The Point of Music Theory

I love music theory. When I say this in polite company, I often get bemused expressions and outright surprise. I think that this is because music theory is misunderstood. Music theory gets associated with erudite, complicated analysis techniques or “rules” that many musicians find stifling.

Music theory is not rules. It is not scales or harmonic analysis, it is not really even an academic pursuit, though we can look at it as any of these things.

Music theory is an attempt to answer the question, “Why is THIS music good"?

(NOT “what makes music good,” which seems much more perilous and unanswerable, but a focused attempt to discuss a specific experience.)

Music theory is a shared context and vocabulary for discussing the enjoyment of music.

Music theory is an unavoidable part of experiencing music. In a common formation of theory, we label pop songs with“verse” and “chorus.” Or even if you don’t use these words, you notice the similarity from one part in a song to another. You likely also notice the sense of completion at the end of a song. Maybe you discuss this with your friends and maybe decide to call the way chords move to create that sense of completion a “Cadence” and music theory continues to evolve from there.

Context

Music theory gives us the ability to predict where music will flow. This happens without even trying. When listening to a song, you have hundreds of previous songs to guide your expectations. A good composer leverages those expectations in both directions, building on the theories of music their song exists within and also violating them artificially to make their art interesting.

Vocabulary

Music theory gives us a shared language for discussing what we like and don’t like. We can say, “I like the verse but not the chorus,” or “The way the composer uses the submediant to modulate the supertonic was just brilliant.” While spoken by different types of music students, they are both expressions of music theory.

Enjoyment

Music theory makes music more enjoyable.

It is similar to watching a movie for a book you have read. You notice the filmmaker’s choices that diverge from your expectations, both for good and bad. You are an “insider.” You can hear more of the composer’s intent and the performer’s brilliance.

This is not limited to conservatory students. If you obsessively listen to a given rock band, you will find ways to describe what makes their music great. You might label it with a new genre; you might notice a penchant for ending songs on a given chord. As you discuss it with other music lovers, your collective language for talking about what makes that rock band great develops.

Over centuries, that shared vocabulary gets written down and maybe even put in textbooks. Still, there is nothing special about an augmented chord or a picardy third beyond the fact that they are names for things we like about music.

Music Theory trails innovation

Sometimes, people say, “You need to know the rules so you can violate them.” This has always seemed a bit off to me because music theory isn’t “rules” at all. It’s observations made of musical experience.

Is that helpful to learn if you want to compose? Seems likely. The best way to create something new is to start by copying something you think was great. This is sort of like saying, “follow the rules,” but as I expect any composer has experienced, upon attempting to make such a copy, your mind takes you in new directions and new explorations. For a while, we all thought that parallel fifths were a bad idea, and then here comes Debussy, and suddenly we say, ok, well, that’s actually beautiful. I doubt Debussy set out to break such a rule, he just made some music, and our theory evolved.

The point is that composition doesn’t require “breaking the rules.” There are, and have never been, rules. There are brilliant musical minds who create music we want to emulate, and this is codified and entombed as somehow sacrosanct, incorrectly, until another brilliant musical mind takes our theory of what makes music great in a new direction, and our theory expands because of it.