but it clearly gives you a leg up in being able to express yourself about music. Usually the players of new genres rush to fill in the gaps of the existing vocabulary too, which is why it's helpful to have both traditional theory and genre expertise under your belt. Jazz is a good example, having introduced the notion of swing - which is something that as of today, any serious music head worth his salt ought to have something of a grasp on (even if the concept has never been sufficiently clarified even after years of trying).

I agree with the general point made often on this board that it's still much easier to talk about melody and harmony than about complex rhythms or timbre, but that doesn't negate the value of the former or mean that we should stop trying to come up with better means of doing the latter.

Also, I don't think the point you're making really contradicts mine. Just because certain classical snobs dislike rock, that doesn't mean that knowing tonal harmony lessens your overall enjoyment of music. The implication I often hear stated is that dissecting art takes away its "magic," as if knowing how a song was written surgically removes that thing that makes you want to sing along with it. That's never been true for me or for my musician friends, so I just wanted to emphasize it.

--