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

Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

tobyrush.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 128 posts

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#21

Post by ambler0 »

archagon wrote: post #19
ambler0 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree. For one thing, a lot of what one learns studying Common Practice music theory most definitely is applicable to modern styles. Things like dominant function, for example, aren't going anywhere. That said, I agree with the point that is implied by your post, namely, that "music theory" as the term is usually used is actually a description of a specific period of music (Common Practice) and it is…

One of the most enlightening things I learned while studying music in college was discovering why classical harmony ended up the way it did. What makes a V7 chord work? Where did augmented 6th chords come from? How did the Neapolitan chord fit into these systems? By looking at the progression of music history from one-voice chants to counterpoint to harmony and then to the explosion of ideas in the Romantic era and b…

I feel the same way about gaining insight from studying the history of music theory, but I have to disagree with a couple of points, too:

1. Studying the history of Western music theory doesn't give you insight into any music, as you claim. It gives you insight into Western music. Check out music from another part of the world with a completely different notion of tuning, different scales, etc, and your music theory background isn't going to help very much. The only thing that is truly universal is the overtone series, because that's based on physics.

2. I think we could come up with plenty of structurally complex music from recent idioms, particularly jazz and jazz-influenced music. I would say that a bigger difference between something like, I dunno, Steely Dan, and Beethoven's Fifth, is length. Popular musicians don't seem to attempt such longer pieces. But for me personally, longer != more powerful. For that matter, more complex != more powerful, but I happen to share your desire for what we're calling "compositional depth", whatever that may be...

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#22

Post by markvdb »

philbarr wrote: post #7
chpp wrote: post #2

Hacker News hug of death? I am new to guitar and was excited to see what this was.

You might want to just learn tablature for the time being, unless you're thinking of doing classical guitar. Not to say don't read them of course; you can read what you like, just that tab is what you'll be using I would have thought.

Guitar professional here.

It's good to keep the limitations of tabs in mind. The're really useful, but they don't represent music nearly half as much as conventional music notation. They represent finger movements instead.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#23

Post by baddox »

tobr wrote: post #9

I appreciate the style of presentation, but why do we still pretend this is "music" theory? Most of this is completely useless for anyone who is interested in understanding music that wasn't written by people in powdered wigs. For some actually useful music theory, I can recommend the goldmine that is Ethan Hein's blog: http://www.ethanhein.com/wp/category/music/music-theory/

Wait, what? You're claiming that basic intervals and chord are useless for understanding music that wasn't written by people in powdered wigs? I'm very confused. You need that to understand playing Brown Eyed Girl on an acoustic guitar. In fact, Hein's blog covers much of the same material.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#24

Post by tiglionabbit »

tobr wrote: post #9

I appreciate the style of presentation, but why do we still pretend this is "music" theory? Most of this is completely useless for anyone who is interested in understanding music that wasn't written by people in powdered wigs. For some actually useful music theory, I can recommend the goldmine that is Ethan Hein's blog: http://www.ethanhein.com/wp/category/music/music-theory/

The guide I usually see people point to is RavenSpiral's https://www.scribd.com/doc/5220863/Ravenspiral-Guide-to-Musi...

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#25

Post by archagon »

ambler0 wrote: post #21
archagon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most enlightening things I learned while studying music in college was discovering why classical harmony ended up the way it did. What makes a V7 chord work? Where did augmented 6th chords come from? How did the Neapolitan chord fit into these systems? By looking at the progression of music history from one-voice chants to counterpoint to harmony and then to the explosion of ideas in the Romantic era and b…

I feel the same way about gaining insight from studying the history of music theory, but I have to disagree with a couple of points, too: 1. Studying the history of Western music theory doesn't give you insight into any music, as you claim. It gives you insight into Western music. Check out music from another part of the world with a completely different notion of tuning, different scales, etc, and your music theory…

Classical music theory is a rigid, structural, almost mathematical system that emerged over several centuries. In those centuries, composers learned some very powerful techniques to express ideas in their music. Although the specifics of classical music — the rhythms, the chords, the tonalities — may be antiquated, I really do think that the forces that guided their development are just as relevant to modern music. For example: why is a V7 chord so powerful? It's because you have the interval of a 5th — a tense interval with almost universal meaning vis a vis the overtone series — combined with two minor 2nd intervals that are brimming with tension to resolve to the tonic and the third. The study of intervals and of tension in voice leading is, I think, absolutely essential in jazz as well, and can help explain some extremely confusing jazz chords in analysis as almost incidental results of voice leading. This is what I mean by classical music theory offering insight into any genre of music: classical music emerged out of the study of things like intervalic tension, and even though our own century's music has diverged from this origin, I think it's very important to study the lessons learned over those hundreds of years.

(EDIT: I just noticed that you said outside of Western music. Yes, that may be correct. Many systems of music in the world are very different from our own. But I think most people writing music today are writing with Western ears in mind. After all, we've been conditioned to understand this kind of music for hundreds of years!)

As for your second point, I think what I latch on to in classical music more than anything is the use of motif, and Beethoven's 5th of course epitomizes this. Don't get me wrong — I love popular music, and I listen to it more than anything — but most of the "top 100" songs in any popular music ranking feature wandering, improvised music more than any systemic use of motif to make a rhetorical point. And that's not a bad thing! I love Stairway to Heaven. But it just "sounds good" — it doesn't really develop its musical material.

Compare to something like this[1], where every single musical detail is repeated and developed across all the voices. It's so intricate. I've never heard this level of motivic development in popular music, and I've been looking for a few years now.

I am sorry if this is not making any sense, I am having beers.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLotW5AKjg

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#26

Post by lucasgw »

tobr wrote: post #9

I appreciate the style of presentation, but why do we still pretend this is "music" theory? Most of this is completely useless for anyone who is interested in understanding music that wasn't written by people in powdered wigs. For some actually useful music theory, I can recommend the goldmine that is Ethan Hein's blog: http://www.ethanhein.com/wp/category/music/music-theory/

Listen to techno, house and tribal, and you hear Koyaanisqatsi, 18 Musicians, and the work of Glass, Reich, and Riley.

Listen to Glass, Reich, and Riley - and you hear the deconstruction of symphonic structure.

Listen to Beethoven's symphonies and you hear the struggle of form from Mozart's classical era construction to what would become Beethoven's pure romanticism.

Listen to the interplay of an Alberti Bass and melody in Mozart's Piano Sonatas, and you hear the beauty in the evolution of counterpoint as written by Bach, Scarlatti, and their band of powdered wigs.

Listen to Bach and Scarlatti, and you hear the echoes of Gregorian Chant and the Diabolus in Musica (and why Black Sabbath sounds like Black Sabbath.)

Those who forget the past are doomed to be Miley Cyrus.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#28

Post by quadrangle »

This isn't "music theory" (although almost everyone thinks it is). This is "music jargon and notation systems". A theory is something that explains an observed phenomenon. This jargon and notation stuff doesn't explain music, it just guides you through the jargon and notation.

I have a music degree and learned all this stuff and a lot more. This presentation is an excellent, high-quality overview of this non-theory junk.

It's extremely culturally-biased and, again, offers no real theoretical explanation.

If you want real understanding of music in a useful way for real people, I recommend Bob Snyder's book "Music and Memory: An Introduction" which was actually written to teach creative artistic people about how music actually works rather than how aristocratic European music notation works.

For some other perspectives, check out http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/htmlRT/contents.html and http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/ttss.html (normally I wouldn't push these on average folks, although they are superb but the HN crowd should be fine with them)

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#29

Post by baddox »

archagon wrote: post #19
ambler0 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree. For one thing, a lot of what one learns studying Common Practice music theory most definitely is applicable to modern styles. Things like dominant function, for example, aren't going anywhere. That said, I agree with the point that is implied by your post, namely, that "music theory" as the term is usually used is actually a description of a specific period of music (Common Practice) and it is…

One of the most enlightening things I learned while studying music in college was discovering why classical harmony ended up the way it did. What makes a V7 chord work? Where did augmented 6th chords come from? How did the Neapolitan chord fit into these systems? By looking at the progression of music history from one-voice chants to counterpoint to harmony and then to the explosion of ideas in the Romantic era and b…

Out of curiosity, have you studied just intonation? I'm currently reading the mostly excellent Haromonic Experience [0]. I'm reasonably well educated on music theory, but I had never looked into just intonation and the way frequency relates to our perception of pitch and harmony. I'm finding this stuff enlightening.

An ideal string (or any oscillator) when disturbed (e.g. plucked) will tend to vibrate at a fundamental frequency of x Hz as well as modes of 2x, 3x, 4x, etc. These higher frequencies at integer multiples of the fundamental frequency are called harmonic partials. This is a physical phenomena unrelated to music and human hearing.

But the basic elements of harmony come from the fact that our auditory system seems to be "tuned" to identify harmonic partials.

If we start with a fundamental frequency x Hz (let's call it C), the first partial is 2x Hz, and it is another C an octave above (multiplying or dividing a pitch by a power of 2 will give you the same pitch in another octave).

The next partial is 3x Hz, and it sounds like a G. This is the interval called a perfect fifth, and is the strongest, most stable sounding interval (other than the octave). The next partial is 4x Hz, which is just another C, two octaves above the C we started with.

The next partial is 5x Hz, which sounds like an E. This is a major third, which is another strong and stable interval which is ubiquitous in most music.

[0] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0892815604/ref=oh_aui_detai...

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#30

Post by ambler0 »

archagon wrote: post #25
ambler0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the same way about gaining insight from studying the history of music theory, but I have to disagree with a couple of points, too: 1. Studying the history of Western music theory doesn't give you insight into any music, as you claim. It gives you insight into Western music. Check out music from another part of the world with a completely different notion of tuning, different scales, etc, and your music theory…

Classical music theory is a rigid, structural, almost mathematical system that emerged over several centuries. In those centuries, composers learned some very powerful techniques to express ideas in their music. Although the specifics of classical music — the rhythms, the chords, the tonalities — may be antiquated, I really do think that the forces that guided their development are just as relevant to modern music. F…

You're making plenty of sense, beers or no

I would say that the V7 gets it's power from the flatted fifth interval, aka the tritone, aka the most dissonant interval this side of a minor second. And like you say, it can be understood in terms of voice leading, e.g.the 7th (the "leading tone"!) "wants" to resolve up to the tonic.

It's interesting that you mentioned motif because I think that fits well with what I was saying about the length of the pieces. Seems to me that one isn't going to have much room to develop motifs unless writing in an extended form. But for me personally, this doesn't seem like a good requirement for a piece to be satisfying in the way that I think we are talking about. If you are seeking that kind of intricacy from modern music, have you checked out Bela Fleck & the Flecktones? Also, have you explored Zappa at all?

Post reply on HN