In my opinion it is exactly the other way around. Too much theory and knowledge might get you to avoid the expected to a degree that will make the audience unable to follow your thoughts.jdogric12aolcom wrote:Yes, absolutely. What often makes music interesting is that it sets up an expectation, then exceeds it or goes in an even different way. Too much theory may be impressive, but gets you stuck in the rut of the expected.
That´s the problem with contemporary classical music. Ligeti, Admas, Reich, Stockhausen a.s.o. have all had a tremendous knowledge of music and have all tried not to repeat things, that Bach, Beethoven, Brahms or Schönberg had done before. They were successful, but at a high price: less then 0,5 percent of music lovers are regularily listening to contemporary classical music.
If you do not know anything about music theory you are certainly more likely to let that G7 resolve into C than if you know about theory. And if you really KNOW a little about theory you will find the change to Bb almost as boring as the change to C.jdogric12aolcom wrote:Example: A common convention (not rule, notice) is to write chords in order of the circle of fifths, e.g. Em Am Dm G7 C. But if that G7 went to Bb instead of C, your ears would perk up a lot more.