As I alluded to in another comment, you are fighting upstream against the dominant Western conception of learning. But any musician I have ever met worth their salt knows the importance of learning songs and transcribing their favorite artists.

I think one of the causes is that some people struggle for years with music and then one day they learn a bit of theory and they experience a moment of enlightenment. Suddenly, all of their confusion is dispelled and what was once difficult is clear as day. They then think "if I had only know this years ago I wouldn't have struggled!". But they are wrong. It was the years of struggle that helped them understand the theory, not the other way around.

It's the "wax on, wax off" of Karate Kid and the wise old Mr. Miyagi.

I read a music theory book from the 1800s and in the first chapter the author stated that while he endeavored to write useful theory to help students they must realize that if some composition they write follows all of his rules but sounds bad, it is bad. And if they write a composition that breaks his rules but it sounds good then it is good. These are old, old ideas that we re-learn over and over.

Good analogy. There's a flip side to it though. You can be a great comedian on the level of individual jokes, or short bits, but be unable to write a story. And you can be a great jazz musician when it comes to soloing, but be unable to write a song. Stan Getz was a famous example. So yeah, learning jazz by imitation and immersion (as one learns a language) is very cool: learning these hundreds of songs will most certainly teach you how to solo. But it won't teach you how to make a song. Not nearly as reliably. It needs something else, I don't know what.

I think the idea is very deep and applicable to many aspects of life.

Learning grammar, vocabulary, semantics, etc. is definitely valuable. But immersing yourself in a culture where the language is spoken, listening how it is used in practice, speaking it yourself with a native, that is a truly powerful way to learn the language.

I'm not religious but I am reminded about a story where Jesus was challenged about his disciples picking some wheat on the Sabbath, breaking a law. The Pharisees demand an answer and Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. He was pointing out the inverted relationship and the corruption that results.

The same can happen with music, programming, language learning, etc.

Another analogy most people will recognize: the map vs. the territory. Music theory is the map, the songs are the territory. No matter how much you study the map you will benefit tremendously from walking the territory.

If there is no why it's not a theory but a recipe. The why can be as simple as most people like/dislike it, but it needs to exist and it needs to be testable.

Note that recipes are actually useful, it's just that they are not theory.

> "what if I want to change something?" It's indeed an essential step of learning and creating

It's because you aim for a false objective!

There is no a 'proper' way to do it! It goes like this, you change it, if it looks good, well, good job, if not, ask yourself why, and try your best to take that into account next time.

It's by doing millions of small mistakes that you improve. The teacher teaches one way that is kinda easy to grasp, it's not the only way and far from unique.

The further you go, the further you will see the same mistakes, and you will start to think in terms of volumes, shapes, shadows, perspective, even anatomy if you still struggle on some human body parts

This is a common feeling, and it is in some respect related to western culture. We prize "knowledge" very highly because it is demonstrably effective.

My comment isn't meant to devalue knowledge but to put it in relation to "something else". That something else is the thing you have knowledge about. The thing to appreciate is that you can become an expert on knowledge itself, without ever becoming expert in the thing the knowledge is about.

Consider some painting theory topics: color theory, contrast, perspective, proportion, etc. Imagine someone who attains expert level knowledge of any one (or combination) of these subjects but they are still unable to draw a picture that is a pleasing representation of their subject. You can easily study all of these topics for a lifetime without every picking up a pencil or a brush.

My other comment mentions the map vs. territory distinction. So let's deeply consider this. You are in unfamiliar territory and you feel lost. You think to yourself: "If I only had a map then I wouldn't feel so lost". But does that mean you should spend the rest of your life studying map making? An alternative is to survey the territory with your own eyes and learn to pick out the trails that many others have cut into the wild. And then follow some of those trails. You might end up at a dead end and have to turn back to a previous fork in the road. You may find yourself scratched up as you try to get through dense thickets, or bogged down up to your shins in a swamp. Those are the kinds of experiences that teach you the land in a way no map could ever. And they are experiences you can't get by sitting in a tent studying a map. If your goal is to find a new trail through the territory - no map will even show it. That will only come from the hard won experience of trekking relentlessly through the wild.

As the philosopher Mike Tyson once said: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face". It sucks getting punched in the face by other people, by learning a new language, learning to paint, learning music. Some people avoid it at all costs, thinking that studying the theory is the same thing.

Just remember that all of the scratches and bruises you are getting as you fail at painting are scratches on your ego. It can take it. You will get better, as long as you keep trying it is inevitable you will learn. And it is very useful to glance at a map now and again. Just don't get too reliant on it.

It's about not putting the cart before the horse. Theory is a guide to the songs, not a set of rules to be mastered in isolation.

In philosophy there is a test of necessity and sufficiency. Theory is definitely not sufficient to become a proficient musician (let alone a composer). I think it is arguable whether or not it is necessary (I would argue not and handwave towards the list of musicians who are literal legends despite 0 theory). So as a strict answer to your question: maybe not.

However, practically, learning some theory is obviously beneficial to many learners and can speed up the process of acquiring the skill. But again, beware of cart before horse.

Take one famous legend who is infamous for his insistence he know no theory: B.B. King. I mean, anyone who analyses his music can point out a laundry list of complicated theoretical things he is doing in his playing. He just doesn't know the "book names" for it since he learned those things in a different way. He definitely know what a "6" chord is, when to use it, what scales to use with it, etc. But if you asked him to explain it to you he'd probably show you 4 or 5 songs instead of writing you an essay.

Even if it may be a meme, those eureka moments are exactly the thing these threads are describing; learning knowledge about a thing. I’d rather have a thousand hours of eureka moments than a 1000 hours with a textbook of theory