> Whenever I tried writing something based on the theory I learned, I found it to be super boring. Thus, to this day, music theory doesn't make a lot of "sense" to me.
I personally don't think theory should be used in this way, but it is very tempting to try to use it this way.
I think of theory as just a naming system and a way to chunk information. It's DESCRIPTIVE, not PRESCRIPTIVE. When composing your ear should guide you first and foremost and theory should just kind of be in the background... if you're fluent in theory then it's just kind of there gently assisting you when you arrange/compose/perform.
So for example, I might hear something in your head and play it at the piano and think "I like that... good starting point". In the background my brain says "I iii vi6 ii7 V with melody: mi re mi sol do mi re mi sol do do re do re (etc)" that's all completely automatic for me, I get it for free. It's like this automatic connection between what I hear in my head and what to label it and they kind of feed off of each other (if that makes sense)
I personally don't think theory should be used in this way, but it is very tempting to try to use it this way.
I think of theory as just a naming system and a way to chunk information. It's DESCRIPTIVE, not PRESCRIPTIVE. When composing your ear should guide you first and foremost and theory should just kind of be in the background... if you're fluent in theory then it's just kind of there gently assisting you when you arrange/compose/perform.
So for example, I might hear something in your head and play it at the piano and think "I like that... good starting point". In the background my brain says "I iii vi6 ii7 V with melody: mi re mi sol do mi re mi sol do do re do re (etc)" that's all completely automatic for me, I get it for free. It's like this automatic connection between what I hear in my head and what to label it and they kind of feed off of each other (if that makes sense)