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

51–60 of 128 posts

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#51

Post by duairc »

quadrangle wrote: post #28

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…

> 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.

Thank you! I've long been suspicious of so-called music theory for exactly the reasons you outline. I always wanted to learn more about music and why it "works" as you say, so I assumed what I wanted to learn was music theory, but then when I tried to learn it it didn't seem to explain any of the things I was looking for. I'll have to check out that book.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#52

Post by baddox »

kansface wrote: post #47
markvdb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The funny thing is that standard notation is quite poor for the guitar because it has no notion of finger movements- all sorts of annotations are dumped into scores - numbers for fingers, circled numbers for strings, roman numerals for frets, empty noteheads for natural harmonics, and who knows what for artificial harmonics and friends. I don't think its possible to reproduce a piece from only tabs (without having he…

If you just want to know where you put your fingers to make the same sound as some other guitar made in a recording, tabs are fairly reasonable. If you want to know what's going on musically, staff notation is much better. Also, if you want to be able to play melodies from fake sheets, or arrange music originally written for another instrument, you'll need to know staff notation.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#53

Post by JDiculous »

quadrangle wrote: post #28

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…

Thank you for this comment, seriously. I hear a lot of producers talk about the importance of music theory, but I've never actually seen anything useful. All it is is notation. Notation by itself is meaningless and does not make anybody a better musician.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#54

Post by subdane »

zeroxfe wrote: post #48
quadrangle wrote: post #28

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…

I'm not sure how parent became the top comment, but "music theory" is absolutely appropriate here. This terminology is commonly accepted by musicians, educators, and practitioners. OP's link could say "western music theory", but that seems unnecessary given the audience. Secondly, why would you call this junk? This is actually very useful for people learning to play, and for those who want to understand the basics of…

Knowing how to spell doesn't make you a writer. I think the parent is trying to explain that there's a cultural bias and inscrutability with respect to how music theory is taught. Does learning a notation system make one a theorist? One can be a western musician in, say, a jazz tradition, understand theory, have theories and play music and have never used the system of notation explained in the otherwise awesome comic.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#55

Post by squeaky-clean »

dbalatero wrote: post #49
squeaky-clean wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tabs don't have to be just hand-scrawled notes or ASCII text anymore. With decent notation software, you can mix the notations. I don't think there's much that can be written in conventional music notation that can't be displayed in Guitar Pro (or Tux Guitar for an OSS alternative). Especially since it allows you to toggle between the two forms, or view them on top of each other.[1] You can also add rhythm and articu…

Tabs imply a certain fingering, which may or may not be optimal for the music - is there any way around that issue with those programs?

You can always switch to notation mode and work out the fingering for yourself, just like you normally would. The programs can also allow you to move notes between strings, and it will shift the tab so the note played is the same, even in alternate tunings, so you can quickly try different positions on the neck. I also know Guitar Pro has a feature where you can enter notation or tabs and it will attempt to work out the best fingering for you. I don't know how well this feature works, though.

If something is tabbed inefficiently, that's a problem with the author of the tabs, not the format. I'd say incorrect tablature is similar to incorrect notation. Just because someone can notate music incorrectly doesn't mean that sheet music is a poor format.

The fact that tabs imply a certain fingering is a larger benefit than an issue. Many riffs are only realistically playable with one specific fingering, and a tab can help you figure this out much more quickly than you could with your ear or notation alone. Especially when it comes to deciphering whether something is using techniques that can produce the same notes, but different sounds or ease of playing. Like sweeping as opposed to tapping, or songs written in alternate tunings.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#56

Post by squeaky-clean »

kansface wrote: post #47
markvdb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The funny thing is that standard notation is quite poor for the guitar because it has no notion of finger movements- all sorts of annotations are dumped into scores - numbers for fingers, circled numbers for strings, roman numerals for frets, empty noteheads for natural harmonics, and who knows what for artificial harmonics and friends. I don't think its possible to reproduce a piece from only tabs (without having he…

I feel like I'm repeating myself too much in this thread, haha, but only because it seems like no one is acknowledging that you can combine both forms very easily and produce very clear results. You just replace the staff notation with tabs, but keep everything else.

I took a quick screenshot to show an example[1]. I think here you can tell very easily what fingerings to play, what the note duration is, and when you should sustain notes over others. The difference between slurs, slides and whammy bar bends (The V symbol you see next to notes like in meas 3), muting notes is an x, yadda, yadda. I'll stop going on about tabs now.

[1] http://i.imgur.com/yog4v5n.png

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#57

Post by zeroxfe »

subdane wrote: post #54
zeroxfe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how parent became the top comment, but "music theory" is absolutely appropriate here. This terminology is commonly accepted by musicians, educators, and practitioners. OP's link could say "western music theory", but that seems unnecessary given the audience. Secondly, why would you call this junk? This is actually very useful for people learning to play, and for those who want to understand the basics of…

Knowing how to spell doesn't make you a writer. I think the parent is trying to explain that there's a cultural bias and inscrutability with respect to how music theory is taught. Does learning a notation system make one a theorist? One can be a western musician in, say, a jazz tradition, understand theory, have theories and play music and have never used the system of notation explained in the otherwise awesome comi…

> Knowing how to spell doesn't make you a writer.

Of course. But knowing how to spell is the first step towards learning to write -- my four-year-old will tell you all about it. :-)

Music theory is more than just spelling. It's also grammar -- it puts together rules for harmony and rhythm, and allows you to analyze music and communicate ideas by giving names to patterns (such as scales, chords, cadences, functions, meters, etc.) It allows you to learn for yourself how to break these rules and deviate from these patterns.

You can learn the theory without learning the notation, which is quite common among guitarists. You can also make music without knowing any theory at all, but it is always more helpful to know some theory.

> I think the parent is trying to explain that there's a cultural bias and inscrutability with respect to how music theory is taught.

Maybe, but the parent is also trivializing what is commonly referred to as "music theory" by calling it just "jargon" and "non-theory junk."

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#58

Post by [deleted] »

lucasgw wrote: post #26
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 mel…

[deleted]

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#59

Post by Energy1 »

lucasgw wrote: post #26
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 mel…

Suppose I am listening to Les Claypool's bass work. What olden stuff am I hearing?

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#60

Post by anigbrowl »

subdane wrote: post #54
zeroxfe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how parent became the top comment, but "music theory" is absolutely appropriate here. This terminology is commonly accepted by musicians, educators, and practitioners. OP's link could say "western music theory", but that seems unnecessary given the audience. Secondly, why would you call this junk? This is actually very useful for people learning to play, and for those who want to understand the basics of…

Knowing how to spell doesn't make you a writer. I think the parent is trying to explain that there's a cultural bias and inscrutability with respect to how music theory is taught. Does learning a notation system make one a theorist? One can be a western musician in, say, a jazz tradition, understand theory, have theories and play music and have never used the system of notation explained in the otherwise awesome comi…

The poster above is trying to one-up the OP. Of course a notational cheat sheet is not the same thing as a rigorous intellectual foundation, but the phrase 'music theory' is the most common term to describe the traditional notation and grammar for the western music corpus by a mile. That's what most people want when they search for 'music theory'. It's not a good use of the word 'theory' but the context within which it is embedded is widely familiar.

One can be a western musician in, say, a jazz tradition, understand theory, have theories and play music and have never used the system of notation explained in the otherwise awesome comic.

True, but it's pretty unlikely. Most people who play music pick some up theory (in the sense of this submission) along the way if only so they can have meaningful conversations with other musicians.

Post reply on HN