Be a theorylet

Question implies I'm listening to nothing, living in a vacuum. Absolute uniqueness is useless because music is a spectator sport. True uniqueness tends to only have spectacle value.
Disregarding implication embedded in the question, listening to a wide variety of music has greater utility than understanding "by the book" musical theory. A parallel reason why would be: If you had raw statistics from which laws of physics were derived + the understanding of how to reason from first principles, you would be more likely to discover new pathways of logic than those bound by a set-in-stone mode of understanding

>see human psychology + """"ideology""""
If there is an external mode of understanding you subscribe to, it's easier to use that non-selforiginated thing than something you have to grind to hash out yourself.

The thing is that your arguments imply that theory is "set in stone". I understand the process of development of theory like a chicken vs. egg thing. Which came first, the music or the theory that explains it? When new paths of music are discovered will theory be able to be developed to explain them? Certainly.

"Individuals reach peaks, groups repeat speech."
Agreed, set in stone was shit wording lmao I'm with you completely on the fact that theory will be able to explain new phenomena.
My reason for not learning theory is because you cannot explain what you do not understand or know exists. All sciences are incomplete (I say this because I think of theory as a "science of music") and if you have the capacity/time to build from ground zero, you can reach where current understandings are. If you get to that point on your own, you might form a more perfect bedrock than the group consensus did. Your personal bedrock, or just momentum of development, could lead to getting ahead of the pack and discovering new things for theory to dissect & explain.
>fuck holier than thou
>one informs the other
blah blah
Because this is Yas Forums, fuck you, the music came first. The first nigga to start a fire didn't get the physics of it, first player of a scale just thought it was lit

Nvm, don't even have to progress to where things are. There are probably countless unknown pockets of musical logic on the way to here

all you gotta do is sing about relationships and sex

The fact that I have never in my entire life ever heard a single person who learned theory say that they regret it or wish they hadn't tells me everything I need to know. Anti theory people are just lazy and don't want to put the effort into learning theory

*most anti theory people
ye

You can understand theory while also acknowledging how it can handicap one's creativity.

I actually saw a post like that today, on Yas Forums. I've seen others say how it just ruined enjoying music for them.

On kind of a similar note, I'm doing Justin Guitar and can play a few chords. Is there any point in on the side looking up guitar theory rather than just learning chords and not knowing how they relate to each other? Or do scales and all that shit come later?

>tfw switched from piano to guitar
>forgot how to read music
>didn't learn any goddamn theory

Attached: Screen_Shot_2018-02-06_at_3.37.14_PM.jpg (1600x948, 73.66K)

But how can it handicap it at all? Both the theory student and the person who doesn’t know anything can write a good melody, but for the theory person its easier to improve it since they know what type of chord or time signature its in

Gotta learn those barre chords my dude that's all I can tell ya. Barre chords and the fuckin pentatonic scale and you can rock with the best. Once you can do that and rock, then worry about fancy chords and major scales.

>didn't read thread

By using theory as a framework for the writing process, it often results in uninspired music. Basically what wrote.

>soulless
Stopped reading right there

ME BITCH. fuck theory so hard

Any theorylet who wants to develop his "new unique style" should break out of equal temperament and/or start doing weird electronic shit or else they'll inevitably stumble into half-baked versions of atonality or chromaticism and call it a day.

I recently analyzed some shit I wrote before I had any idea what I was doing, it was actually really novel and interesting. I was using chromatic mediants, slash chords, the harmonic minor scale, etc. before I had any idea what it was called.

I mean, they sound good, but there's nothing novel about any of the things you listed.

nah bro, it's all just cope

you learn theory one way or another - directly or indirectly - the issue is that if you learn it indirectly you're more likely to not know what to play in any given situation and may have to mess around to get there

the true way, which i have learned from now-boomer guitar shop guys, is to simply learn to play university-level jazz (theory, composition, sightreading) and to learn songs you like by ear

>break out of equal temperament
mah nigga

>that feel when you know "in tune" isn't really in tune

I used them in a weird way though. Kind of jumped straight into nonfunctional harmony. I mean it's nothing that Debussy didn't do, but if you want to be that pedantic about it, what's genuinely "novel" anyway?

there's a lot to be said for messing around, though

>what's genuinely "novel" anyway?
not non-functional harmony
sort of what I was getting at when I said that what a theorylet might think is novel and unique was already a thing in the early 1900s and before

>sort of what I was getting at when I said that what a theorylet might think is novel and unique was already a thing in the early 1900s and before
so was practically everything you hear in music

I mean I'm doing electroacoustic music and microtonal shit now but I don't pretend I'm inventing anything; setting out to do that is a fool's errand