A bit. Music is a bit like programming but I think there are 2 distinct ways to practise music: performance and composition. Theory helps you with both. I think that there's less of a "performance" aspect to programming, it's more "composition-like". Chess is an area where you have a combination of theory and skill that, to me, is more music-like (because you can play chess in a "performance way" and also in a "composition way").
If your goal is to be able to improvise then the purpose of theory is really ear training: it allows you to develop an instinct about what to do with your body to produce a desired result. Improvisation is a bit like "composition in the moment", like speed chess.
There are contrived situations where people treat programming as a performance activity but it's not the way most programmers spend their time.
This was my favorite reply to the question. Music theory is great, and it really can be helpful with composition. But I've also found that what I'm really looking for when trying to improvise, or perform, is having studied and worked on the theory - specifically on the ear training and the process of connecting that to my fingers - to the point where I don't have to think about it any more.
The composition vs performance framing is very useful I think. Some musicians might just want to do composition, and can spend a little more time between the notes figuring out what ought to come next. (Although even in this case, it's easy to get bogged down in analysis and forget about what feels right). But a lot of musicians want to be able to improvise - and the difference is like being able to write down a compelling argument vs being able to make a compelling "speech" off the cuff.
Yeah, in both cases, you're going to need a good understanding of grammar and vocabulary - but when you're trying to make that speech (or improvise a solo), you're just not going to have the time to think about "the sound I want to hear next is the sound of the 5th of the chord the band is implying." All our practice and theory homework is in service of the fingers just doing what's in our heads automatically - and sometimes, even surprising ourselves with what comes out.
> But I've also found that what I'm really looking for when trying to improvise, or perform, is having studied and worked on the theory - specifically on the ear training and the process of connecting that to my fingers - to the point where I don't have to think about it any more
"The purpose of all theory is ear training" is actually a Warne Marsh quote, although one that I can't verify. My dad (who is/was a jazz musician) read it in an interview in Coda Magazine in 1976 and while I can find references to the interview I can't find a copy of it online.
My dad used the quote "The purpose of all theory is ear training" as the inscription on his self-published basic and advanced keyboard harmony books. It's certainly a quote I've heard him repeat many times over the years.
That makes no sense. They've internalized the theory so much that they can focus on the magic, and each of them has their own kind of magic, but they absolutely know the theory.
If your goal is to be able to improvise then the purpose of theory is really ear training: it allows you to develop an instinct about what to do with your body to produce a desired result. Improvisation is a bit like "composition in the moment", like speed chess.
There are contrived situations where people treat programming as a performance activity but it's not the way most programmers spend their time.