Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People • Hacker News Board

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#71

Post by was8309 » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 2:46 AM UTC

leephillips wrote: post #63

kazinator wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

> Jazz is a development of Western classical music

only of Western classical music?

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#72

Post by TylerE » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 3:17 AM UTC

squeaky-clean wrote: post #55

dbalatero wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not to mention that the SOUND matters too, depending on the fingering. E.g. A high D played on the (plain) 2nd string sounds different than the same pitch played on the wound 3rd string which sounds different than the wound 4th string played up above the 12th fret, etc.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#73

Post by analog31 » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 3:23 AM UTC

squeaky-clean wrote: post #45

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.

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…

Granted, I'm a bassist, and I appreciate that guitar is its own beast. Bassists also debate the merits of tabs versus notation. I used to be adamant that everybody should learn to read, but have softened my views, especially in light of what you say, that reading tends to discourage beginners.

Instead, my more moderate view is that at the very least, new players should be informed of what the most common notation systems are like, and what they are used for. We can argue all day, but it's often someone else who decides how they want to notate something. Different genres have their own preferences, and there are even regional variations. I played with a bandleader who had moved up from the South, and had to re-write her book because nobody in this region can read Nashville number charts.

I play in a jazz band, and the guitarist and I would both be helpless if we couldn't read standard notation -- dots and chord symbols. But I would add that it's a musical genre where the music is pretty forgiving of the player deciding their own fingerings on the fly.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#74

Post by praxeologist » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 3:41 AM UTC

nottombrown wrote: post #27

Nobody has mentioned hooktheory.com yet. If you're interested in why some music sounds good, check it out.

I'll second this even though I only checked out the site once a bit back. I'm still quite the newb at this stuff but it got a great response on the EDM production subreddit.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#75

Post by baddox » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 3:59 AM UTC

tomsthumb wrote: post #69

baddox wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's pretty much the definition of pop music, or at least good pop music.

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#76

Post by xaver » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 4:00 AM UTC

mdisraeli wrote: post #50

I recall once seeing a link on HN for music theory for physicists and engineers, but I didn't bookmark the URI at the time - anyone recall this, and how to find it?

this perhaps? http://arxiv.org/html/1202.4212v1

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#77

Post by lucasgw » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 4:47 AM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #64

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…

>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.

I get your point, and of course everybody hears something different. That's music!

But this particular combination is like saying, "Listen to Billy Joel and you hear piano." ;) House and techno really are direct lineage from the minimalists in many ways. This is not a blind cross-reference. Any artist learns and borrows from what has come before. Some borrow more heavily than others. (As an aside, check out the 2006 album "Reich Remixed" for some really cool interpretations... )

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#78

Post by lucasgw » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 5:02 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?

Listen to Les, and hear the technique and round sound of Jaco Pastorius. (or at least I do.)

Listen to Portrait of Tracy (or any great harmonic jazz) and you hear the same open chord structures of Impressionist works like Debussy's Preludes or Ravel's Valse Nobles.

Listen to the impressionists and you go many places...

Ravel and Debussy's piano music is barely one step removed from jazz. Makes sense, because the early jazz greats lived and played around the same time. There's a famous picture of Ravel at a birthday party when he was in his 50s, with George Gershwin standing beside him. The early 1900s was an amazing time in music... classical was mixing with early jazz was mixing with vaudeville was mixing with the first stirrings of delta blues was mixing with gospel was mixing with african folks songs...

(I can do this all night... ;)

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#79

Post by lucasgw » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 5:27 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #17

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/

I see what you did there, TOBy Rush! Seriously, I make techno and am intensely interested in music theory. You might as well complain about mathematical cheat sheets containing arithmetic, geometry, and other outdated concepts that were cooked up by ancient Greeks wrapped in sheets.

If you're a techno composer - check out some of the great minimalist and musique concrete composers, then use the intertubez and read about how they got to their musical vision. Their take on theory and how they warp/deconstruct traditional notions of structure is something I learn from all the time...

Some of my favorites: Steve Reich - Music for 18 Musicians & New York Counterpoint Phillip Glass - North Star Morton Subotnick - A Triumph of Reason Iannis Xenakis - Pleiades, Musique Concrete 1959

...

Re: Music Theory for Musicians and Normal People

#80

Post by zedshaw » Sat, Oct 18, 2014, 5:32 AM UTC

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 wanted to thank you for one of the best comments on HN I've ever read. Having studied music "theory" for years your comment was actually the first words that described what I thought about this topic, and that book recommendation is fantastic. I honestly haven't been this informed on this site in...ever. I'm serious.

Thank you.