I know there are several people on the forums whose theory is a few grades ahead of their practical. I'm a grade ahead in theory myself, so I know that they don't need to be completely in step.

But how far can someone get with theory if they don't play an instrument or sing at all (and don't want to)?

Has anyone here passed a theory exam without being able to play an instrument? Or does anyone know anyone who has?
What made you/them want to learn theory? And, with enough interest in music to do that, why not play an instrument too?

Do you think it's possible for a non-instrumentalist to learn formal harmony?

T.

I think that it's perfectly possible to pass most of the grades without playing an instrument - certainly you can get up to Grade 5.

Music theory is just a set of rules to apply to a problem, someone who's good at maths (and I don't mean arithmetic) should be able to do it quite easily.

Formal harmony is just rules. When I did A-Level Music we had to harmonise a Bach Chorale. I don't consider myself particularly music (9/18 in Grade 7 aural) and I'm not the worlds best player. I was however good at harmonising the chorales, because I understood the rules and was able to apply them. In fact, I think it's possible (although not as much fun) to do them well enough to pass a theory exam even if you have no idea how they actually sound.

I went on to do a Maths degree at university, and some areas of maths really use the same kinds of skills. A bit like the skills that are involved in Su Doku, as well now I think about it.

On the other hand, being able to harmonise IRL rather than in an exam involves knowing what it sounds like, otherwise they sound forumlaic. Harmonising as well as Bach did quite possibly involves being a genius.

Number One Son took grades 1 to 3 without playing a note of anything. He was interested in music as an intellectual / mathematical exercise (also my teaching guinea-pig!!).

For elementary students, music theory is just a set of rules. When one starts to learn harmony and counterpoint, one must begin with the basics. It is necessary to reduce and simplify each new topic into a small set of rules. This is akin to learning grammatical rules in languages.

But advanced music theory isn't just about rules. In fact, it teaches musicians how to appreciate all the wonderful things that the great composers have done in their works when they bend and go beyond the rules.

I agree with the last bit of plonkee's post: in order to harmonise a chorale tune in the style of Bach requires not only the ability to retain and apply various rules, but also musical sensitivity, which only good musicians can do.

I agree that theory is more than simply the application of rules, and that musical sensitivity must be involved especially in the higher grades.

Which is why I find it so difficult to explain how a colleague of mine has succesfully taught one of her pupils up to grade 6 theory standard ... even though the student has not learnt to play a single note on an instrument...!!! And yes, the student has successfully passed theory exams up to and including grade 6. In fact, I am inheriting this student next academic year, for grade 7 theory .... Should be interesting to say the least...

denmark

As its name "Theory", definately it is something only working on paper. And it is possible to work on theory only, and without playing/ learning any instrument. However, if so, it will sound a bit less, lacking something which shows incompletion.

No matter either one (theory or practical) progresses in advance, compared with the other, yet it's still, you have to make them to achieve the final goals.

Learning music is enjoyable. The best way to say, apply the theory you have learnt in playing your instrument!

Aah, but if you knew all the grammatical rules of a language, and could apply them to a wide vocabulary then you would have an excellent knowledge of the language. It would sound stilted and formal, and it would not be very flexible, but it would be great for passing a written exam.

I think this is where theory fits in. You can do it properly, have an actual understanding of how things sound, and be really musically fluent, and pass a written exam. Or, alternatively you can learn the rules, and the vocabulary of music theory and get the same mark, without being able to play/sing.

I think that you can see that it's true, by looking at people who are incredibly musical but don't get on with theory at all. In fact, if you go back to the language comparison, there are lots of people who are fluent in English who have no idea of the underlying grammatical constructs (most of them are native speakers). There are also quite a few people with excellent grades at O-Level French who cannot communicate well in French, nor could they ever. But they were good at applying the grammatical rules.

Music theory, in the sense of understanding of understanding the rules and conventions and carrying out analysis doesn't require being musical. And some people like that kind of paper exercise. One can do Su Doku without appreciating the beauty of the underlying mathematics - I know plenty of people who do that.

Naturally, since I think that without music life would be a mistake, I don't get why anyone would want to do theory without the underlying music, but each to their own.

Does this student sing? Or is he strictly theory only?




I don't think it is necessarily "something only worked on paper". My theory teacher relates what's on the paper to what the music sounds like all the time - lessons actually take place at the piano, not at a table. And it's possible to learn a lot of theory without writing anything down.

I don't understand what you mean by "it will sound a bit less" when talking about theory.



Can't really make sense of this, but if you're trying to say that you have to do both theory and practical to achieve your goals, surely it depends on what your goals are? There are plenty of excellent non-classical musicians who play entirely by ear. If someone's goals don't include learning to play an instrument, why should they learn one?



That's definitely one way, but it's not necessarily best for everyone. Some people may have other ways they'd like to apply theory.




Do you think it's possible to "do it properly" and "have an actual understanding of how things sound" without playing an instrument? It sounds like you think that being able to pass a theory exam without being able to play/sing and 'doing it properly' are mutually exclusive.



I didn't say anything about doing theory "without the underlying music", just doing it without playing an instrument. I don't think those are necessarily the same thing.
Isn't it possible for someone to listen to and appreciate music, even if they can't play an instrument?

If you do theory, on it's own with no idea about how things sound, when you get to the higher grades and do formal harmony and similar (or if you do composition) it will probably sound stilted, because whilst the rules are straightforward breaking them is not as easy. However, for passing an exam this is not important.

Of course it's possible to listen and appreciate music without being able to play an instrument, or to even to sing (although the latter is rarer). And you don't need to be able to play an instrument to be able to hear what your theory exercises sound like. If you followed scores (or whatever) whilst listening to music you would be able to learn to match the sound and symbol.

I think that music is done properly, when you take into account both the theory of it, and the way it sounds. Neither of which require you to be able to make the sounds yourself. All you need to be able to do is read the music and hear it internally in your head. (Does that make sense?)

I'm now not sure what the question was originally, but overall I'd say:

Q: Is it possible to go further in music theory than in practical exams?
A: Yes, many people do this

Q: Is it possible to get to Grade 8 in music theory without being able to play an instrument?
A: Yes, I imagine there are singers who have done this.

Q: Is it possible to get to Grade 8 in music theory without being able to play an instrument, or sing?
A: Yes, although I'm not sure how many people cannot sing.

Q: Is it possible to get to Grade 8 in music theory without even considering what music sounds like?
A: Yes, but it would be difficult, and probably only something that someone would do for a bet.

Feel free to disagree of course

It is only the last of these that I would describe as pointless. Unless of course the payoff from the bet was worthwhile.

I'd say my music theory is probably a bit ahead of my singing ability at the moment... I haven't done any grades yet (mainly as it's a scary prospect and one I think I'll postpone as i'm pregnant at the moment ).

I've found much of what I learn in the way of theory I can quickly apply to singing to act as a scaffolding for what i'm learning and therefore I feel i'm able to learn certain things quicker and that some things make more sense instantly (top of my list of useful things so far have been learning bass clef and intervals - very handy for being able to understand what the basses and piano/organ accompaniment are doing and therefore for understanding what harmonies are supposed to be going on at various point and for tuning etc).

It has certainly meant that my listening skills have advanced pretty dramatically in the past months.... advantageous in many ways but adds extra frustration on the " I know what I want this to sound like / what's going wrong but I haven't quite got the skill level to correct it completely yet" front!

I can definitely see my learning of music theory slowing down once i've got past the grade 5 standard because the way that I tend to learn will mean i'll need more practical skills to 'hang' a further knowledge of harmony, melody and composition on.

I have always thought the musical theory is something that should be used as a way to put words on what one already feels - a way to explain something that one knows to be so - therefore practical skills I feel should be developed at the same time (even if these skills are just listening, rather than playing) - alternatively, just learning it all by rote amounts to putting words on something you don't understand or feel - which is meaningless.

[quote name='plonkee' date='Aug 21 2008, 04:19 PM' post='735440'

Q: Is it possible to get to Grade 8 in music theory without being able to play an instrument?
A: Yes, I imagine there are singers who have done this.

Q: Is it possible to get to Grade 8 in music theory without being able to play an instrument, or sing?
A: Yes, although I'm not sure how many people cannot sing[/quote]

In my opinion, to sing is to play an instraument! A voice is an instrument and at graded exam level is equally as difficult and disciplined. In many ways I would imagine more so as you would have to rely upon the ear a whole lot more than being able to see 'first finger, first position on the D string is E' if you know what I mean.
I know i'm off subject here just wanted to add my opinion!

All of the top students in my theory classes have excellent aural skills. When they harmonise a chorale melody or analyse a given piece, they can hear what the chords sound like in their head.

They may not be very good performers on their instruments, but surely, they have acquired their aural skills from playing, singing and listening.

It may be possible for a non-musician to pass Grade 8 theory, but I don't believe it is possible to do well on the composition-type questions without sufficient practical knowledge.

Indeed I entirely agree. I mean that it's obvious that non-instrumentalists could do well in theory as they could easily be accomplished singers with the same level of musical skill. It's just that I wasn't sure what the OP was really asking.

And I know plenty of violinists who were absolutely rubbish at theory because they really did read the music only in terms of their instrument. Good violinists, so it was a lot more of *that position on the fingerboard*, but still, the principle is the same.

In answer to your question Teigr: no, the student I know who is Grade 6 theory does not sing, at least not to the best of my knowledge.

This debate is almost like the 'chicken and egg' mystery. Which comes first: theory or practical? Does progress in practical ability (performance, aural skills, etc) depend on an increasing theoretical understanding of music? (in which case, theory must come first). Or is theory simply an abstracted form of 'real' musical elements, which are only truly grasped from performing, singing or listening to music? (in which case practical comes first). It's a tough one...

denmark

I don't think this is a chicken and egg mystery at all. I think that non-musicians can do very well up until Grade 5 theory. Up to that level, most of the requirements deal with pitch and rhythmic notation. Most of the exam questions have straightforward answers. Even for the melody writing in Grade 5, it is quite easy to earn top marks by following a few basic guidelines. It is very possible for a non-musician to pass with distinction as none of the exam questions really require the ability to hear the music in one's head.

However, I don't think the same can be said for Grade 6+ theory. It is not possible to come up with good harmony and counterpoint without being able to hear the written notation in one's head. In order to hear music in one's head, one has to have very good aural skills. And I don't think it is possible to acquire strong aural skills without a decent background in playing an instrument or singing.

The way I see it, up until Grade 5 theory, students are only learn how to write their musical alphabets. It's starting in Grade 6 that they start to learn the grammar of music. In light of this view, performance and practical ability has to come first before one embarks on the study of musical grammar.

Hmmm... taking this into consideration, maybe my practical skills and theory skills aren't as far apart as I thought, as I this strikes a chord..... it's hard for me to tell, as i'm not working for grades at the moment (i'll start that after the baby's born!)




It's been really good to link the sound to theory for me... it's made certain aspects of singing feel much more concrete.






I agree with both of you about theory past grade 5..... I'm focussing on getting a firm foundation of theoretical knowledge at the moment.... but I can clearly see that past grade 5 I will need some good quality specific theory tuition and stronger practical skills. There is a very definite divide in the sorts of things the two sets of grades entails.... saying one is like learning the 'alphabet' and one is like understanding and using the 'grammar' of music seems a very good way of putting it to me.