My Two Cents - Recording Engineers and Music Theory

This is a subject which has been annoying the hell out of me over the last six months, because in the recording technology program at the school I currently attend, McNally Smith College of Music, all recording technology students have to take at least one level of music theory, which at this particular college, because of the school's input, goes roughly from 'This is a staff' to 'That's what a dominant seventh chord is'. Now I realize a lot of people have trouble with music theory. But I'm continuously hearing Recording Tech students bitching about how they don't see why they should have to study any music theory; in one extreme case, the individual pointed out that he had computer programs which can tell him all the information that he'll learn to recognize in Theory I, and do all the stuff he'll learn in Ear Training.

*sigh*

Alright, here's my two cents on this subject, for posterity.

Let's assume for a second that you're studying recording technology in order to, say, record music. Now, in order to do this, you're going to have to interact with musicians, and it helps to have at least a little bit of a common vocabulary, and it is immensely time saving. For the musician, it's rather disconcerting when they try to talk to you and you have to reorient half the stuff they say into layman's terms. Being able to tell if someone is in tune with the rest of the music is important, and if they're in tune with themselves. If it's the sound they're going for, then that's good. But what start out as small issues during a recording session start getting bigger and bigger as the process continues, and don't forget that while the artist is the one whose face ends up on the cover, you are still credited somewhere, and if those problems end up with a major flaw on the record, then people within the industry are just as likely to give a stern look at the engineer as the artist (depending on how wildly successful the artist is, possibly moreso)

And just to reiterate a major point, musician's like to be able to talk about what they're doing with the engineer without having to repeat themselves a half dozen times, and may even ask you for your opinion on something, and it makes a good impression if you can just answer without having to dumb the whole thing down.

And I'm glad that there are computer programs out there that help people figure this stuff out, but do they tell you what it means? Let's say a piece is in the key of F major. Alright, your computer program spits that out at you, and what do you do with it? Without a knowledge of music theory, it's just useless data. Moreover, audio recognition software is getting better, but it is still far from infallible, and if it spits out a wrong piece of information, then you could end up getting completely screwed.

And don't forget, there are two phrases that the client/artist never likes to hear during a session. The first one is 'I can't do that'; while not always avoidable, it should be avoided as much as possible. And the second, more applicable one here, is 'I don't understand/know what you're talking about.'

And finally, let's not forget that the people who say that you should know this stuff have been doing this for a hell of a lot longer then you have, and they probably have a better idea of what'll help you be successful in the industry then you do at this point. What appears to be busywork does in fact have a purpose, especially when it comes to the application of music theory.

For those of you who still think I'm crazy, check out this interview with Craig Alvin; he's a Nashville based recording engineer, and he talks a bit about what it takes to be an in-demand recording engineer (in other words, a gainfully employed one.

And that is all I will say on the subject. Hopefully my next post will be about something of more interest to everyone.