Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: How Can I Learn Music Theory?

news.ycombinator.com

201–210 of 243 posts

Re: Ask HN: How Can I Learn Music Theory?

#201
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only keyboards seem to favor C major with their layout Once you're familiar with the cycle of fifths, modulation becomes fairly trivial. You start to apply the appropriate corrections "sharpen this, flatten that" simply as a matter of habit. In fact, this is precisely how modulation arose historically; it used to be the case that all music was notated diatonically or nearly so (only distinguishing between B and B-f…

I just find the black and whites puzzling. Sure, the steps are the same from the prime up, but with C major you end up on all white and with others you can end up on blacks here and there.

> I just find the black and whites puzzling.

Yeah, they are largely a historical artifact from before the days of equal-temperament tuning. A few things they have going for them:

* They give you a visual reference point for an absolute pitch. It's easy to find any specific note by looking for it relative to the unique pattern of black keys. C is always to the left of the pair of blacks. Other instruments require different techniques to keep track of where you are since otherwise all note positions look the same. (For example, guitars have fretboard markers and players have to be careful to count frets correctly.)

* Having two rows of notes, even if not evenly distributed, lets a hand span a greater range of pitches. If all of the black keys were inline with the whites, it would be harder to span an octave without making the keys smaller which increases the risk of mistakes.

* The non-uniform layout means that each diatonic key has a different physical layout. This is a negative when it comes to transposing, but it can be a positive when it comes to composing. Picking a different key with its unique layout might get your hands to try different chord voicings or progressions you wouldn't think of otherwise. It increases the spatial variet of the instrument at the expense of less consistency.

Re: Ask HN: How Can I Learn Music Theory?

#202
Former musician here --

A big +1 to the suggestion about ear training; I sure wish I'd pursued it more seriously and earlier -- probably no other activity can transform one's understanding and ability to the degree ear training can, not to mention it makes one _much_ more able to play + improvise in a group setting --

Finding a beginning book / course / etc that engagingly + logically shows the relationships between scales and chords, modes, etc, and addresses some aspects of rhythm, was immensely helpful for me -- if it uses your instrument, so much the better -- mine was Richard Chapman's "The Complete Guitarist"

Once you have the basics in hand, there are a lot of elucidating paths available to follow, but one book on counterpoint that absolutely _turned my head around_ is Joseph Fux' "Steps to Parnassus" also called "The Study of Counterpoint" -- total lightbulb --

I also strongly recommend Aaron Copland's "How to Listen to Music"

Re: Ask HN: How Can I Learn Music Theory?

#203

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…

While not incorrect, this is still a woefully limited vision of what scales / sequences of intervals can be.

Start from a tuning system. 12TET (12 tones per octave, equal temperament) would be conventional if you live in a contemporary western culture, but there are others.

Next step: pick a set of intervals (any number, though 4, 6, 7 are common numbers). Congratulations, you have a mode.

Next step: pick a root/tonic. Congratulations, you have a scale.

Next step: play it, over and over and over again till you can do so without thinking about.

Next step: do the above steps again, with different choices. And again, and again, and again ...

Next step: understand the differences in the "feel" of the different intervallic relationships present within the scale.

Next step: understand the impact of presenting these intervallic relationships when ordered in time (i.e. melody, one note after another), or when presented all at once (i.e. harmony, chords)

Then, when you're ready, tackle Music Set Theory: https://ianring.com/musictheory/scales (sadly limited to 12TET tuning, but it's still a fabulous start)

Bon Voyage!

Re: Ask HN: How Can I Learn Music Theory?

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Scale is nice and short, it’s one syllable, and it goes up and down like how you scale a ladder. “Ordered basis” and “discrete spectrum” sound outright hostile to me. We want to make musical scales accessible to five-year-old kids here, not undergraduate math students. This is not the way terminology should evolve. I can get behind car/cdr -> first/rest. I could get behind renaming the modes, but I’m not sure how to…

You apparently need an intro to music set theory: https://ianring.com/musictheory/scale

Re: Ask HN: How Can I Learn Music Theory?

#205
post #79

For this, I would highly recommend the music theorist/composer Dimitri Tymoczko. His career project is to rebuild the basics of harmony from the ground up from (mostly simple) rules, closely based on how people hear. A catchphrase he uses a lot is "why does music sound good?" He teaches a set of 2 comprehensive introductory music theory classes at Princeton, and he makes the lecture notes public: https://dmitri.mycpa…

It's important to remember that there is no real "bottom-up" when it comes to music theory. Sure there's a couple of rough audio-acoustic rules like how simple fractions of frequences sound more harmonious because there's less beating, but those rules are few and don't get you far.

They're equivalent to noting that, say, vowel sounds with similar formants are harder to distinguish. That's true, but there's no way to reason up from that all the way to Shakespeare and Dickens.

The way to look at music theory is that it's like linguistics for sound. It doesn't say "here are the rules that are required to generate X". It says "people have already generated X, Y, and Z (using whatever intuitive cultural processes and/or academic learning they had) and here are the patterns we observe about the result."

People creating music are not outputting new provable theorems derived generatively from the axiomatic rules of music theory. Music theory cannot disprove a song.

People just make stuff they and others like (or don't). And then music theorists try to find the common threads that link it to better understand how the world of music fits together. It is descriptive and not prescriptive.

Knowing theory can help you write music because it can take information you already have in your intuitive "ear" and move it to your front cortex or somewhere more accessible to your hands. But many other musicians skip this step entirely and just connect their hands straight to their intuition though tons of practice. Either path is valid for producing beautiful music.

Re: Ask HN: How Can I Learn Music Theory?

#206
post #128

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…

This is very nice example of the contrast in the two nomenclaturess, so thanks for that.

The problem with "V7 -> I" is precisely that it hides all the internal structure and encourages rote learning. Rather than encouraging the musician/composer to think about what that resolution actually consists of in terms of shifting intervallic relationships within the chords, it encourages you to just learn the transition itself.

Which of course is also its strength!

You might think that after centuries of musical composition across many different cultures that we'd have fully explored all the 4096 scales that exist within 12TET or even all the 4096 scales that exist for any given 12 tone tuning system.

But this is far from the case - witness how revolutionary Messaien's modes were. The conventional language is great for conveying meaning/intent/practice if the goal is to remain solidly inside the parameters of western musical practice circa 1100 to the present day.

But it's fairly inadequate if your goal is explore the rest of the music possibilities presented by psycho-acoustics, or even just those derived from (say) musical cultures which use microtones.

I also note that there's not a single comment in this thread regarding rhymthic structure, again reflecting the western emphasis on a particular (simplistic) understanding rather than the highly developed music cultures built around rhythm across Africa and Asia.

Re: Ask HN: How Can I Learn Music Theory?

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scale is nice and short, it’s one syllable, and it goes up and down like how you scale a ladder. “Ordered basis” and “discrete spectrum” sound outright hostile to me. We want to make musical scales accessible to five-year-old kids here, not undergraduate math students. This is not the way terminology should evolve. I can get behind car/cdr -> first/rest. I could get behind renaming the modes, but I’m not sure how to…

You apparently need an intro to music set theory: https://ianring.com/musictheory/scale

Why do I "need" this? I don't understand what you are trying to tell me. Does this explain some alternative terminology?

I'm a little put off by the way you wrote that comment.

Re: Ask HN: How Can I Learn Music Theory?

#210
post #79

For this, I would highly recommend the music theorist/composer Dimitri Tymoczko. His career project is to rebuild the basics of harmony from the ground up from (mostly simple) rules, closely based on how people hear. A catchphrase he uses a lot is "why does music sound good?" He teaches a set of 2 comprehensive introductory music theory classes at Princeton, and he makes the lecture notes public: https://dmitri.mycpa…

It's important to remember that there is no real "bottom-up" when it comes to music theory. Sure there's a couple of rough audio-acoustic rules like how simple fractions of frequences sound more harmonious because there's less beating, but those rules are few and don't get you far. They're equivalent to noting that, say, vowel sounds with similar formants are harder to distinguish. That's true, but there's no way to…

Expanding on your comment about vowels, I don't think it's fair to say that music is completely arbitrary in the same way as, say, language. Whereas for language we can be pretty confident in saying that it really is truly arbitrary, e.g. see the birth and development of Nicaraguan Sign Language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language

To put this another way, two hypothetical languages developed in complete isolation from each other would be completely different. Two musical traditions developed in complete isolation would be different, but not completely different. There is still an underlying theory that unifies them to some extent. This is why music theory exists as a useful topic of study, even if it is not sufficient for writing aesthetically pleasing music. Whereas I know of no equivalent for linguistics: linguistics is truly a descriptive field, it can only describe what exists, not predict what properties a new language can/should have.

Post reply on HN