4 ms·

I'm also skeptical of music theorists that can't even attempt an answer to basic questions about note length frequency, why some chords are "sad" or "happy" and

I'm also skeptical of music theorists that can't even attempt an answer to basic questions about note length frequency, why some chords are "sad" or "happy" and other basic questions. I am no expert in music theory but I've been playing for most of my life and write music for fun. I know that A4 is 440 and that's about it. I don't know how knowing any other frequency, or even that one for that matter, would ever be helpful in me reading a chord sheet and walking a bass line to it nor would it be very helpful in me writing a melody or chord progression for a song I might be working on. As far as I know, the happy/sadness qualities of chords isn't a universal thing. It's likely not a question for music theory to explain. I read through the article a bit and I think it's fine but the way most people learn music theory is by first learning an instrument and learning the relevant ideas associated with it and if still interested will likely move onto more advanced concepts. It's like any other field really it all sort of builds on each other. Some of it has to be rigorous I think. If you can't read music it's probably not going to be very useful to know G->B is a major 3rd. The author says they want to write music which you don't really need to know music theory to do but you need to learn to walk before you run and it's not clear to me whether the author even knows how to play an instrument.

abetusk 5y ago
Not everyone learns the same. Some programmers and math centered folks need a guiding "first principles" approach before being able to move past to higher level understanding. This was the case for me. Without some way to organize knowledge, it's hard to understand which pieces of information are important, which are redundant and which should be applied (and why). This learning style is not universal and, in my view, why this article is specifically titled "Music theory for nerds". Programmers especially can make highly complex music without ever learning a classic instrument. Algoraves, chiptune, generative music, DAWs, real-time music programming environments etc. are all a thing and participants often don't need any concept of a "real" instrument to create quality music therein. I think you're right about the happy/sad being a cultural quality but there might be portions of it that might be explained by other means. Here's my attempt, which is almost surely at least partly wrong: "Major" chords have more constructively interfering waves than do "Minor" chords, especially in the lower frequencies, where more of the power lays.
- tarentel 5y ago
  Definitely agree. I think that's what makes it such a tricky subject for people to get into. You don't need to play an instrument to learn music theory, you don't need music theory to write good music, although you will be applying it without knowing it, you technically don't need to know how to play any instrument to write music, etc. Also, I guess my comment does sort of imply that I meant a classical instrument but arguably some of the things you listed could also be described as instruments, in which case, my point still stands. If you want to learn western music theory with the intentions of writing music, which is what this article is describing more or less, you need to have a way to make western music, whether that be a cello, a tracker, or a gameboy it doesn't matter. You're absolutely correct that we all learn differently but I would bet the people who learned and understood music theory well prior to learning and/or experimenting with some sort of sound generation first are in the minority. Most people will learn both at the same time. Playing music goes along way with reinforcing why things are done the way they are done and reading about the concepts after hearing them, playing them, experimenting with them goes a long way.
- analog31 5y ago
  Some people might be a lot happier if they skip theory altogether and instead, choose an instrument and learn to play it. That's what most musicians do. I'm a fairly successful jazz musician, and have barely learned any theory. The "first principles" are the history of the musical style, and the mechanics of my instrument.
- munificent 5y ago
  > Some programmers and math centered folks need a guiding "first principles" approach before being able to move past to higher level understanding. I would say this more as programming and math centered folks prefer subjects that are amenable to first principle analysis, which is what drew them to math and programming in the first place. And folks with that mental inclination will tend to use those tools to bear on all problems and subjects. When all you have is a hammer, etc. But it's important to remember that not every subject is built from first principles. Not everything in the world is reducible to a simple system with emergent properties. There is no Grand Unified Theory of history, no five axioms of mammalian biology. And, while I like the mother sauces, there is no culinary theory that can logically prove which recipes will taste good. We saw attempt to formalize in the 50s and 60s around spoken language. Chomsky and other linguists hoped to fully systematize spoken languages and analyze them according to formal grammars. Computer scientistics hoped to figure out all the rules of human languages so precisely that computers could parse them with perfect accuracy. The efforts failed. It turns out that while there are certainly patterns and grammars to how humans speak, the rules are fuzzy, ever-changing and deliberately broken. Music theory is also particularly tempting for people who like thinking mathematically, because it does have some numbers and stuff around frequency, intervals, etc. But music is about 10% systematic and 90% arbitrary cultural history. One can certainly focus on the subset that fits in that 10% and have an enjoyable experience making music while doing so. But a whole lot of music won't "make sense" in any real way if you discount "because people did it that way and others got used to hearing it" as a valid justification for some musical practice. There is no mathematically sound reason why we prefer the sound of a stretched out metal spring rattling against a taut piece of plastic on the second and fourth beat of every measure. Any explanation for why thousands of songs do that today has to involve discussions of goat skin, the Atlantic slave trade, the American fad for Hawaiian music in the 1930s, etc.

abetusk 5y ago

Not everyone learns the same. Some programmers and math centered folks need a guiding "first principles" approach before being able to move past to higher level understanding. This was the case for me. Without some way to organize knowledge, it's hard to understand which pieces of information are important, which are redundant and which should be applied (and why). This learning style is not universal and, in my view, why this article is specifically titled "Music theory for nerds". Programmers especially can make highly complex music without ever learning a classic instrument. Algoraves, chiptune, generative music, DAWs, real-time music programming environments etc. are all a thing and participants often don't need any concept of a "real" instrument to create quality music therein. I think you're right about the happy/sad being a cultural quality but there might be portions of it that might be explained by other means. Here's my attempt, which is almost surely at least partly wrong: "Major" chords have more constructively interfering waves than do "Minor" chords, especially in the lower frequencies, where more of the power lays.

tarentel 5y ago
Definitely agree. I think that's what makes it such a tricky subject for people to get into. You don't need to play an instrument to learn music theory, you don't need music theory to write good music, although you will be applying it without knowing it, you technically don't need to know how to play any instrument to write music, etc. Also, I guess my comment does sort of imply that I meant a classical instrument but arguably some of the things you listed could also be described as instruments, in which case, my point still stands. If you want to learn western music theory with the intentions of writing music, which is what this article is describing more or less, you need to have a way to make western music, whether that be a cello, a tracker, or a gameboy it doesn't matter. You're absolutely correct that we all learn differently but I would bet the people who learned and understood music theory well prior to learning and/or experimenting with some sort of sound generation first are in the minority. Most people will learn both at the same time. Playing music goes along way with reinforcing why things are done the way they are done and reading about the concepts after hearing them, playing them, experimenting with them goes a long way.
analog31 5y ago
Some people might be a lot happier if they skip theory altogether and instead, choose an instrument and learn to play it. That's what most musicians do. I'm a fairly successful jazz musician, and have barely learned any theory. The "first principles" are the history of the musical style, and the mechanics of my instrument.
munificent 5y ago
> Some programmers and math centered folks need a guiding "first principles" approach before being able to move past to higher level understanding. I would say this more as programming and math centered folks prefer subjects that are amenable to first principle analysis, which is what drew them to math and programming in the first place. And folks with that mental inclination will tend to use those tools to bear on all problems and subjects. When all you have is a hammer, etc. But it's important to remember that not every subject is built from first principles. Not everything in the world is reducible to a simple system with emergent properties. There is no Grand Unified Theory of history, no five axioms of mammalian biology. And, while I like the mother sauces, there is no culinary theory that can logically prove which recipes will taste good. We saw attempt to formalize in the 50s and 60s around spoken language. Chomsky and other linguists hoped to fully systematize spoken languages and analyze them according to formal grammars. Computer scientistics hoped to figure out all the rules of human languages so precisely that computers could parse them with perfect accuracy. The efforts failed. It turns out that while there are certainly patterns and grammars to how humans speak, the rules are fuzzy, ever-changing and deliberately broken. Music theory is also particularly tempting for people who like thinking mathematically, because it does have some numbers and stuff around frequency, intervals, etc. But music is about 10% systematic and 90% arbitrary cultural history. One can certainly focus on the subset that fits in that 10% and have an enjoyable experience making music while doing so. But a whole lot of music won't "make sense" in any real way if you discount "because people did it that way and others got used to hearing it" as a valid justification for some musical practice. There is no mathematically sound reason why we prefer the sound of a stretched out metal spring rattling against a taut piece of plastic on the second and fourth beat of every measure. Any explanation for why thousands of songs do that today has to involve discussions of goat skin, the Atlantic slave trade, the American fad for Hawaiian music in the 1930s, etc.