Live data from Hacker News

Music Theory for the 21st-Century Classroom

musictheory.pugetsound.edu

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: Music Theory for the 21st-Century Classroom

#51

A good example [1] of someone learning a piece without knowledge of the underlying theory. I find it magical because he was a teenager whose dad gave him a Joe Pass record, and he learned All The Things You Are when he was laid up with an injury and had too much time on his hands. He ends up playing it for his dad, who's impressed. He doesn't realize that the chords sort of follow a ii-V-I pattern, and I'm sure event…

He certainly knows all the theory now. He has a really good ear, in his videos he listens to a song for the first time, playing along on guitar or piano and naming all the chords and progressions as he goes.

Re: Music Theory for the 21st-Century Classroom

#52
post #5

Is halfstep and whole steps common academic practice? Not being from the US I was always taught with semitones and tones. Whenever I saw YouTube videos with half steps and whole steps I thought they were dumbing down for the audience.

I’ve lived in the US for my entire life and do lots of music production. I never use half step or whole step. I tend to refer to things in terms of semitones or intervals (3rd, 5th, octave, etc).

I thought half step, whole step was a grade school thing mostly. But I really wouldn’t blink at either style, it’s all the same to me.

Re: Music Theory for the 21st-Century Classroom

#53
This is music theory for the 20th century, its what I got at school, dry and boring and instantly forgettable. I got re-learned music theory in a pub by a guy who could do heavy metal growling among other real world music skills and never looked back.

Music must be enjoyable or it ain't music.

Re: Music Theory for the 21st-Century Classroom

#54

A gentle reminder that this is a theory of music, not "the" music theory, or more specifically Western European music theory, rooted in 17th century Germany. A problem for many "21st century classrooms" is how they VASTLY over-state the universality and "superiority" of this form of music theory. Thing about the snooty elitist vibes of the "classical" chamber music world, then realize that almost every base assumptio…

Adam Neely has a wonderful video on music theory and white supremacy, for those interested in some history of where western music theory came from. Also as an alternative, the jazz piano site has a really good intro to music theory from a jazz perspective, including videos demonstrating everything in each lesson.

While it was sitting in the back of my mind for a while, Adam was the one who really got me to think critically about it.

Re: Music Theory for the 21st-Century Classroom

#55
post #37

A gentle reminder that this is a theory of music, not "the" music theory, or more specifically Western European music theory, rooted in 17th century Germany. A problem for many "21st century classrooms" is how they VASTLY over-state the universality and "superiority" of this form of music theory. Thing about the snooty elitist vibes of the "classical" chamber music world, then realize that almost every base assumptio…

True, but even beyond world music, as far as I can tell there is no widely accepted academic theory of modern production technique, where note-based harmonic language is secondary to general creativity in sonic landscape. This is a large part of what most people find interesting in music today, that is popular music production for distribution via sound systems, which arguably represents the current pinnacle of evolu…

> even beyond world music

sidenote: this is sort of part of the problem: a lot of the academic world has positioned one specialty of music as the default and everything else in the wide world of sport in to one "world music" bucket.

Also, there are absolutely schools of music theory that place other aspects of theory "above" pitch. For example, while Hip-Hop and EDM are based on western harmonic structures, I would argue that there is a much larger emphasis placed on rhythm and timbre, as the other comment mentioned. Many American Indian and African musical traditions (which may not have a "widely accepted academic tradition" but should not be viewed as less valid) place much less emphasis on a specific pitch at all, as opposed to the motion of pitch over time, and very percussion and rhythm forward.

If you're interested in theories around tonal shaping, look up electro-house and dubstep sound design tutorials. Dead serious, these guys do things that would never occur to us mere mortals because of the understanding of timbre and the tools they use. A personal favorite of mine is Virtual Riot. His "4 producers 1 sample" entry was truly mind bending: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvKY_DnM1PA&t=7m43s

Re: Music Theory for the 21st-Century Classroom

#56

Something seems off here. 1. Cadential six-four chords are only listed briefly under the "figured bass" section. But cadential six-fours are a concept from Roman numeral functional harmony, which is outside the scope of figured bass. (Figured bass only tells what intervals make up the chord-- or in some special circumstances hints about voicing-- but not about how those chords function.) 2. The section on cadences--…

> Figured bass only tells what intervals make up the chord Those intervals are relative to the bass. A six-four has a sixth and fourth above the bass (i.e., a second inversion).

That's true, but that still doesn't explain how the chord functions. What makes a "cadential six four" chord cadential? Or more practically-- which second inversion triads are cadential, and which aren't?

To be completist about my criticism here-- the author could stick only to figured bass analyses and give enough examples that the reader/listener starts to implicitly hear the bass patterns, phrase structure, and voice leading that help them differentiate between passing 6-4 chords and cadential ones. Eventually, we've sung enough chorales that we can quickly start parsing these patterns easily enough.

However, the author chose to introduce Roman numeral analysis which is the explicit approach to demarcating how the chords in an example function harmonically. That explicitness is quite useful. E.g.

* the piece begins to modulate using this specific chord as a pivot, specified with roman numerals for both the old and new key

* this second inversion chord gets special notation because it's a cadential six-four which will soon resolve to a V in root position

That would all be fine and appropriate, except that the author then relegates cadential six four chords to an ancillary part of the tutorial. But demarcating cadential six four chords is one of the big reasons to go the route of Roman numeral analysis in the first place! Teaching students how to explicitly spot and notate the difference between passing moments in the phrase and cadential moments for the same exact chord is key to them understanding how phrases of tonal music operate.

In a normal harmony class, the lessons dealing with cadential six four chords make it easier for students to more quickly analyze difficult music. E.g., is the first chord of Wagner's Liebestod a "one six four" chord or a cadential six four? In Roman numeral analysis one must resolve that ambiguity by making a choice. When one does, the structure of that part of the opera becomes obvious-- it's an ending full of little endings, each of which get elided through chromatic voice leading.

You can eventually come to the same conclusion using only figured bass. But chromatic 19th century music can get pretty hairy and so the explicit tool of Roman numeral analysis can come in handy there.

But if you learn Roman numeral analysis without learning about the quite common cadential six four, it strips out one of the fundamental lessons for figuring out how phrases of tonal music build and release tension in time. Consequently, analyses like this become more difficult for no good reason.

Re: Music Theory for the 21st-Century Classroom

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly urge people to skip this and not keep suggesting it. It amounts to Bernstein being an outlier in bothering to even ask questions in the right direction while few others were doing so, and he gives lots of erroneous and speculative answers based on having no access to the rest of ethnomusicology and music cognition and other understandings that have developed in the decades since.

I'd be very happy to be stuck at his level though.

Bernstein was amazing indeed. But if he were alive today, he'd probably have more ready access to music psychology and ethnomusicology perspectives and more readily get feedback from people who have answers to the questions he's posing.

I'd share with people anything from Bernstein otherwise, but for music theory, these particular lectures are not what I'd recommend sharing.

Re: Music Theory for the 21st-Century Classroom

#58
post #40

Hmm, GNU FDL why? I am all about free/libre/open terms, that was the first thing I checked. But CC BY-SA is the standard now for this type of thing, and GNU FDL mostly just creates incompatibility. Anyway, this content is "Western Art Music" academic, *dated* sort of stuff, it's not at all appropriate for a globally-aware 21st century classroom. Serialism?? And no mention of any non-Western traditions or pitch system…

It's actually applicable to 99% of all "popular" music, as well. Obviously not just to "Western Art Music". Which is why all this stuff is still taught. What do you think is "appropriate for a globally-aware 21st century classroom"? Do you have any music degrees? I've got a couple. If you've studied at a music school, then I'm sure you'd be aware that non-Western musical traditions and tonal systems are covered; just…

> Do you have any music degrees? I've got a couple.

Woopteedoo Mr. Argument-from-authority. Well, that's the snarky tone I might have if I stick to replying in a triggered-reactive state. But better for me to engage with the reasonable points and not focus on imagining you feeling defensive and me being reactive in reverse.

Yes, you are right that "Western Art Music" is too narrow, many many aspects of pop-music and jazz and so on do indeed use these same structures. And furthermore, several aspects of this sort of "theory" are decently universal.

I do still object strongly to the presentation of these ideas as if they explain music. I'm not going to prioritize getting into this in depth here. I would be happy and probably not really object if this stuff were all just labeled as Standard Patterns of 12-tone Western Music instead of "Music Theory".

P.S. Yes, I have a music degree, and I also did a bunch of grad-level stuff too and almost started a music PhD, but life went in other directions. As it stands though, I have learned more about music away from academia than in it. However, I did find some people within academia who seemed to really have broader understandings, and I was pursuing working with such folks when I was still engaged in that world.

Re: Music Theory for the 21st-Century Classroom

#59
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually applicable to 99% of all "popular" music, as well. Obviously not just to "Western Art Music". Which is why all this stuff is still taught. What do you think is "appropriate for a globally-aware 21st century classroom"? Do you have any music degrees? I've got a couple. If you've studied at a music school, then I'm sure you'd be aware that non-Western musical traditions and tonal systems are covered; just…

> Do you have any music degrees? I've got a couple. Woopteedoo Mr. Argument-from-authority. Well, that's the snarky tone I might have if I stick to replying in a triggered-reactive state. But better for me to engage with the reasonable points and not focus on imagining you feeling defensive and me being reactive in reverse. Yes, you are right that "Western Art Music" is too narrow, many many aspects of pop-music and…

I want to mention that I was particularly irked by seeing the same old 20th-century "music theory" on something labeled "21st Century". I don't understand why this stuff is somehow particularly for the 21st-Century Classroom.

Re: Music Theory for the 21st-Century Classroom

#60
post #8

Good to see solid info on 20th C techniques of serialism and minimalism. Extra content to flesh it out might be aleatoric, atonality and electroacoustic/computer music and 21st C digital and interactive scores and composition methods.

I find serialism to be akin to throwing letters (or characters including the blank space) and expecting poetry (or really any intelligible text) to come out

Try Stravinsky, IMO he was the best at it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPExIXkBOus&t=0s&ab_channel=...

Post reply on HN