Hooktheory is more modern: https://www.hooktheory.com/books
Learn an instrument & go through the level 1-5 theory books. Be sure to play the notes while you work through the book.
Make songs & apply what you’ve learned.
151–160 of 243 posts
Hooktheory is more modern: https://www.hooktheory.com/books
Learn an instrument & go through the level 1-5 theory books. Be sure to play the notes while you work through the book.
Make songs & apply what you’ve learned.
Back in the early 2000s I quit my engineering job and went to music school for a few years. We used Mark Levine's excellent "Jazz Theory Book" to cover the theoretical aspects. It presents theory in the context of trying to understand how to improvise over jazz harmonies - I found it very useful. It's a textbook though: you're going to have to invest some time in it to get the most out of it. https://www.amazon.co.uk…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without a good concrete example, this sounds like a terrible idea. Scale -> basis makes no sense to me. The scale climbs up and down, like how you scale a ladder. The basis… does not do that. Tonic, dominant, subdominant are used mostly in discussions about functional harmony. The biggest reason why it would be a total disaster to rename tonic -> primary is because we already use the terms primary and secondary here!…
Perhaps 'ordered basis' for 'scale'. Or perhaps 'discrete spectrum', just searching for a term that conveys its meaning intrinsically. I had in mind a reform akin to how modern lisps have rename CAR and CDR to first and rest respectively. For example the Lydian Mode, could be referred to by a codeword that can be unwrapped to understand what exactly it is. In general I am always in favour of trying to advance the exp…
I can get behind car/cdr -> first/rest.
I could get behind renaming the modes, but I’m not sure how to rename them. I would be hesitant to name them after notes or using numbers, since that would be confusing. As it is, I can say “C dorian scale” and that’s a pretty concise and unambiguous name for a series of notes. Maybe I could say “C minor, natural sixth scale”. It’s a bit verbose and modes are fairly rare. It’s also a bit weird—would I then say “A dorian scale” as “A minor, sharp sixth scale”? Already I’m a bit confused by this terminology. Maybe “A minor, major sixth scale”? The “major minor” is a bit weird.
The trick with advancing expressiveness and meaningfulness is that 1) you are going to have to memorize new meanings even if the words are familiar and 2) if it’s not usable by experts, it won’t be adopted by experts and you’ll end up with at worst, multiple incompatible sets of terminology.
Face it—I’m going to have to do a fair bit of memorization to learn music theory. It is unavoidable with music theory as it is with other subjects. So I might as well pick nice, short words like “scale” which make some intuitive sense, rather than pick “ordered basis” which is a total mouthful. After all, I will only spend a short amount of time memorizing terms, and a much, MUCH longer time using them.
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…
Back in the early 2000s I quit my engineering job and went to music school for a few years. We used Mark Levine's excellent "Jazz Theory Book" to cover the theoretical aspects. It presents theory in the context of trying to understand how to improvise over jazz harmonies - I found it very useful. It's a textbook though: you're going to have to invest some time in it to get the most out of it. https://www.amazon.co.uk…
I live down the road from a custom guitar builder Patrick Cummings, he also offers private lessons, we were talking about learning guitar, and he was telling me the exact same thing. He said something like, "If you can't hear the music, you will never understand the music." He apparently focuses the first few weeks of lessons on ear training.
Back in the early 2000s I quit my engineering job and went to music school for a few years. We used Mark Levine's excellent "Jazz Theory Book" to cover the theoretical aspects. It presents theory in the context of trying to understand how to improvise over jazz harmonies - I found it very useful. It's a textbook though: you're going to have to invest some time in it to get the most out of it. https://www.amazon.co.uk…
There's also a book with the same name by David Byrne, but I can't comment on that one.
I would also add that to really use theory you have to know the notes on your instrument. You can know them as audible intervals, letters and written musical notes. Tab is worthless. I learned to read music for school and it transformed my knowledge of the instrument.
I recommend that you follow Kent Hewitt (piano), Adam Neely (bass) and Rick Beato (guitar) on Youtube. They all talk about various aspect of music theory, composition, etc. Kent Hewitt is providing more of a full-blown online jazz course, Rick Beato makes incredibly interesting analyses of songs of all style (mostly rock) but also talks a lot about scales, harmony, improvising, etc. Adam Neely is all over the place :…