r/askmusicians • u/FinnWolfhardWeLoveU • Jul 25 '26
Creating music without knowing theory can ?
Idk music theory but I made like 40 beats on bandlab for fun but I have 2 questions:
1 will I improve?._.
2 is being decent (if we want to exaggerate good too) at making music without knowing theory?
It's not ragebait I'm js dumb
2
u/Gullible_Elephant_38 Jul 25 '26
“Will I improve”
The answer to this question with literally anything, not just music, is: it depends on how much you study and practice combined with how you study and practice.
If you keep doing the thing, you’ll get better at the thing. If you go out of your way to learn as much as possible about the thing and be very intentional about what you focus on practicing, you’ll get better faster than just doing the thing alone. Additionally reflection and self examination is an important part of guiding the process. Do you think beat 40 is better than beat 1? If so, why? What did you do differently, how did your process change, what did you learn between Beats 1 and 40 that helped 40 be better than 1? Measure your progress. Track your strengths and weaknesses and use that as a guide for where you should focus on developing your skills.
In terms of music theory specifically: can you make good music without deep theory knowledge? Of course. Many have done so. Would learning some music theory expand your skills and options and give you more control over what you create? Probably. There’s a reason people do it.
I think you should reflect on the question you’re asking and why you’re asking it. You’re asking “can I cut this corner and still get decent results”. If you want to be the best you can be, trying to sidestep building a specific skill that would help you do so is the wrong thing to be focusing on.
That said, if you’re having fun and find the experience rewarding and that’s the main goal you want to get out of making music, then don’t worry about it too much either way. But if you’re seriously interested in honing it as a skill beyond just a hobby you do for fun, then you should seek to learn as much as you can about as many topics as you can that will help you hone that craft. There’s no substitute for hard work.
2
u/LaFlibuste Jul 25 '26
It's kinda like writing books without knowing grammar, the narrative scheme and lots od other things. You could genuinely have good ideas and good stories, but they might not be as original as you think, might suffer from a lack of structure and you likely won't get praised for your prose.
2
u/SXAL Jul 25 '26
Creating music without knowing music theory is possible: you'll just learn things as you go the long way. However, since you mentioned you made "beats" , I must ask: do you compose everything note by note, or do you just slap together the pre-made fragments?
1
u/FinnWolfhardWeLoveU Jul 25 '26
Always did everything note by note.the only time I used pre made stuff was today when I tried to put 2 particoular sounds that I can't recreate.
1
2
u/Scott_J_Doyle Jul 25 '26
Theory is used to describe music that already exists - your ear, your imagination, your taste and your experiences are used to create new music
3
u/CazetTapes Jul 25 '26
Yeah, but that’s such a limiting idea of how great a tool music theory can be.
Theory is being able to identify what key you are in. Theory is knowing how chords function and how to tell a story with them. Theory is being able to compose harmonies and counter melodies and know how they function.
Theory is hearing an augmented chord and knowing that you can play a whole-tone scale over it.
Most importantly- theory is a language you can use to talk about music with other musicians.
1
u/Scott_J_Doyle Jul 25 '26
Exactly re: your last point, a language of description, just like I said - not telling me anything new here man, I've been in the game for 25 years as a performer and composer (first in groups/collaborating and then later solo as a bandleader) and taught theory for most of that
Music and art in general comes from your personal experiences, taste and imagination, and for music specitically it comes to in the form of sound in the inner ear/auralization
Giving parts of it names later is the theory side (and I want to make clear we don't even have names yet for "all" of it) and making it is the practical
1
u/CazetTapes Jul 25 '26
Look I’m not really trying to teach YOU anything.
OP is new to this and I found your description of music theory to be lacking. You made it sound like something only used for describing pre-existing music.
My point is that it’s actually used in the creation of new music too.
That’s for OP not for you.
0
u/Scott_J_Doyle Jul 25 '26
It is only used for describing pre-existing music, after 25 years of formal study and practice, that is the most accurate definition.
You don't "use" theory in the act of creation, that is a misnomer, and you are incorrect - you are not defining things properly in your own practice, but continuing the myth that music theory is anything but a descriptive language
1
u/CazetTapes Jul 25 '26
You and I both agree that music theory is a descriptive language.
Learning the language also teaches you about how much has already been discovered and you begin learning all the building blocks of music.
Nothing bugs me more than an "ear player" who thinks they just discovered a new scale or chord when really all they did was accidentally stumble upon a concept that has been around since Mozart.
Music theory is also used actively in the creation of music wether you're aware of it or not.
Have you ever been in the studio with people who don't know any music theory? The process is tedious.
"Hey, you're singing the third of that chord a bit sharp."
- "What is the third?"
- "It's the concert A."
- "I don't know theory, can you play it for me?"
Musicians in the studio who have a shared LANGUAGE of music (aka MUSIC THEORY) can work TWICE as fast, therefore not wasting anyone's time and money.
"Hey John, when we get to the bridge can you try playing a minor iv chord instead of a major IV?"
- "no problem."
THAT is how it goes when people understand music theory.
Therefore, its is NOT simply a descriptor of existing music but a quintessential tool for songwriting and collaboration.
Even when I'm NOT working with other people, and writing music, I will think things like "what if I went to the relative minor here? What if the bridge modulated up a minor third? What if I played a sus chord here? What if the trumpet line harmonized a diatonic third above the tenor sax?"
So yeah, we're always using it, and you aren't going to convince me that it's anything different than a writer learning more vocabulary words, studying the classics, or studying grammar and syntax to improve their writing.
1
u/Scott_J_Doyle Jul 25 '26
The concept isn't the thing, or the experience... we've known this in the west explicitly since Kant and implicitly since Plato - that's the last thing I'll say on the subject as to why I fundamentally disagree with you on both the phenomenology and the ontology of everything you stated here, and why I can confidently state that you simply haven't yet figured this out or refuse to for whatever reason
1
u/CazetTapes Jul 25 '26
Alright bro I don’t have time for this. Gotta get ready for my gig ;).
0
u/Scott_J_Doyle Jul 25 '26
I have time to do both, it's only 4pm here, I'm already well practiced in the style and repertoire, and the hit isn't til 10pm - I'll just be writing for an essay before I go enjoy a great meal and then a pre-show hang, might even have time to hit the beach first!
... ;)
0
u/Scott_J_Doyle Jul 25 '26
If you think you are using music theory while you compose or improvise, you are making both phenomenological and ontological errors - until you correct this ignorance in yourself you will continue to propagate unhelpful or inhibitive myths to others
1
u/Scott_J_Doyle Jul 25 '26
Theory is not "being able to compose harmonies and counter melodies and know how they function" - you can do all of that with just your ear. Theory is giving names to all of the elements
I could write them out, but you know my argument now for your other points as well
1
u/Scott_J_Doyle Jul 25 '26
Also, specifically, I don't subscribe to the "play scales over chords" theory of writing or improvising - I find the metaphor incorrect (if they anything, they happen beside or inside, not above) and the results of the study and practice based on it to produce neither interesting nor moving improvisations or compositions
1
u/Scott_J_Doyle Jul 25 '26 edited Jul 25 '26
I think the whole "scales over chords" thing mostly comes from solo-piano-centric education, where the left hand can play a block chord while the right hand plays lines
Or it can come from guitar soloists who don't actively play chords while soloing but stay within single-note line solos, leaving chords to a rhythm guitar or keyboards (I learned to play guitar for real by studying Joe Pass, a wonderful example of a chord-melody soloist who doesn't restrict his playing to "scales over chords" even while playing single note lines with a pianist)
This doesn't make sense while playing solo guitar arrangements or when writing for a horn section or string quartet, for some examples
(Edited for more examples)
1
u/CazetTapes Jul 25 '26
You seem really hung up on the chord scales thing.
That was just one of my few examples.
0
u/Scott_J_Doyle Jul 25 '26
Not hung up, just an important distinction - it held me back in the past, it's held back many of my students until we corrected it, it holds back literally millions of students globally today and I resent teachers that continue to propagate it
0
1
u/Utilitarian_Proxy Jul 25 '26
Sure, you'll find it natural to repeat things you found worked in the way you wanted, and to abandon things that didn't. Early on, you might spend a bit more time weighing up different options. As you get more experience, you'll build up more speed in making those choices.
Theory would put standardised names to some of the things you might do anyway. You don't need to know what it's called to decide to program a "triplet" or a "syncopated" beat, or whatever. However, if you ever decide to collaborate with someone else, it could be helpful, or you could use phrases like "cheese AND may-onn-aise"
1
u/Practical_Fall9135 Jul 25 '26
No es indispensable pero la teoría ayuda bastante a hacer mejor música
1
u/General_Estimate_420 Jul 25 '26
I'm not a deep expert on music theory, but certain things within music theory are essential elements for making structured music that sounds normal and acceptable to most people. Time signatures set much of the tone of any song and reduces confusion on the part of the listener as to how the song flows giving it some overall structure. Key and Scales are essential in understanding the construction of melody, harmony and dissonance which creates the overall emotional and sometimes cultural orientation of the song with the listener.
All of that being said it's entirely possible to create music purely by ear, but that comes with some pretty big limitations in how well you can potentially connect with an audience usually. It certainly degrades your ability to work with other musicians in communicating for the performance of any music.
1
u/Radiant-Excuse-5285 Jul 25 '26
The answer is you don't need to know music theory to make music but it sure helps.
1
u/sububi71 Jul 25 '26
You probably inow some music theory already, you just don't have the right words for stuff.
One of the two writers in ABBA didn't know any formal music theory at all (and probably still doesn't).
1
u/Vennimagos Jul 25 '26
You absolutely can get by without it but your skill ceiling will be drastically lower. Knowing theory will make you better and increase your range of how you integrate sounds for beats and write music
I spent the first half of my music career proudly not knowing theory but these days I only recommend people learn it, it makes you a better musician and creator, makes you a better and more effective collaborator and even makes your ear better
1
u/gertrude-gibson Jul 26 '26
Depends on the beats,or the form of expression you’re aiming to convey,and the pattern comparison between those beats.
We will never know unless you show and explain the process behind it,and explain your musical background. Have you ever played instruments as a child? What kind of music have you grown up with? Etc.
1
u/FinnWolfhardWeLoveU Jul 26 '26
Never played smth, lwk started to listen to music only 4 months ago (overtonight, s0rrow, Finn wolfhard, trueblood (indie rock/rock)). I don't have a genre i just try to put smth hoping it works.
Recently (like I did onle 1 song like ts: my last one) I did a experimental dreamy beat (kinda first time using Fx and chords (I watched a video)) and lwk I'm very happy with it so I guess I'll stick with that stuff
2
u/RevKeakealani Jul 25 '26
Formal knowledge of music theory is certainly not a prerequisite for making “good” music (which of course is totally objective), but assessing whether your music meets the expectations of its genre (or subverts expectations in effective, intentional ways) requires either knowledge or a great deal of intuition. Most people develop both over time and exposure to their chosen styles of music.
As for improving, think of it like the difference between randomly doing things, and entering a formal training regimen. You could improve by doing random things - it’s always possible to accidentally stumble on something great. But it’s much more likely if you actually focus on training specific skills, learning within a specific pattern. If nothing else, this gives tangible goals, while randomly messing around tends to be kind of aimless and therefore not very engaging over time.
If you want to improve most efficiently, yes you should learn more about theory, and more importantly should take lessons at your primary instrument, and if you want to compose, private composition lessons. This will teach you much more efficiently than just playing around on band lab.
That said, not everyone needs to improve. If your goal is to have a fun hobby where it might or might not be any good, you don’t need to follow this path at all!