Musical theory describes a series of sounds and the relation between those sounds.
Yes.
Musical theory is a product of our culture. It is subjective: if you imagine a group of people growing up in some isolated environment where the frequency of all notes had been shifted by 100 hertz, they would see that set of sounds as normal, and would think our general music is weird and sludgy, just as we might think of there's as slightly grating and squeaky (many people, though, might not actually notice. 100 hertz isn't much).
It's not subjective. The terms you use to explain things might change, but the note relationships are the same. Add 100 hertz to A and C, and the difference between them is still classified and works as a "minor third", which is just a way of describing the sound that always results when two notes of that aural distance are played together. That's why music theory is such a powerful tool - it not only lacks restrictions, but is relative to where you start or the terms you prefer to use.
In short, only the descriptive terms of music theory and music itself is subjective. The relationship between notes is always the same, and that's what music theory describes. Therefore, music theory describes something observably objective.
Furthermore, there is an elitism factor involved. The more you know about musical theory, the more you tend to appreciate musicians who employ it in complex ways, even if these complex ways sound like utter shite.
That's an opinion bred from ignorance and counter-elitism. I have a strong grasp of theory and I find plenty of modern classical music absolutely atrocious; an awful, cacophonous mess of dissonance without anything clever in its rhythm, harmony or melody. A genre of music seemingly dominated by music school graduates without any grasp of writing pleasing music that look down upon extreme music without understanding that they surpass its "flaws" manyfold.
I am of an opinion that the core of classical music mostly resides in soundtracks - appropriate, given that much of the classical we consider staples of music was written for the same purpose.
Examples of this for me personally would be people whacking off about the 'complex melodies' and time signature changes in garbage like Converge and The Dillinger Escape Plan. Folk musicians got by for thousands of years without even writing music down.
Folk musicians got by for thousands of years with poor intonation and the same bloody songs, not to mention a general lack of musical progression which, in turn, showcases a lack of creativity. In comparison, when the Church organised music in a way that previous music could be referenced, progression was made possible as all the previous music did not have to be repeated to be kept. Therefore, from European folk music and Gregorian chants we developed baroque, and from it classical, and from that, romantic.
There was also the blues/jazz progression from the slave community of North America, which eventually allowed for the creation of the various kinds of rock music. I think that implies that referencing previous music allows for more progression, with the amount of progression essentially defined by the amount of music one has to draw from. Think about Led Zeppelin, and their combination of hard rock, blues and folk elements. It's still weird today.
I wish I knew even less about music sometimes. Having knowledge of music theory may be great for making music, but only if you want to make reference to music that has come before. A lot of people do, that's great.
All music references what you've heard before. That's the nature of the way we store information and express ourselves, and applying language terms to the elements you hear changes absolutely nothing at all.
But I hold that for creating original music, it is not necessary, and can hinder. It's the difference between some barely competent punk band somehow managing to great an amazing, glorious noise and Yngwie fucking Malmsteen giving all the music students a hard-on with just how fast he can work through all the scales.
You ignore that punk bands, even in the early days during the 70s, were calling upon what they considered the true spirit of rock and roll, so they were always going to reference rock bands that developed before the explosion of progressive rock. In addition, if you look at the chord progressions of many punk bands, you'll find that the actual harmony of the music isn't what's original - it's the way they upped the ante with rhythm and dissonance. Most punk is a bit of melodic singing, a bit of yelling, some rock 'n' roll riffs and a whole lot of major chords. There's nothing mind-bogglingly magical about it - it can just be incredibly effective.
It must be noted that Yngwie, much like punk, has to be judged according to the context of his time. No-one really did what he was doing - applying classical violin phrasing to guitar. Richie Blackmore did it to an extent, but Blackmore called upon his classical phrasing like Iron Maiden calls upon their harmony riffs, while the rest of his phrasing was powerfully rooted in the blues. Yngwie, while studying phrasing more conventionally rock 'n' roll as well, did something entirely new by making the majority of his melodic phrasing so firmly entrenched in Baroque music. What's amazing about Yngwie is less his speed, and more how easily he calls upon melodic phrases that are distinctly sweeping and wide in scope without sacrificing the intensity of speed.
Because of Yngwie, we had amazing guitarists like Jason Becker and Marty Friedman. His phrasing has become a staple influence on death metal, due to the compatibility of the genre with the sinister diminished arpeggio, a favourite of Yngwie. Decapitated and Necrophagist are highly notable examples of death metal bands that would be nowhere near as interesting without Yngwie's influence.
Poll
8 (20.5%)