> As for “how little math matters in practice”, that view is all too common among programmers. It is not a view shared by engineers or scientists in any other field.
Phrases like this are a red flag. They're usually thinly veiled anti-intellectualism, promising to free you from the oppressive gate-keeping of centuries of built-up knowledge. In reality, it's a pop culture prison.
The same ideas are prominent in guitar, where you "don't need to understand theory or how to read sheet music." Which is true, because you can find chords that sound good together with enough time and patience. But it's also not the full truth, as it is obvious that more classically trained musicians tend to bring a lot more to the table from both a technique and a composition standpoint.
One example of the kind of song I think you're talking about is "That's What Love is For" [1] by Amy Grant. I once read someone describe it as being like a quaint little Michael Bolton song (can no longer find the link). But the chord progressions and the way it moves between keys are fairly sophisticated for pop music.
Phrases like this are a red flag. They're usually thinly veiled anti-intellectualism, promising to free you from the oppressive gate-keeping of centuries of built-up knowledge. In reality, it's a pop culture prison.
The same ideas are prominent in guitar, where you "don't need to understand theory or how to read sheet music." Which is true, because you can find chords that sound good together with enough time and patience. But it's also not the full truth, as it is obvious that more classically trained musicians tend to bring a lot more to the table from both a technique and a composition standpoint.