Happy Friday Andy!
 
I will fulfill the "confessions" category of your request.  I have been writing, playing, performing, recording music for 20 plus years and I, too, have limited understanding of music theory.  I can play the common scales and I can generally explain why a chord works, but beyond that it becomes touch and go.  A few things I have noticed.  First, I am more likely to break the "rules" of music theory than my educated co creators (clearly, since I do not know/understand all of the rules).  A long time friend of mine often requests that I "resolve" a melody as it is "unnatural" not to do so.  Sometimes I oblige, though other times I make the argument that I am expressing a lack of resolve intentionally.  Second, my educated counters often identify various different music theory derived techniques in my songwriting.  For example, a friend once told me that I created a "modulation in the bridge."  Um, ok....  Point being, we probably understand music theory more than we know.  Its just a matter of putting a name to the process.  Third, some of the best musicians in history never learned to read/write sheet music.  This is a wide comparison, but a comparison nonetheless.  In closing, I too would like to learn why the things we already know how to do work so well.  But I also wonder if learning theory would limit my ability to comfortably break the rules and/or think outside the box.  This could certainly be an excuse for not wanting to take the time to learn, but hopefully I am not bound by that single agenda. 

synkrotron
Hiya Beep,
 
I won't give up... I may reign in my ambitions a bit, but never give up. I really appreciate your help here
 
I am also totally enjoying the conversations going on... Fascinating, and is tying in a little bit with some offline texts I have been reading.
 

 
Honestly I don't think you need to. I've heard your stuff and you obviously have an ear for music. It really is all much easier than it looks on paper. For years I was totally mystified by it all then when I actually sat down and connected the dots it was a head slapping moment and I realized I wasted years being intimidated by theory.
 
Unfortunately putting it into text on a forum is difficult. If I were sitting in front of you with a keyboard and a guit you'd probably get it in 20 minutes or less. It's applying the basic math to various styles that is the difficult part but if you aren't actually chasing a particular style (which is my personal favorite way of writing) then you can just go nuts.
 
It is very good that you have glommed onto the more historical discussion about the evolution of theory here. I am a casual student of music history so really my knowledge is a cobbled together mish mash whereas Rumley and tlw both seem to have a much better education in musical lineage... and their slightly "opposing" (yet respectful) viewpoints is perfect example of the ongoing "struggle" the art has, is and will continue to go through.
 
Knowing the math is one thing. Knowing how, where and when various styles evolved using that math can lead to some serious breakthroughs in how one approaches their own music. Finding out who the artists YOU emulate or respect listened to and were influenced by and the artists THOSE artists were influenced by can uncover all sorts of helpful tidbits like what scales, chords, progressions all led up to what you are hearing in the music YOU are listening to TODAY.
 
Lemmy from Motorhead (all hail Lemmy) has consistently said he was a huge Beatles fan. That is kind of mind twisting on the surface considering the obviously massive difference in styles but really Motorhead is far more musical and textured in their compositions than people give them credit for. There have been thousands of obnoxiously loud noise driven bands but MH has actual progressions that move the music in a pleasing way. You could easily take an MH composition, turn down the gain, phlegm spewing vocals and half time the beats and have an ear pleasing pop tune. Of course I would never endorse or support such a blasphemous venture but it's just good songwriting at its core and goes back to nice use of cadences... whether the band realized it or not.
 
Cheers.

I don't know jack, so I am a good candidate for most improved:)

Grizzlylip
I will fulfill the "confessions" category of your request.

Hiya Grizzlylip, thanks for your personal account 
 
I agree, we do probably know more music theory than we think, especially when it comes to what works and what doesn't.
 
I hope you've read through some of the threads here... They are most enlightening  
 

Beepster
Lemmy from Motorhead (all hail Lemmy)

Ah, yes, Lemmy... He's a big rock'n'roll fan too and you can hear that in his music. Funny thing for me is, I've seen Motorhead live many times over the years. I'm not exactly a fan as such and I don't go out of my way to listen to their music, but if they are ever on at a festival they (and their music) is very entertaining.
 
I'm in "engineering" during the day (when I'm working) so the maths side of music should gel with me... I just need to apply myself more.
 
And then there is the physics too, which would probably go to explain why some "vibrations" are more pleasing than others... I might spend a little bit of time reading about Equal Temperament and Just Intonation. And I've found a wikipedia article on Music and Mathematics.