Theory vs. Instinct - whats your mix when you write?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Whatmysay
  • Start date Start date
Whatmysay

Whatmysay

New member
There have been recent threads (singing over riffs and what scales to use) that return to the perennial issue of theory vs. instinct!

I can already surmise from people’s post that opinions vary, but I would like to hear what value people place on these two aspects of song writing and how you employ them in your writing process? Also how, you acquire a better theoretical understanding of composition, while maintain spontaneity and originality?

Cheers

Burt:)
 
90% instinct 10% theory. =) Theory is good to know just as a help to get your ideas out in the way you want, but really not much more helpful than that.
 
What's theory? Don't you just warble/mumble out a melody until all the words fit then record them?
 
You got 2 types of theory going on musical and song writing theory – some people also write their lyrics to very strict patterns and others don’t start the music till the words are done or visa versa! Do you write to a pattern set by theory (or experience) or just ‘warble/mumble’ till a pattern (or song) emerges?

Systems make us efficient, but at what cost to creativity?
 
ah ok, well I do it one of two ways:
1. I warble/mumble until I find the words that fit the melody and then grab a guitar in order to lay it down but by the time I find the chords to fit my mumbling melody (which should by this time have a good few words to it) then the friggin melody's changed beyond any recognition of it's original form. :confused:

2. I'll grab the guitar and start strumming chords at random. If I find a decent progression I'll try and warble/mumble some kind of melody over the top. A far more successful way (for me anyway) of doing it. :o

In both instances, if I can't complete 75% of a song in one sitting it goes in the bin. I find it difficult if not impossible to revisit them....different feelings,mood,attitude,weather, etc.
 
I'm an educated warbler =D

I learned a bit of theory in songwriting, and music... it doesn't do THAT much to help in songwriting...music theory only just makes it easier to figure out how to do certain things, and songwriting theory was entirely useless to learn.
 
I’m completely self-taught musically, so my creations are spontaneous and by feel. I instinctively sing or play melodies and harmonies over riffs. However, we learn theory by ear through osmosis from the music in our environment whether we study it or not. Some are just more inclined to pick it up and grasp it intuitively… "The natural musician" if you will.

Growing up in a large church singing "high-church" music in the chior since I was a lad was a huge musical influence for me. There are many ways we learn theory even if we don't set out to do so.

:)
 
If you write by instinct/emotion and get stuck in the song construction then theory can be useful to resort to to kick start the creative process. I do this sometimes when in a creative block and try different theory constructs but if they detract from the original mood of the song I dont use them. If the idea doesnt come then I put the song on hold and revisit later. I guess we want to keep our songs honest and not sound like a contrived formula. Having said that, I recently got the 'Songwriting for Dummies' book out of the library and experimenting with some of their 'formulas' did trigger some fruitful ideas in directions I hadn't thought of. I've also looked at the way some of my favourite songs are constructed to see what was musically behind the mood/feeling of the songs. Everyone writes differently but I try and switch off the theory when writing but it is helpful to have some up your sleeve for when you get stuck.
 
Ideally you can achieve a point of pure instinct through theory. That's easier said than done though. So start with instinct. When you've got something you like, theory can help in a few ways. First, if it's something that's been done 1,000,000 times, theory will tell you that. If you still want to go with it, OK, but now you will be aware.

On the other hand, if you're stuck in some boring rut, theory might show you a path to get free.

Finally, if you've really done something unique and interesting, theory will allow you to describe it to other musicians. Instead of saying "I made up this freaky chord, you finger it like this", you can just say, "next is Bbm9/A--oh, you don't know that chord" and give 'em the ol' :rolleyes:

:D
 
Good question - hopefully this will be an insightful thread.

I'm about 80% instinct and 10% music theory and 10% "songwriting theory".

When an idea comes to me it always starts on an instinctive basis. As I'm trying to develop the harmony lines (chord progressions, etc.) I may turn to music theory to develop passing chords for movement or relative minors for more interesting harmonic development.

After the song is maybe 90% complete, I then resort to "songwriting theory" during the various re-writes to improve the song structure - this process may also fall over the line into arranging which may involve both music theory and songwriting theory.
 
Some of what I "write" is R&B oriented using traditional chord progressions. For the rest its 90% instinct -- meaning that within me that says what sounds good and is done naturally. 10% is theory in those moments when searching for the "right" next chord or modulation, which often happens near the beginning of the process where experimenting with elements of simple theory often bring about ideas. Lyrics are the biggest struggle, and for that I know no theory.

tom
 
I write....

....therefore, I rewrite. :o



....and I keep doing it until I am either happy :D or I throw it away. :(
 
How many poeple actually listen to what you have done and enjoyed it

Personally it doesn't make any difference to me.
I could care less if I was the only one that listened my stuff.
I'm the only one that matters.
 
At least for me, the instinct writes. But the theorist rewrites. And often, the rewriting is the most important part. However, the theorist alone won't write a damn thing. Something has to piss me off first, and that's when instinct kicks in...
 
For me it's mostly instinct, with a little theory.. but the theory comes when I already have a basis to work on and need to develop it.

I would probably use more theory if I knew more theory. It's coming slowly.

I can't imagine ever getting a song idea using theory, or getting started directly from theory, though I assume it's possible.

However, I think it would help immeasurably when it comes to the craft and graft of writing/arranging a song, and I'd probably make fewer compromises.
 
Despite my best efforts I learned a little theory in high school. Not enough to convince anybody that I know what I am talking about. I promptly forgot most of that during my partying 20s.
Now that I am at an age where I can say with confidence that youth is over with and memory has become something to argue with I'm not sure how much of what I learned in high school is still with me.

I make music with my wife now and she has a ton of musical training and great knowledge of theory. Every time I present her with new music she can't understand any of it in regards to the stuff she's been taught. I'm always being told how weird my melodies are and how untraditional my song structures sound.

All I know is it sounds the way I want it to. Most of the time. I guess that makes me an instinct person.

I never worry about the key, accidentals and chord progressions at all. I know of these things (at least half remembered), but I don't like to stop the creative process to acknowledge their presence and figure out if they are being used as expected. I just do what I do. Some folks like it and that's enough for me to continue.
 
Instinct.... cause I don't know a darn thing about theory this or theory that. However, that said, it would be real nice to know maybe a little of it, as I've been stuck on COUNTLESS songs. Songs where the rhythm is just awesome, but I can't seem to break into a chorus of any kind.... i just 'blank out', and anything I try just ends up sounding like a modified version of the rhythm. ARG!!! Someone here should point me in the right direction!

Anyways, in band practice, what usually happens is I'll be dinkin' around with some stuff... couple chords here, some notes there, etc. Then after about 30 seconds of play time, something comes to life.

Cue the drummer - He's by far the most talented guy in the band, and usually can match anything I'm doing right on the fly, in terms of feel (which is what I want anyways). Give that another 20 seconds or so, and....

Cue the singer - He usually starts out mumbling something (warble? Is that what it's called? I guess he's not the only one! hahahah). He might pick up a 'tempo of text' right away, or at least within a few minutes.

Then the singer usually gets a few words in his head, the song gets repeated a 1,000 times, he starts jotting stuff down, and if everything starts sounding good enough.... I'll fill in the blanks with some more lyrics.

So far, this structure has worked out the best.

The other option was just writing a song, and trying to match it. The problem is, whoever wrote the song already has something in their head for it. But if they can't play it (99.9% of the time), or if they can't explain exactly what they want (80% of the time), then the song go's nowhere real fast. If anyone has a clue how to fix this, I'm all ears!

A great example - I wrote out this whole song, and in my head it kicks total ass! It's got this 'Clutch' sort of feel, yet a bit brighter/cleaner. However.... I can't get the timing in my head cause there's too much going on at once, so the drummer can't capture what I'm talking about, the bassist has got something slightly figured out (as far as I can tell), and the singer can't physically grasp onto the vocals cause it's just not quite his style. And if HE aint feeling it, then the whole thing is a complete bust!

/two-cents
 
I don't have any theory...the closest thing to it would be scales or something...and I never learnt any scales...you know to fit with this or that. I don't know any instinct...all for me is trial and error, hey maybe that's a theory :eek:
 
I think both have their place. Songwriting is a skill as well as an art. Hardly anyone writes a great song their first time out. It takes practice. And in doing that practice, you're developing a bit of "theory," even if you may not know the technical musical term for it.

For example, you probably learn quickly which open chords tend to go together easily at first, such as G and C, or G and D, or E and A, or A and D---things like that. By doing that, you're discovering some basic rules of harmony.

I think writing "purely on instict" is impossible. You're always learning things based on past experience; whether or not you have a name for it isn't the point.

A lot of people say "I just start singing a random melody and then try to find chords that I like." Well, they may think that's what they're doing, but I don't think it really is. If you've listened to a lot of Western music growing up, which most of us probably have, then you're probably very familiar with musical concepts that get used over and over, like the major scale. I'm not saying you can notate it on a piece of paper, but you know what it sounds like, and you can imitate things you hear and even predict things because music is a langauge.

Common melodies are like sentences that get used all the time. If we hear the words "Oh well, that's the way it...", we can predict that most of the time, the next word is going to "goes." This familiarity extends to music too. We hear beginnings of certain stock melodies and can often predict where they're going to go, even if we have no musical "training" whatsoever.

Anyway, knowing "theory" is really just knowing labels for things. I can guarantee that, even though Paul or John may have not known the technical terms for the progressions they wrote, they weren't "writing blindly."

There's a great part of a Paul McCartney interview when he talks about one specific musical concept they learned. I can't remember the exact tune, but he was talking about the bridge. The song was in the key of C, and they went to a G minor chord for the bridge.
I think it was "From Me to You." He specifically mentions that chord and how they thought "oh wow, we've never done this before!" They were using a minor v chord, which actually turned out to be a ii chord in a brief ii-V-I tonicization of IV. So the bridge went Gm - C - F, which is a ii-V-I in the key of F (the IV chord of of the original key, C)

The proof that they understood the musical concept being used here is that they did it in other songs in other keys, like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," where it showed up as a Dm-G-C progression in a song that's originally in the key of G. Same ii-V of IV relationship.

This is a great example of writers that couldn't read or write music, but they obviously had command of a great bit of music theory, even if they couldn't tell you the name of it.

Lots of people can speak English very well, but I'd say the majority of people can't diagram sentences as well.
 
Back
Top