When I started this blog I had decided that I wanted to make some amount of educational content, and I wanted it to be some of the first content I made to set a precedent. I do not believe in creating a walled garden that is difficult to access; instead I believe that the free, libre sharing of knowledge is the only rational way to support future musicians, be they hobbyists or professionals. But, before you choose to learn anything you first need to decide if it's worth learning or not.

So, do you need — thus need to learn — music theory?

The answer is, unsatisfyingly, it depends.

Music Theory is an analytical framework, and only an analytical framework. It does not tell you what you can and can't do or describe to you what is "correct" and "incorrect", it only aims to tell you what any given sample being analysed is objectively doing through that lens, which is loosely correlated with what it is subjectively doing.

Particularly for solo musicians your intuition and your ears are enough, especially with some training, to be able to come to many of those same conclusions, but I would still recommend learning at least some level of Music Theory as it can suggest note relationships which suit your aims, meaning that you can escape some of the less viable routes to take towards your goal.

The same is also true of musicians who collaborate regularly. I've always been told that if you want to be able to work with others, especially instrumentalists, you'll need some level of knowledge to understand the jargon and make specific references but in my experience it is perfectly viable to hum a melody and say "that bit" in reference to a specific sample. In the case you are recording session musicians some of them are quite happy to translate whatever makes sense in your brain to whatever makes sense to them as musicians, although you should always remember to discuss the needs for sheet notation beforehand.

When I was first becoming a musician, composer, producer, whatever you want to call me, I had little understanding of music theory and while I've learnt much there's still niches of music theory that I have yet to formally grasp. In the beginning I only knew what two notes on a piano roll sounded good together and in sequence, then what third note sounded good, then what chords sounded good in sequence. All this knowledge I had acquired through repeated trial and error, building a map of ideas that were all relative to each other. I eventually learnt the formal definition of major and minor chords, then extensions (especially the 7th) and, no less than half a decade later, I began to learn what the major and minor scales were. All this learning, despite the fact that I was clearly using these ideas before I learned how they are formally understood. I learnt very gradually and slowly, at my pace and as I needed it. I'm not convinced I even need it today at times.

Building an individual and relative map of knowledge is what I believe one should do. It forces one to start small with a foundation, then slowly expand their knowledge outwards.

But, the final word should be this: if you enjoy the way you are making music then you are making music correctly. After all, if someone derives enjoyment from their process and their creations then is it truly a problem that they don't write to the standard of conventional western music? I have said now for years that criticism is only useful if it serves the creators goals. If not then it simply does not serve the creator and it won't be implemented. At that point, it only serves the critic in hearing himself and feeling superior.