A professor told me this story, and I think it is my new go-to for dealing with the ancient "to-theory-or-not-to-theory" debate
George Gershwin is a very famous and very influential American composer. Several of his most famous works, including "Rhapsody in Blue," were written entirely with his ear. He had no theory training. He just played, and the melodies just came to him. He was a genius.
But he was unsatisfied. He felt like, despite his widespread acclaim to the contrary, he had very little control over his product and no understanding of what he was writing. He felt like his lack of theory or keyboard training was stifling his creativity.
So he traveled to Europe to learn from composers there (they were both very famous themselves. Nadia Boulanger, and Maurice Ravel.)
Nadia Boulanger rejected him immediately, not because he was below her, but because she did not want whatever classical training she could give Gershwin to spoil the haphazard jazz style that made him so successful. She did not want to corrupt his genius. But Gershwin was determined.
His next prospective tutor, Maurice Ravel initially responded in a similar way. He is quoted as saying "Why become a second-rate Ravel when you are already a first-rate Gershwin?". Gershwin explained his situation, and Ravel ultimately agreed to train Gershwin to understand music theory, paying close mind to stay style-neutral. He ultimately taught Gershwin to study his own jazz contemporaries.
Gershwin continued to be wildly successful. While his music did become more sophisticated, and he became more consistent, there is a debate. Did the theory training affect his success? Is his music post-Ravel qualitatively better or worse?
I think this is what makes the story so great.There is no wrong answer. It was Gershwin's choice, and his persistence in that choice that caused his music to change, for the better or otherwise. It is difficult to argue that it hurt him, however, because history remembers him so fondly at every stage of his career. Rather than answer the question of "Should I learn theory?" with a non-negotiable yes or no, take into account your own curiosity. If you are someone with a fervor for understanding the mechanics of an art form, the answer would be a resounding "yes". If you are someone who prefers to learn by the seat of their pants', perhaps through trial and error or just arming yourself with some basic keys and chords and just going at it, then your answer might be a simple "not really." And that is okay, too.
Theory is like a philosophical science. It rewards the curious, and questioning scientific minds. But it can also reward mad scientists who are content to operate without too much sophistication--just seeing what happens. There does not need to be a dogma on either side. There is room for everyone, and anyone can switch sides at any point.
Hope this brings some perspective,
--John
Comments (1)
Korsakov was pretty against learning music theory for the longest time, which was weird because he taught at a pretty big conservatory at the time. eventually a fellow instructor convinced him and he learned it. i learned this fairly recently, as i am currently learning a korsakov concerto for trombone (its a beast RIP)