSM insists on it for all practical examinations beyond gr. 5.

What I think of as theory is scarcely taught, and even more scarcely understood. I'm thinking of such issues as why we use the note pitches we do and why we perceive some intervals and consonant and dissonant; the structure and form of music; construction of melodies; the function and orgnazation of key modulation; the relationships between keys and modes; that kind of stuff. Arguable you don't need any of this to be a good performer, but you certainly need it to compose, and it's probably helpful for improvision. And it's interesting, in a way that what we now call 'theory' really isn't.

Music without theory is like trying to run a race with one leg missing. People do it. They're handicapped.

Study however and whenever you can. Just study. Learn what you are doing.

Thank you for saying this. I remember at my first few lessons my teacher would say "Now we will talk about theory!" I listened with great excitement as I thought she was going to shed light on some of the things I had always wondered about as a listener. To my disappointment, she said something along the lines of

Here is a whole note. Here is a half note. Here is a quarter note. In a time signature of 4/4.........I won't go on, you get the idea and I am sure that we have all had this lesson. I thought to myself, "These are facts, not theory."

I distinctly recall discussing my disappointment with my husband when I returned home. I should point out that we are both research psychologists and our use and understanding of the the word theory is fundamentally different from how I saw it being used in my piano lesson.

I went out and bought a theory book shortly afterward. Guess what? Seems to adhere to my teacher's definition of theory in that the same sort of content is covered in it. Perhaps the most interesting thing happened when I asked one of my colleagues in the music department which courses I might be able to take (as a non-major) to better my understanding of theory. He said, "Aren't you getting a lot of theory in your piano lessons?"

So, do you happen to know where the topics you have described above would be covered? Perhaps something called "Musicology?"

Kevin,

I could not agree more. I have been reading on this Forum for only a short time, and I am amazed at the triviality that is currently considered "Theory". It seems we used to refer to much of this very basic material, ie. meter signatures, key signatures, scales, modes, intervals, rhythmic prolation, and that realm, as "Rudiments".

Rudiments, as the term implies, are essential for playing - they form the "how". Traditional theory, while not absolutely necessary for correct performance, forms a whole other "layer" of understanding - it is the "why"

Ed

Christine,

Unless "they" have dumbed-down that too, there is a classic Walter Piston text that says it all, and in very orderly and intelligent manner.

Another recent post on this Forum reminded me that Arnold Schoenberg produced at least two basic texts on traditional theory, one of which I own, named "Sturctural Functions of Harmony".

Both of these start off with a very quick review of Rudiments, primarily to ensure that the writer and the reader are using the same nomenclature.

Ed

I think whether it's true or not, many teachers seem to feel that the very fundamental act of reading music is by far the biggest challenge and impediment to adult students. And maybe it is, I'm no teacher.

So piano lessons spend a lot of time learning how to read notation. The so-called "music theory" becomes insted basically...more learning how to read notation. At some point the new skill of "sight reading" gets added to the curriculum.

But realistically it is undeniably important to be able to read all those details on a piece of sheet music, isn't is? Having learned all that notation stuff at a very young age I haven't a clue as to whether it's really necessary for the greater majority of "learning to play the piano" to be consuming with "learning to read notation" if you're an adult with no prior musical background. Is there any way around it?

Maybe someone a few years into the process can tell me. Or an experienced teacher. Starting from scratch how long until an adult beginner piano student is introduced to the harmonized major scale? Just for instance, that seems to be as good a spot as any that is "real music theory" and not yet not a particularly advanced concept. Or alternatively how far along in learning to play piano are the basic cadences explained?

Perhaps I should ask this in the Teachers sub-forum...

P.S. I wonder if the folks who called note-reading "Theory" would prefer to call these types of topics "Harmony" instead?

I will look into the sources you mentioned. Thank you so much Ed!!!

I have been self teaching since August and have been working through the theory books that correspond to my playing books, namely, Snell Theory level 1 and Abrsm grade 1 theory materials. So far Snell is much more advanced with circle of 5ths and the framework of major and minor triads and scales. However the Abrsm has an interesting rhythm component and aural training. I believe a well rounded musical education encompasses theory study. BTW Snell level 2 introduces cadences and harmonized work.

We might be getting a little hung up on what is called "theory" and what is merely building blocks. To that point, I'd say, you have to understand what numbers are before you can do math theory. Are numbers theory or just facts? 2+2=4 is a fact, but adding numbers together is a theory (or at least a concept).

I agree with what you are saying. Learning music is more than just stating the facts. For example, in teaching rhythm, I don't even go over half notes, quarters, eighths at first. I work on feeling a rhythm, downbeats and upbeats. Once a student can feel it, then I say "Ok, now this is what it looks like". So I think understanding, or sometimes what I call practical theory, is important. What good is it to know a quarter note gets a beat if you can't feel a beat?

To answer your question Brent, for my students that want to learn chord theory (and not classical music), once they can play all of their major and minor chords and understand scales, I start to teach them how the chords are related and how to pick them out of a song by ear. I'd say 2 months or so into lessons. I try to build that skill early on. I like teaching students how to hear the chords of a song and pick them out. Really depends on how motivated the student is too.