4 ms·

> music theory has also an implicit application, which is that people who learn music theory become better musicians in general. Even though the person might no

> music theory has also an implicit application, which is that people who learn music theory become better musicians in general. Even though the person might not be composing their own songs, their understanding of how music works likely makes them extremely comfortable playing and improvising any kind of song. I think the author is trying too hard to draw a correlation between algorithm and programming. Knowing algorithm doesn't mean you implicitly know how to program. He is also ignoring the masses that simply memorize the answers without knowing why a specific algorithm is used. Most will freely admit they can't remember these fundamentals after a few months. I don't blame them though because you are expect to give the optimal answer with a snap of a finger in interview. All those interviewers that argue they want to understand the thought process of the interviewee are simply lying to themselves. Some of them are even browsing the internet while you solve the question. The real reason large companies use algorithms is because too many people apply for a job. Many are equally qualified and they need a way to justify their hire. 200 applicants in 1 hour for every single job. The real sin are startups that think they are Google and use the same interview process to feel better about themselves. I have seen more than a few interviewers with a chip on their shoulder at some no-name startup.

yesenadam 5y ago
Also, a lot of the sentences on music here are just not right. Jazz musician/composer here, who knows most of what music theory there is to know in a few genres, which is not much. Most of the musical knowledge good musicians, improvising musicians at least, have, is private and unique to themselves, or stored in their bodies and muscle memory and even they don't "know" or understand it, they can just play. "Music theory" just doesn't take you very far at all. Shakespeare couldn't have explained what he was doing or how he did it, nor could Hendrix. They just could do it, natural as breathing, or like walking, which people can usually do without the help of theory or being able to explain how. > Even though the person might not be composing their own songs, their understanding of how music works likely makes them extremely comfortable playing and improvising any kind of song. Understanding music theory doesn't make you comfortable playing and improvising at all. Being able to play an instrument and improvise makes you comfortable doing that, which comes from doing them a lot. > if the person doesn't know the theory, it's likely that these songs are going to be hilariously bad. No, the songs of people who don't know music theory aren't hilariously bad. > To make it worse, musical progression is not a thing you just come up with -- songs aren't random, the chords for each song have a theoretical relation to each other. Making a decent song is a science, and one can learn it by understanding the theory. But a chord progression or melody or lyrics are often a thing people just come up with. Writing songs is in no way a science. You can't learn "making a decent song" by understanding music theory. The characteristic, memorable, wonderful moments in each song are usually the unique, irregular ones, about which there is no theory. Etc etc.
- danbmil99 5y ago
  Lifelong musician and programmer here. It's an interesting analogy actually. I learned music by ear, then learned Theory. Then I found I had to forget some of my theory to get back to writing songs that felt right to me. I experienced a similar arc in programming. Starting out self-taught, I absorbed the theoretical aspects later as I worked on problems that were higher level than just writing code. In both cases, I think the theory is more descriptive than generative. Both programming and music require combinations of creative and Technical mastery to achieve a high level of competence. Theory can help you with the technical aspects of the craft. More than anything else, it gives you tools to analyze work that others have done. What Theory cannot do however, is give you the gift of creativity. That has to come from within, and I don't think there's an easy way to teach it in a book, or measure it in an interview.
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    Thank you, it's quite rare that people reply to my comments on here and I'm glad they did! haha. Every musician/singer that is famous, sounds unique—like themselves and no-one else. I keep coming across, in many fields, people saying that their subject can be learnt but not taught. Botvinnik (founder of the Russian School of Chess) said it about chess! I think it's true of jazz. You have to learn it for yourself, by listening to what you love and selecting from it and emulating what you love.

yesenadam 5y ago

Also, a lot of the sentences on music here are just not right. Jazz musician/composer here, who knows most of what music theory there is to know in a few genres, which is not much. Most of the musical knowledge good musicians, improvising musicians at least, have, is private and unique to themselves, or stored in their bodies and muscle memory and even they don't "know" or understand it, they can just play. "Music theory" just doesn't take you very far at all. Shakespeare couldn't have explained what he was doing or how he did it, nor could Hendrix. They just could do it, natural as breathing, or like walking, which people can usually do without the help of theory or being able to explain how. > Even though the person might not be composing their own songs, their understanding of how music works likely makes them extremely comfortable playing and improvising any kind of song. Understanding music theory doesn't make you comfortable playing and improvising at all. Being able to play an instrument and improvise makes you comfortable doing that, which comes from doing them a lot. > if the person doesn't know the theory, it's likely that these songs are going to be hilariously bad. No, the songs of people who don't know music theory aren't hilariously bad. > To make it worse, musical progression is not a thing you just come up with -- songs aren't random, the chords for each song have a theoretical relation to each other. Making a decent song is a science, and one can learn it by understanding the theory. But a chord progression or melody or lyrics are often a thing people just come up with. Writing songs is in no way a science. You can't learn "making a decent song" by understanding music theory. The characteristic, memorable, wonderful moments in each song are usually the unique, irregular ones, about which there is no theory. Etc etc.

danbmil99 5y ago
Lifelong musician and programmer here. It's an interesting analogy actually. I learned music by ear, then learned Theory. Then I found I had to forget some of my theory to get back to writing songs that felt right to me. I experienced a similar arc in programming. Starting out self-taught, I absorbed the theoretical aspects later as I worked on problems that were higher level than just writing code. In both cases, I think the theory is more descriptive than generative. Both programming and music require combinations of creative and Technical mastery to achieve a high level of competence. Theory can help you with the technical aspects of the craft. More than anything else, it gives you tools to analyze work that others have done. What Theory cannot do however, is give you the gift of creativity. That has to come from within, and I don't think there's an easy way to teach it in a book, or measure it in an interview.
- yesenadam 5y ago
  Thank you, it's quite rare that people reply to my comments on here and I'm glad they did! haha. Every musician/singer that is famous, sounds unique—like themselves and no-one else. I keep coming across, in many fields, people saying that their subject can be learnt but not taught. Botvinnik (founder of the Russian School of Chess) said it about chess! I think it's true of jazz. You have to learn it for yourself, by listening to what you love and selecting from it and emulating what you love.