kafkadog

Well, I don't think music theory is a really a "theory" in the scientific sense of the word. Whatever it is, I think it's actually more descriptive than prescriptive--it at the very least provides Western listeners with the framework to understand how music from other cultures differs from "ours." Elitism exists, sure, but I like to think that most musicians (and theory-aware listeners) are more open-minded than that. It's hard to abandon your musical upbringing, nor is it necessarily desirable. I love Neil Young because I grew up listening to my dad's record collection and to him working hi

Hmmm. There are certainly a lot of interesting scientific questions that can be asked about human perception of music and why we perceive certain combinations of notes to be more harmonious than others, and certain sequences of notes more melodic than others, and certain rhythms catchier (or certain "beats" "doper") than others. But I don't know enough about music "theory" to know whether it is capable of providing a satisfyingly comprehensive answer to such perceptual questions. That's what theories do in science--provide answers to "why?" questions. Why is 1, 3, 5 a major chord--what's sp

Interesting thread. My $0.02: The only person who gets to decide whether learning more music theory will make him a better songwriter is Jeff himself. He should do whatever he thinks he needs to do to continue growing as a musician and songwriter. It looks like he's figured that out already. I don't think we have anything to fear from Jeff finding new ways to challenge himself! And I thought this thread was about songwriting, not technical ability on an instrument. Of course Neil Young is not the most technically gifted guitar player, but he has written some amazing melodies and chord prog