121–130 of 243 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But B does want to step up (or resolve ) to C, the tonic of the C major scale. Similarly with F# to G in G major.
So is it because it's sharp or flat or is it because of its position relative to the tonic?
https://us.abrsm.org/en/our-exams/music-theory-exams/ You're welcome. ;-)
Here's how I approach it: forget about all the historic naming like "perfect fifths" and just think in terms of the modern 12-note equal temperament. Every note is a number, e.g. 440 Herz = 69, the standard guitar tuning has strings from 40 to 64, etc. Every interval is an integer, up an octave is +12, major chord is a triple of {x, x+4, x+7}, minor seventh chord is {x, x+3, x+7, x+10} etc. Then, as a the second game…
> Here's how I approach it: forget about all the historic naming like "perfect fifths" and just think in terms of the modern 12-note equal temperament. You actually want to learn these names, because they characterize the diatonic scale. Basically, pick seven contiguous notes on the circle of fifths, you get the pitch-class set of a diatonic scale. Then put the notes in the set in pitch order, and pick a tonal center…
Uhhh....no? A flat or sharp can be the tonic, which does not lead to any other note. A note is named flat or sharp to maintain proper interval distance without repeating letters within the scale. A flat is typically not a leading tone because of interval distance, but can still want to resolve up or down. Any note can be consonant or dissonant, leading or resolved depending on the context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Here's how I approach it: forget about all the historic naming like "perfect fifths" and just think in terms of the modern 12-note equal temperament. You actually want to learn these names, because they characterize the diatonic scale. Basically, pick seven contiguous notes on the circle of fifths, you get the pitch-class set of a diatonic scale. Then put the notes in the set in pitch order, and pick a tonal center…
Why does sharp or flat want to step up or down? I took a few years of music lessons (granted light on theory) but I never heard this idea. Is this exclusive to notes that are not in the current key? For example the f# in Gmaj doesn't want to step up to G any more than B wants to step up to C in Cmaj.
The most important thing is to relate the theory you learn back to your instrument, and to use your ears as much as your brain. I have a hunch that so many of my engineer friends are musicians because music theory is happily systematic - it reminds me a lot of category theory & FP. It meshes perfectly with my brain at least - but just knowing theory without feeling it is useless. Learn to feel.
"music theory is happily systematic" Funny, when I tried multiple times to learn music theory it seemed very unsystematic to me, and more like the result of hundreds of years of accretion by lots of people who thought their own way and did not have any kind of coherent, overarching system or vision in mind. If it was more systematic it would have been a whole lot easier to learn.
But what I was missing was a coherent path from beginner to more advanced levels without having to cobble it together myself which wouldn't work well because I don't know what I don't know.
I endend up buying bundles of the 12-part (and growing I think) "Music Theory Comprehensive" course on Udemy and it has been amazing value for the money so far.
https://www.udemy.com/course/music-theory-complete/
I think one should start music theory with some free basic introductions that are everywhere to see whether you actually enjoy learning about it. After that I reckon the best way forward is to put some money down for either books or courses.
I'm reading the book at https://www.howmusicreallyworks.com It has been really helpful to me
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree that this is an improved notation at all. It has its advantages, it highlights the physical distance between notes in a uniform way across key signatures. But it obscures harmonic function, which is much more important. Array indexes starting at 0 is unintuitive for beginners, I would never recommend a programming student learn arrays starting at 1 just to make it easier. Proper playing technique is oft…
So you would subscribe to the notion that BASIC is not a proper introductory language because it hides some of the theoretical CS complexities while exposing the lowest hanging fruit to beginners?
V7 -> I
(x+2, x+5, x+7, x+11) -> (x, x+4, x+7, x+12)I took a year-long course in music theory as an undergrad; I loved it, and learned a great deal! I recommend sitting in on a university music theory course if it all possible. But, if not, I can at least recommend the textbook we used: Kostka and Payne's Tonal Harmony . If you want to learn slowly, from the beginning, it's a great resource. Our instructor told us that, by the end of the first semester, we would be wr…
Kostka and Payne is not usually recommended. Knowledgeable experts tend to prefer texts by Laitz, or Aldwell (previously, Aldwell & Schachter). Bear in mind though that the latter authors do require some 'intellectual' effort, but this will hopefully pay off in understanding. Kostka and Payne is the sort of textbook that's preferred by instructors at a music dept, where the students don't actually care that much abou…
Don't know the other books you mentioned; perhaps they are better still.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you would subscribe to the notion that BASIC is not a proper introductory language because it hides some of the theoretical CS complexities while exposing the lowest hanging fruit to beginners?
I wasn't introduced to programming through BASIC so I can't speak to your analogy, but I believe you've taken me to say "hiding complexity is wrong." I don't think any point that I've made can be interpreted this way. There's plenty of low hanging fruit for beginner music theorists. "V7 resolves to I" is low hanging fruit, and it has tons of underlying complexity that you don't need to understand as a beginner. It's…