Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Music Theory for Programmers

runjs.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 259 posts

Re: Music Theory for Programmers

#191

Post by bonzini »

iainctduncan wrote: post #183
bonzini wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are Peano's axioms number theory? No one really uses them directly (other than induction) when working on practical number theory problems, but they are considered part of it. Scales and chords build the fundamental basic blocks for Western music (I would introduce equal temperament third but that's only a matter of ordering). They are taken for granted in musical practice, I agree, but only because musical practice…

Sure, but none of that changes the fact that is someone reads that article and says "wow I like music theory!" and orders the best theory books or signs up for a course or lessons, they are going to be PISSED. They will get some books that don't cover what they think music theory is at all and that touch on basically nothing in this article. On the other hand, if the author had said something like "Intro to the acous…

Or maybe not... surely if you are shown figured bass you will be pissed, but on the other hand understanding triads and sevenths provides some intuition about inversions, voice leading, rootless voicings, upper structures, diatonic movement of voices. Certainly not enough to orchestrate a piece, but enough to listen to educational YouTube videos, follow lead sheets, think about what you're hearing.

Harmonics and temperament aren't really relevant to all this, though at some point you have to explain why certain intervals are naturally consonant but "boring", and others can be made to make sense but mostly within a more complex voicing (which reconnects to topics like inversions and voice leading).

(For disclosure I studied piano until ~20, both classical and jazz, and I would call my knowledge of jazz theory "decent" for someone with zero professional or academic experience. Obviously not comparable to yours and not even in English, so perhaps what I wrote above will sound really stupid).

Re: Music Theory for Programmers

#192

Post by onraglanroad »

gentooflux wrote: post #74
analog31 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only people I know who are productive as composers or arrangers are familiar with theory.

Because they can write it down. Good for them.

Yes, being able to write is a good thing.

You can get so far with just an aural tradition but the invention of writing helps.

Re: Music Theory for Programmers

#193

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

iainctduncan wrote: post #164
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does it confuse people? There is "western music theory" ala Schenker, voice leading, serialism etc (to mention a couple of names that some people might have heard of) but that describes things to do once you've got a scale and chord system. This is "12T music theory", describing how you might get to a scale and chord system. I don't see how it is confusing. You can spend a lot of time doing "western music theory"…

"Music theory" has a near universally accepted meaning. This article is not about that, it's about what we all call in music academia acoustics and digital synthesis (which of course I know you know as I know your work). The derivation of scales from acoustic principles is not in theory books; it's in acoustics books. I've taken numerous theory courses and also taken university acoustics courses and digital synthesis…

> The derivation of scales from acoustic principles is not in theory books; it's in acoustics books.

And this is correct because ... ?

There are whole subsectors of "music theory" that cover precisely this sort of thing, even though they are fairly arcane. I'm thinking of things like pitch set theory.

My own take is that western musical pedagogy, at least historically, is one of the worst examples of pedagogy that exists, precisely because of what is taught, in what order, and why. It pretends (or used to) to have some sort of universality or inevitability, when even a scant familiarity with other musical cultures would make it clear that this is false. It is emphasizes a note-centric rather than interval-centric approach to melody (and chords) that ignores centuries of (folk) musical practice (most simply known as transposition, but the implications of it are staggering, and largely elided).

So, defending what that pedagogy calls "music theory" seems like weak sauce to me. Especially given, as many others have pointed out, western/european "music theory" is a codification of existing practice for the most, not a generative theory.

Re: Music Theory for Programmers

#194

Post by amingilani »

nprateem wrote: post #89
amingilani wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How much do you see a path from A(rticle) to S(ound in your ear). Very clearly. The author constructed a melody from first principles in the article. You can take any song, deconstruct it using the information in there and begin to see why it sounds nice. > This article is trivializing music down to a few not-so-important facts This is a music theory lecture with code examples. Hardly “not-so-important”. > mistakin…

Music theory is just that. Theory. There is no set of laws. Creating melodies by doggedly applying any system is almost guaranteed to feel tired, predictable and boring.

I like to think about it as an opinionated framework. Once you have the basics, you can take an unpredictable sounding song and deconstruct it to understand why it sounds so good.

I don’t really have a problem with systems.

Re: Music Theory for Programmers

#195

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

hn993302 wrote: post #187
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is meant here is that there are different musical cultures around the world, and if you grew up in one that, for example, prominently uses quarter-tones/microtones (e.g. a lot of music from Arabic and Indian cultures) then we know that you will have a different reaction to, say, Bach, than someone who grew up in a culture that uses strict equal temperament. It does not mean "my parents played a lot of and that d…

I grew up with Western music, and now Arabic music is one of my favorites. I really don't think Westerners hear semitones differently. Also, a lot of Arabic music is 12-tone, and even if it weren't, they probably appreciate Bach the same way.

No, people don't "hear semitones differently" but ... practicing musicians from one culture will choose to use semitones, quartertones and microtones differently, and a listener with a lot of musical exposure will notice this when listening to music that does and does not involve such practices.

Re: Music Theory for Programmers

#196

Post by iainctduncan »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #193
iainctduncan wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Music theory" has a near universally accepted meaning. This article is not about that, it's about what we all call in music academia acoustics and digital synthesis (which of course I know you know as I know your work). The derivation of scales from acoustic principles is not in theory books; it's in acoustics books. I've taken numerous theory courses and also taken university acoustics courses and digital synthesis…

> The derivation of scales from acoustic principles is not in theory books; it's in acoustics books. And this is correct because ... ? There are whole subsectors of "music theory" that cover precisely this sort of thing, even though they are fairly arcane. I'm thinking of things like pitch set theory. My own take is that western musical pedagogy, at least historically, is one of the worst examples of pedagogy that ex…

It seems you arguing how things should be, not what they are. I don't disagree that in music we have lots of inconsistent nomenclature that could have better names. But writing an intro to a topic and using non-standard nomenclature (without explaining that that's what you're doing) is still a source of confusion to learners.

Whether or not this info should be in acoustics books or theory books is not relevant to the new learner, that's where it is! I actually think a crash course in acoustics would be a good addition to a comprehensive theory book, but it doesn't change the fact that no theory course or book has this stuff (not even my pitch set texts!)

I teach music students regularly. I spend a lot of time explaining what something is called in various contexts. They need to know this to learn in a productive and not frustrating manner. They can then learn later why the terms are imperfect and used differently in different subcultures.

But no argument on that is going to convince me that it's good pedagogy to tell new readers that a post on acoustics and synthesis is on music theory. That's just counterproductive at best, or ignorant at worst.

Re: Music Theory for Programmers

#198

Post by SwtCyber »

seanhunter wrote: post #31

This is (mostly) not music theory and what is music theory is mostly wrong or incomplete to the point of being wildly misleading. Source: have degree and postgrad in music, was a professional musician until RSI put paid to that career, wife is a professional musician and teaches to postgrad level at 2 conservertoires, most of our friends are professional musicians, have a house full of scores and music books. If you…

I think there's still a pedagogical niche for what the article is doing. For someone coming from programming, "here's why these conventions aren't completely arbitrary" can be the thing that gets them interested enough to later learn harmony properly

Re: Music Theory for Programmers

#199

Post by coldtea »

simonask wrote: post #180
coldtea wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A counter argument to the typical "piss on TFA" HN top voted comment: (musician of many decades) the post IS music theory of the kind it purports to be, it's not misleading in the least, at worst it's incomplete (but never claimed to be complete) and simplified. It's just not conventional music theory (which is just a set of rules thrown at you). But the whole point that the parent missed, is that it is told in a way…

I'm a programmer with a degree in musicology as well. This ain't it. I'm reading your comment with a certain disdain for analysis and theory, which I get - a lot of people come out scarred from music theory training, and I'm sorry someone hurt you that way. But music theory is fundamentally a way to talk about music. Nobody is trying to "sell" you anything, but it does become much easier to work together as musicians…

>I'm reading your comment with a certain disdain for analysis and theory, which I get - a lot of people come out scarred from music theory training, and I'm sorry someone hurt you that way.

I'm fine with contentional music theory training. Know my music theory, had official music training, been at it for some decades.

It's not the purpose of this. Traditional music theory training or a jazz theory book wont tell you about harmonics and timbre. It wont tell you how come we divided the octave like this, and things this tries to tackle.

It was written to serve a fundamentally different purpose. A purpose which apparently familiarity with regular music theory makes most blind to.

It's like someone wanting to learn about acoustics, and someone given them an earful about diatonic chords and how to read notation. It's simply not what they want to now about. Or it's like someone wants to know about the chemistry of cement or the physics behind structural engineering, and people try to tell him all about construction and construction terms. Not what he is interested in knowing, even if it's essential for building a house, just like music theory is essential (or at least useful) in playing and composing music.

>But music theory is fundamentally a way to talk about music. Nobody is trying to "sell" you anything, but it does become much easier to work together as musicians when we share a language we can use to talk about the music.

That's neither here nor there. The purpose of TFA is not for musicians to talk about music with one another, or to help someone analyze that this piece of music is in that key or uses that mode, and modulates there, or that "this chord here is used as a chromatic mediant", or borrowed chords, or counterpoint, and all that.

>"Take it from the candenza", "a bit more ritenuto", etc. is just more efficient and precise than "take it from the place where it goes dun-dun-dunnnn", or "go more slowly-like".

That's explicitly NOT what TFA wants to be useful for.

Re: Music Theory for Programmers

#200

Post by SwtCyber »

teiferer wrote: post #123
seanhunter wrote: post #31

This is (mostly) not music theory and what is music theory is mostly wrong or incomplete to the point of being wildly misleading. Source: have degree and postgrad in music, was a professional musician until RSI put paid to that career, wife is a professional musician and teaches to postgrad level at 2 conservertoires, most of our friends are professional musicians, have a house full of scores and music books. If you…

Props for mentioning “The Jazz Theory Book”! It's an excellent book. The only thing I'd add to your recommendations is: Listen! When you hear a song, some melody, a rhythm, listen carefully, try to deconstruct the components, how they interplay, and try to figure out what is it that you like. Was it a feature of the harmony? The melody? Pacing? Whatever it is, keep listening. Theory is just a way to try to explain wh…

Yeah, this is the advice I wish showed up more often in "learn music theory" discussions
Post reply on HN