Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People • Hacker News Board

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#61

Post by leephillips » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 1:38 AM UTC

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…

"a jazz tradition"

What system of notation do you think jazz musicians use? I don't think you'd have any luck trying to find employment as a jazz musician since at least the 1930s unless you could at least read music, and be fairly good at sight-reading as well. And as far a composing and arranging? Those guys not only knew tons of theory, but very consciously developed their own extensions to it. They were very familiar with Western classical music, as well as Blues.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#62

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 1:53 AM UTC

pierrec wrote: post #37

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…

This is music theory, or at the very least, the bulk of the document is about the theory of harmony. The first few pages may give the impression of solely exposing jargon, but as you progress through the pages, the author moves on to the theory of harmony , or what has been referred to as such for the last century and a half (at least). I'm not saying the expression is semantically perfectly sound, but it's been in u…

It's a practical guide for music written before 1910.

Unfortunately quite a lot has happened in music since 1910, and if you're trying to write music for the 2010s Harmonielehre and 'theory' of this kind won't just confuse you, it will actively mislead you.

The problem is that it teaches you nothing about the importance of performance expression, or the many different ways modes get used and abused in pop/rock/electronica, or how to create arrangements that capture and keep listener attention.

Pop has become a massive historical experiment in perceptual psychology. The most popular bands can literally fill a stadium - something common practice music has never done.

While that doesn't mean pop is better in some absolute sense, it does suggest it's doing something right for many listeners.

If your training is too rigidly classical it actively stops you being able to hear and understand what that right thing is, because you're too busy concentrating on a small subset of the many details in the music.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#63

Post by leephillips » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 1:57 AM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #42

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 blog you linked to is full of conventional music theoretical discussion such as: "The blues is based around a very different set of harmonic expectations than the ones underlying classical music. In the blues, major and minor tonality are freely intermingled. Dominant seventh chords can function as tonics. Tritones need not resolve." Although the blues uses devices not commonly found in classical music, the langu…

"not completely isolated from hearing classical music"

Many of the most important jazz composers and musicians were classically trained and were intimate with the type of music theory we're talking about here. Thelonius Monk could reel off Chopin and Rachmaninoff etudes from memory. "Take the A Train" and many other tunes we associate with Ellington were written by Billy Strayhorn, who's main interest was classical music, but found that the classical music establishment at the time would not accept a black composer or musician. Jazz was the only genre in which he was allowed to work. (Ellington/Strayhorn and Monk are considered the most important composers in Jazz, and their initial training was in European classical music.)

Jazz is a development of Western classical music, and knows it. In fact, it's a rather miraculous revival of the improvisatory tradition that was central to European art music until it died out with the rise of symphonic music in the 19th century. If you listen to some contemporary jazz pianists, for example, Marcus Roberts, there's no mistaking the strong influence of European classical music.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#64

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 2:02 AM UTC

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…

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

No, you hear Koyaanisqatsi, etc.

And this is exactly why you should never try to understand a popular genre by crossreferencing its stylings against some other style or genre.

Because other people hear other things - many, many other things - which perhaps you're not aware of.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#65

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 2:04 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#66

Post by coldtea » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 2:12 AM UTC

duairc wrote: post #51

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 mo…

>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.

The reasons he mentions are bogus -- simply his bias against a term in common use ("music theory") , only because "theory" is used with a different meaning in academic contexts.

That said, there's nothing to be suspicious of in music theory, and what's in TFA is not "so called music theory", it's actual music theory, the way every composer, musician, etc in the western world knows as such.

That it doesn't explain other aspects of music (psychological, physical etc) does not make it any less "music theory", nor does it make those other things "music theory".

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#67

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 2:18 AM UTC

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…

>Where is the counterpoint? Where are the modulations?

In the sound design, the rhythms, and the production, where they never trouble the hearing of anyone who has been trained to believe that musical structures are defined almost entirely by pitch patterns.

Even the idea that music exists to 'express rhetorical ideas' is... actually quite odd, outside of classical training, anyway.

I happen to like fugues very, very much. (The fugue in BWV 542 is a favourite - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6Kul3JzKI0.)

But the idea that music should aim for that always? Uh, nope.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#68

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 2:22 AM UTC

tiglionabbit wrote: post #24

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...

That's very good indeed, and much closer to my personal idea of a useful theory guide.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#69

Post by tomsthumb » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 2:36 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #31

lucasgw wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's even plenty of music theory to learn with Miley Cyrus, particularly if you want to know about just intonation and harmonic theory. Even the simplest and most ubiquitous pop chord progressions with just I IV and V require a fair amount of harmonic theory to reason about.

A number of more talented musicians than myself have also remarked that there is actually a lot of weird stuff going in top 40 music. It's so bland and repetitive that they have to do something different for it to be memorable; it's just not the focus of the song.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#70

Post by tomsthumb » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 2:38 AM UTC

Energy1 wrote: post #59

lucasgw wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Progressions are old as dirt. Pretty much all solos are melodic arrangements which fit over an underlying chord progression. Bassicaly (ahahhahahaha), if you broke it down enough, you would be able to "strum" a Les Claypool bass solo.