Live data from Hacker News

Music theory for nerds

eev.ee

221–230 of 390 posts

Re: Music theory for nerds

#221
post #212

> I suppose it’s possible to change the sound of an entire piece of music just by changing the key signature, but does anyone actually do that? Much more interestingly, this touches on the reason why different pieces were given keys at all by their composers (think "foo in B flat minor by Chopin"). Musical instruments have to be tuned to a particular key. This is because of the frequency ratios: the circle of fifths…

Is that true? I thought most instruments (or at least most pianos) these days were tuned to be equal tempered, so each scale would sound the same (modulo a pitch scaling).

Pianos actually often even employ a form of stretch tuning ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stretched_tuning ) - which gets even more complex, as the OP only refers to sinus tones, which don't have any melodic overtones. Things get even more fun with this.

Otherwise, you're right. Historic tunings often tried to optimize for a certain base scale (often times C major), while leaving behind a really bad sounding tuning at the other side of the circle of fifths ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_interval ).

Modern pianos are usually equal tempered, which is the strategy of leaving every scale equally bad off - but on the other hand being able to play in all keys without sounding too bad (The famous "well-tempered piano" is referring to this historic change in tuning strategies with small pieces written in all different kinds of keys, all of which would have sounded weird before).

The more I learned about tuning, the more complex, beautiful and sad this topic became for me: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/the-sadde...

It's fascinating and even a little philosophical that we can get so close to perfection with the 12 step tuning - but never, ever completely attain it.

By the way - That's part of the reason why choirs and orchestras often sound so good: As most other non-fixed-string instruments are able to do a slight adjustment in pitch, they can actually play perfect intervals in any chord, dynamically adjusting to any scale.

Re: Music theory for nerds

#222

In case anyone is searching for a really smart, modern method for learning music theory, this is it: https://www.hooktheory.com The author devised his own system for visually representing notes, it makes it much easier to understand things like scale degrees and relative notation (and thus the theory around famous harmonies, melodies, etc). I think music tools are in desperate need for improvement... Starting with no…

> In case anyone is searching for a really smart, modern method for learning music theory, this is it: https://www.hooktheory.com

I really want to buy the books but they're all DRM'd :-(.

Here's hoping someone from there reads this page and releases it as an epub...

Re: Music theory for nerds

#223
post #212

> I suppose it’s possible to change the sound of an entire piece of music just by changing the key signature, but does anyone actually do that? Much more interestingly, this touches on the reason why different pieces were given keys at all by their composers (think "foo in B flat minor by Chopin"). Musical instruments have to be tuned to a particular key. This is because of the frequency ratios: the circle of fifths…

Is that true? I thought most instruments (or at least most pianos) these days were tuned to be equal tempered, so each scale would sound the same (modulo a pitch scaling).

You're correct. Most instruments that lack real time tuning capabilities use equal temperament tuning, which is a 20th century development.

Wind instruments are necessarily tuned to a specific key, due to the nature of the harmonic series. But most talented wind instrumentalists are capable of modifying pitch to be in tune in any key or chord.

Down the rabbit hole, read on at your own peril:

Even string instruments are tuned to a key, to a certain extent, due to the use of harmonics. It is possible to fine tune the pitch of a harmonic by shortening the string as usual, but it is exceedingly difficult, since shortening the string changes the position of the nodes (the spots on the string that must be touched in order to produce harmonics).

Re: Music theory for nerds

#224
My main problem with music notation is the difference between C-C# and E-F interval.

That is - there's no difference, but notations pretends there is one because that's how we put the keys closer to each other or some other historical reason.

Re: Music theory for nerds

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading this over again, it seems like the author's not yet fully wrapped their mind around "big picture" stuff like keys, chords, basic compositional structure, etc. It's an... interesting choice to write a piece proclaiming that musical notation is absurd when you're only a beginner.

If a beginner can't immediately grasp musical notation, isn't that evidence that it is, in fact, absurd?

well a beginner can't really grasp shorthand or kanji either, right? A beginner not being able to get things means that the learning curve is higher.

Most musical notation is meant for non-beginners, right? And a lot of the beginner confusion is from features that are useful for advanced users. So there's a tradeoff.

There might, of course, be changes to be had. But a lot of beginner confusion is because the higher-level abstractions are needed.

A good example in mathematical notation is order of operations. Why not just do left to right? Or just going with Polish Notation?

Standard order of operations work well for people working with large formula, because they allow you to write many common things without many parentheses. But mandatory parentheses + left-to-right only would be easier for beginners.

Re: Music theory for nerds

#226
post #212

> I suppose it’s possible to change the sound of an entire piece of music just by changing the key signature, but does anyone actually do that? Much more interestingly, this touches on the reason why different pieces were given keys at all by their composers (think "foo in B flat minor by Chopin"). Musical instruments have to be tuned to a particular key. This is because of the frequency ratios: the circle of fifths…

Is that true? I thought most instruments (or at least most pianos) these days were tuned to be equal tempered, so each scale would sound the same (modulo a pitch scaling).

That's the ideal, given infinitely long and infinitely bendable strings. Reality is that a tuner works from a certain key and tunes in equal temperament the other keys. Since the piano and the tuning is a compromise and there is limited time, the piano will always sound slightly better in one key than another. As most people play in keys close to the C major scale, this usually gets most attention.

Also, pianos rely on resonation. I would not be surprised that the sound board and resonant cavity is designed to favour certain tones. I'm not certain about this though.

Re: Music theory for nerds

#227
post #176

Many musicians much better than me are surprised at how I can play a song just by hearing it on the radio. My breakthrough came from understanding music was realizing that the real “meaning” of a note lies in its position relative to the tonic note (e,g, I-II-II, etc, also written do-re-mi). Suddenly, almost all of the clutter was removed, and the problem became manageable. Let's consider the three-note tune “do, re,…

I'm not a good musician by any means, never had music education apart from the primary school which was abysmal. I can't recognise pure tones (just the intervals). I still can play any song I hear on guitar or keyboard "good enough" so that people have fun singing to it.

The huge reveal to me was the same - notes doesn't matter - the intervals make the song recognizable. People change notes all the time when singing (jump octaves, start again lower to adjust to others, etc).

So on amateur level it's really just starting on random place on keyboard and guessing which note will sound "right" after that. Everybody hear if the next note is higher or lover, so it's just "was that +1, +2, or +3?" Usually you can guess, if not - start again. Very easy and makes playing instruments so fun.

I never understood why they bother kids with these complicated drawings and hashes and be-mols, if they could've just wrote all songs as "start at this note, and jump by +2, +3, -5, ...".

Re: Music theory for nerds

#228

I'd like to elaborate a bit, in the same "for nerds" manner, on where Eevee seems to get lost a bit with scales and notation. He (she? not sure) calls the A minor and C major scales the same, because they contain the same notes. That's not an odd thought, but it's like calling sine and cosine the same because both functions contain the same set of values, in the same order. The difference is phase. Basically, scales…

[deleted]

Re: Music theory for nerds

#230
post #188
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, great composers such as Beethoven and Bach and Chopin had very definite ideas about what emotions are evoked by certain keys. They even argued about it with their peers. Music is not something that is reducible to mere quanta and waves and frequency. You all are missing the human part. Sorry, but it's true.

Music is waves and frequency. Music appreciation is what you are describing. And appreciation is very dependant on culture . That is why Bach is not (as) appreciated in certain cultures . Just like photography. Why is one photograph more meaningful than another? it has nothing to do with photography, per se, it has everything to do with the culture of the person doing the appreciation. There is a link between the two…

"music is waves and frequency" in the same way that "spoken language is waves and frequency"---not very usefully. I think bringing in" appreciation" muddies the waters.
Post reply on HN