12 ms·

This is (mostly) not music theory and what is music theory is mostly wrong or incomplete to the point of being wildly misleading. Source: have degree and postgr

This is (mostly) not music theory and what is music theory is mostly wrong or incomplete to the point of being wildly misleading. Source: have degree and postgrad in music, was a professional musician until RSI put paid to that career, wife is a professional musician and teaches to postgrad level at 2 conservertoires, most of our friends are professional musicians, have a house full of scores and music books. If you actually want to learn music theory for the purposes of playing I strongly recommend you just follow whatever tutorials for your instrument and style and if you get to the point where feel you want to learn more and take it seriously in and of itself, buy “The Jazz Theory Book” by Mark Levine[1]. In spite of what it says, there really isn’t any such thing as Jazz theory - it’s just music theory, and this book is a great presentation with lots of good examples. If you like jazz (or the western popular music tradition including rock, pop, funk, etc) you’ll come out understanding how that music works better than most people. If you’re doing a music degree, there will be books recommended by your music programme, but honestly, Levine will cover most of what you need if you’re not doing a straight classical course in which case you’ll want to augment with a more conventional source so you understand the “rules” they want you to follow when writing pastiche counterpoint etc. If you want to get big into composition and/or want to understand late romantic and 20th century music, get Harmonielehre and “Structural Functions of Harmony” by Schoenberg. Together they are by far the best harmony books I have ever seen and go super-deep into why the western classical tradition works the way it does. If you compose there’s a decent chance they will change your life forever as his approach is to not take anything for granted but exhibit everything with examples from masterworks of the western tradition. Amazing books both of them. Harmony is not a spectator sport though - to get full benefit you have to get the books and work through stuff on the piano. It will reward you immensely. If you want something else that will blow your mind, read “The technique of my musical language” by Messiaen. If you read Levine first this will have the additional benefit of showing you where the “diminished” and “augmented” scales and the whole “harmonic major” thing come from. [1] https://www.shermusic.com/products/the-jazz-theory-book https://www.shermusic.com/products/the-jazz-theory-book

vishalmullur 29d ago
When I see my friends who are into music play and talk about different instruments, it actually feels like magic to me. I tried to learn Violin some years ago but I could never understand why the note was correct. I do know that if I had learnt Keyboard instead, I would know where the correct notes are but I am still not able to recognize a sound and understand what note that is. Any pointer as to what I can do? Because I dont think learning music theory is going to be enough for me.
- seanhunter 29d ago
  At many western music schools, if piano isn’t your first instrument, it is compulsory to study piano as a second instrument. The reason for this is that it really helps when understanding harmony. You also do ear training, which is meant to solve the problem I think you’re describing. I expect you would find ear training resources on youtube or something now but I did it the old-fashioned way where you start by listening when people play major / minor chords, all the intervals, learn to recognize inversions etc and then move on to doing transcriptions of music you like. I have box files full of transcriptions I did when learning. But Levine (for example) includes some ear training advice.
  - vishalmullur 29d ago
    Thanks! That's actually very helpful :)
  - folkrav 29d ago
    That second point is spot on. The one thing I remember vividly - and that still helps me most - from all those years of classical piano training is the ear training. I don't have perfect pitch, but I remember A440 vividly (thanks to my electronic metronome) and the training left me with a strong sense relative pitch that helps me figure out pretty much any melody and chord progression relatively quickly.
    - sbrother 29d ago
      I really wish I had studied piano for that reason. I put many years into flute and almost went to conservatory for it, so I can play pretty much any melody by ear after hearing it, but I have zero ability to do the same for harmonies/chord progressions. I've tried to learn some piano (and like the parent said, was forced to as part of music curriculum at college) but it's incredibly difficult to learn a new instrument to a satisfying level as an adult.
HexDecOctBin 29d ago
As a non-musician non-Western programmer, the only music book that is making sense to me (still reading) is Robert Snyder's Music and Memory[1]. It's the first book that doesn't trick me by trying to pass cultural artefacts (notes, scales, raga, etc.) as some universal truth, or douse me in medieval pseudo-science (Pythagorean small ratios, etc.) I am not an expert, so maybe this book has its own shortcomings which I am being blind to. But this is the first book on music I have been able to read this far without having to fight the urge to fling it against a wall. [1] https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262692373/music-and-memory/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262692373/music-and-memory/
- pianopatrick 29d ago
  If you like that book, you might also enjoy David Huron's books on voice leading and anticipation. I have not read the book you referenced, but from the description it seems like a similar approach.
- strenholme 29d ago
  I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say 2/1, 3/2, 4/3, 5/4, and 6/5 are intervals which sound pleasant to the human ear. [1] Once that is established, as per the linked article, 12-tone equal temperament makes a lot of sense (but isn’t universal, obviously) because it’s resulting tuning gives us a really close 3/2 and 4/3, and having a simple 12-tone scale reasonably in tune everyone can agree on makes sense. We can then explain that 5/4 and 6/5 are a bit off in 12-tone, but are “good enough” that we tolerate them being slightly out of tune when using equal temperament. Once we accept that 12-tone has imperfect thirds, we can then look at the I IV V chord progression (I IV V comes from 3/2, 5/4, and 4/3 sounding pleasant to the human ear), and explain why that chord progression is so common in western popular music. These aren’t universal truths—12-tone equal temperament is a compromise, but, as per the linked article, a reasonable one. Just intonation is, of course, another possible compromise. [1] 2/1: Octave; 3/2: Perfect fifth; 4/3: Perfect fourth; 5/4: Major third; 6/5: Minor third
  - ludston 29d ago
    > we tolerate them being slightly out of tune And in many cases we don't need to tolerate this because most instruments barring guitar and piano allow musicians to tune chords to just temperament, and players will do this automatically and completely subconsciously.
ripharamberip 29d ago
You say that the article isn't music theory but don't bother to say why.
- seanhunter 29d ago
  It's a fun webpage about a programmer dipping their toes in the very most basic elements of music and documenting some of their current understanding.Imagine I wrote an article called "Programming for musicians" that was mostly about how to turn your computer on and install homebrew[1] and finished by showing you step by step how to cut and paste "hello world" in javascript from stack overflow. You might rightly say that while "programming-adjacent" the article didn't really address programming. Here[2] Is the syllabus for ABRSM Grades 1-5 music theory. So this is super-basic music theory of the level that you couldn't really expect to pass high school music without knowing. I've picked associated board because this is the most generic music theory syllabus possible, and grade 5 is very basic. If you were actually studying music you'd go way way beyond this. To a first approximation none of this is in the article. It also doesn't have any more advanced topics (functional harmony, orchestration, voice leading, transposition, key/scale relationships, advanced rhythmic concepts etc). That's why I say the article isn't really music theory. And then for completeness, when I say that what is music theory is wildly misleading I'm talking about things like "chords are notes stacked in thirds". There's so much wrong about about this it's hard to even start, but for starters it's an if and only if when it really shouldn't be. Notes stacked in thirds are chords, but there are a whole heck of a lot of chords that aren't stacked in thirds. It's like if I said "even numbers are 4 and 6". It's like sure, but there's more to it than that. [1] without mentioning that this was only needed if you were using a mac [2] https://www.abrsm.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/music-theory-syllabus-outline-grades-1-5-from-2020.pdf https://www.abrsm.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/music-theo...
  - sddsasdasda 29d ago
    [dead]
  - pprotas 29d ago
    The author admits that this article applies to only a specific flavor of music theory, and says that it only covers a small part of it. The article even mentions at the end it does not cover some of the topics you think are missing. The article is not a comprehensive syllabus of all elementary music theory, and it does not claim to be. I believe you are being too harsh, as this approach to understanding music feels much more intuitive to some (like the author, and myself), compared to traditional music education.
dyzone 29d ago
What is your opinion of open music theory v2? People on reddit think very highly of it. https://viva.pressbooks.pub/openmusictheory/ https://viva.pressbooks.pub/openmusictheory/
- seanhunter 29d ago
  I don't know it personally but skimming it looks pretty good.
- Rochus 29d ago
  Doesn't look like really a "v2" to me, rather v1 a bit re-arranged. A true "theory" able to explain present music (or even Jazz from the seventies) and also support its creation is still widely lacking, or just a naive variation of what was used for classical music. Tymoczko & co go a bit in a more general/useful direction where the theory eventually can also be used to define algorithms which can "compose" credible contemporary music, but still a long way to go. The latter is like the "litmus test" from my humble point of view whether a theory is indeed useful.
andyclap2 29d ago
Y
strenholme 29d ago
Yes, he could have approached it differently. It’s really good at explaining the octave, the fifth, it shows the mathematical basis for why just intonation has “wolf notes”, and why we use 12-tone equal temperament. Once it hits the 12-tone scale, and explains why we generally avoid the tritone, it doesn’t explain very well why we generally use diatonic instead of chromatic scales (well, OK, great music can use chromatic scales, but there’s a reason “Entrance of the Gladiators” sounds like a clown show). I would had, after explaining how 12-tone gives us an almost perfect fifth and fourth, explained that a major third is 5/4, and a minor third is 6/5, and that the thirds are noticeably but tolerably out of tune in 12-tone equal temperament. Once we have the fifth and the major third, we then explain the major chord (Base note, 3/2, and roughly 5/4). Next, we explain the perfect fourth. From there, we can show the I IV V chord progression. And once we have I IV V we can then demonstrate the major scale. (The linked article shows us a major scale but doesn’t explain why the major scale is tone-tone-semitone-tone-tone-tone-semitone—it’s that way because if we take all of the notes that exist in a I IV V chord progression, we get the seven notes of a major scale) After I IV V, I would then look at a basic 4/4 rhythm, quarter notes, eight notes, the kick drum, the snare drum, and the closed hi hat. I IV V, the major scale, and a simple 4/4 rhythm is enough music theory to write a good number of rock and pop songs. I IV V and the major scale is roughly equivalent to understanding variables and variable assignment. Adding the structure of a 4/4 rhythm, with kick, snare, and high hat is equivalent to if-then-else and while. From there, if I were to continue, I would next explain the minor third (6/5) and minor scale, the pentatonic scales (minor pentatonic gives us a large number of rock guitar solos), and probably show the I V vi IV chord progression. Obviously, this is very basic, but things like ABRSM Grade 5 are the music equivalent of Forth-like and Lisp-like languages: They can be useful, but just as the majority of programs aren’t written in Forth or a Lisp dialect, the majority of music doesn’t use, say, an irregular time signature.
cubefox 29d ago
Many subject matters are initially so confusing and inaccessible that I have often wished for an audio-visual video lecture series in the following format: Part 1: Music theory explained in just 5 minutes Part 2: Music theory explained in just 20 minutes Part 3: Music theory explained in 80 minutes Etc. Starting with an extremely simplified overview and then making the overviews progressively more detailed. Many people instead try to give simple explanations without making them short. But no confused beginner wants to be overwhelmed by a huge wall of text, let alone by a long theoretical book. Unfortunately most people who have become knowledgeable about some subject matter then quickly and thoroughly forget how confusing, overwhelming or intimidating it was before.
bossyTeacher 29d ago
> if you get to the point where feel you want to learn more and take it seriously in and of itself, buy “The Jazz Theory Book” by Mark Levine[1]. In spite of what it says, there really isn’t any such thing as Jazz theory - it’s just music theory Your recommendation seems to mostly apply to western music (I assume so since you only mentioned western music), no? Will Jazz Levine's book help with ragga or gamelan?
0815beck 29d ago
It is presented with a tone of "music theory, the way a musician could never understand it, because they do not know what a sin wave is" which makes it so infuriating.
teiferer 29d ago
Props for mentioning “The Jazz Theory Book”! It's an excellent book. The only thing I'd add to your recommendations is: Listen! When you hear a song, some melody, a rhythm, listen carefully, try to deconstruct the components, how they interplay, and try to figure out what is it that you like. Was it a feature of the harmony? The melody? Pacing? Whatever it is, keep listening. Theory is just a way to try to explain what we hear and why we might like it. The more you listen, the more you have that you can base the theory on.
- SwtCyber 29d ago
  Yeah, this is the advice I wish showed up more often in "learn music theory" discussions
  - apercu 28d ago
    I'm sort of the opposite - when I can name something, then play it, then I can hear it. E.g., going from minor third to major third to root. I can't "unhear" that in blues-based music now. But before it had a "name" it was just an interesting sounding "thing" that didn't pop out to me in any specific way.
deleted 29d ago
[deleted]
runarberg 29d ago
I started learning guitar last July, and I wanted to learn music theory (and standard notation) from day 1. I am following Absolutely Understand Guitar[1] as my music theory lessons (and Hal Leonard method for notation) along side my regular tutorials. So far I am very impressed. Quite beginner friendly, and learning music theory while starting out with the instrument has not been difficult for me at least. 1: https://www.absolutelyunderstandguitar.com/ https://www.absolutelyunderstandguitar.com/
- hatradiowigwam 28d ago
  I can't possibly agree loudly enough with this recommendation. I started with Hal Leonard method classical guitar books(1 & 2) and that was one thing...great books, but nothing compared to Absolutely Understand Guitar. That guy teaches and explains music theory in a way so effective it's not even comparable to other systems. Fantastic teacher, fantastic material, nothing but praise for Scotty West's music program.
coldtea 29d ago
A counter argument to the typical "piss on TFA" HN top voted comment: (musician of many decades) the post IS music theory of the kind it purports to be, it's not misleading in the least, at worst it's incomplete (but never claimed to be complete) and simplified. It's just not conventional music theory (which is just a set of rules thrown at you). But the whole point that the parent missed, is that it is told in a way to arrive to music theory from first principles as understood by computer programmers and math nerds. Any statement made in TFA is true (at least to a basic level, and, for some of claims, when focusing on western music). You'll learn nothing of the sort you learn in TFA by reading "The Jazz Theory book" suggested by the parent. The opening paragraphs of TFA explicitly address why that doesn't cut it: "The problem was never the practice. It was that every explanation of music theory seemed to miss out the fundamental reasons for how and why things are the way they are. Here is a staff. Here are the notes on it. This is a major scale, memorise the pattern. Why those notes? Why that pattern? Because that is the convention. Which is a strange way to teach a system that essentially comes out of physics and arithmetic. There are twelve notes for a reason. The major scale has the shape it has for a reason. Chords that sound good sound good for a reason, and you can compute those reasons." The parent comment is stuck on trying to sell the conventional music theory nomenclature and its extensions, which, despite the name "theory", is a descriptive set of norms and rules based on historical practices. The author of the above comment's "postgrad in music" and experience in conservertoires make then unable to see the worth of TFA, because they're too invested in the conventional description and "how things are done". If you want to understand music theory as a construction, not merely as "here's a set of arbitrary rules and other rules that build on them", ignore jazz/classical musicians and people with music degrees trying to sell you on what they've been taught, as it will be near useless. This requires a different type of mindset. There are books on musicology that address the concerns of TFA in an official and deep way, but TFA is a good programming-nerd oriented introduction to the matter.
- simonask 29d ago
  I'm a programmer with a degree in musicology as well. This ain't it. I'm reading your comment with a certain disdain for analysis and theory, which I get - a lot of people come out scarred from music theory training, and I'm sorry someone hurt you that way. But music theory is fundamentally a way to talk about music. Nobody is trying to "sell" you anything, but it does become much easier to work together as musicians when we share a language we can use to talk about the music. "Take it from the candenza", "a bit more ritenuto", etc. is just more efficient and precise than "take it from the place where it goes dun-dun-dunnnn", or "go more slowly-like". Seriously, you're doing yourself a huge favor as a musician and broadening your conceptual thinking about music by learning this stuff.
deleted 29d ago
[deleted]
odyssey7 29d ago
+1 on recommending Schoenberg. Harmonielehre is a philosophical work as much as it is a music theory treatise.
alwa 29d ago
Thank you for sharing this (and your other reactions downthread) with such depth and care. Setting your off-the-cuff comment alongside TFA’s Claudish muddle reminds me—as if I needed reminding—about the hazardous parts of self-education, particularly when that education is, as it seems maybe to have been in the author’s case, led by LLM… I appreciate a programmer hacking on sound and music—that’s awesome, and I’m really grateful the author did so and shared his experience. The trouble comes from the unearned air of authority. When I worry about the broader question of subtle truths getting lost in the slop cycle, it feels reassuring when authentic expertise like yours still stands out clearly. I’ll take what optimism I can find!
SwtCyber 29d ago
I think there's still a pedagogical niche for what the article is doing. For someone coming from programming, "here's why these conventions aren't completely arbitrary" can be the thing that gets them interested enough to later learn harmony properly
nuxi 29d ago
Do you have any opinions on Everyday Tonality II? https://www.tagg.org/mmmsp/EverydayTonalityInfo.htm https://www.tagg.org/mmmsp/EverydayTonalityInfo.htm
curious_soul 28d ago
Off topic, but given your credentials you might be a good person to ask. Any recommendations on how I should go about learning to play piano? I am just starting out. I have no music background except playing some basic self taught guitar in my teenage years. I can't read music fluently yet. I have access to a nice Yamaha with weighted keys.
- simonask 28d ago
  The tried and true approach is to find a piano teacher in your area, schedule weekly appointments, set aside at least one hour of practice every day between lessons.
  - runarberg 27d ago
    I am hoping you can get pretty far by self studying if your study material is made by experts and vetted by peers, and you are diligent in practicing an hour a day using a practice routine recommended by experts. Personally I am aiming towards becoming a low-intermediate guitar player over the course of a full year by self studying. My biggest fear is that I develop bad habits, but I am hopeful that the bad habits can be trained out of me with a lot of effort during the intermediate phase.
jakkos 28d ago
I originally read your comment as quite gatekeep-y and elitist. The article explained some of the "theory" behind certain things around music in a way that made sense to me, yet here was a professional telling me it was bad because it was bad. However I've realised that "Music Theory" is a strictly defined term. If someone made an article called "Intro to Algebraic Geometry", and it was actually about geometric algebra, it'd be really annoying, even if to a uninformed person the meaning behind those terms would seem interchangeable.
robofanatic 27d ago
[dead]

vishalmullur 29d ago

When I see my friends who are into music play and talk about different instruments, it actually feels like magic to me. I tried to learn Violin some years ago but I could never understand why the note was correct. I do know that if I had learnt Keyboard instead, I would know where the correct notes are but I am still not able to recognize a sound and understand what note that is. Any pointer as to what I can do? Because I dont think learning music theory is going to be enough for me.

seanhunter 29d ago
At many western music schools, if piano isn’t your first instrument, it is compulsory to study piano as a second instrument. The reason for this is that it really helps when understanding harmony. You also do ear training, which is meant to solve the problem I think you’re describing. I expect you would find ear training resources on youtube or something now but I did it the old-fashioned way where you start by listening when people play major / minor chords, all the intervals, learn to recognize inversions etc and then move on to doing transcriptions of music you like. I have box files full of transcriptions I did when learning. But Levine (for example) includes some ear training advice.
- vishalmullur 29d ago
  Thanks! That's actually very helpful :)
- folkrav 29d ago
  That second point is spot on. The one thing I remember vividly - and that still helps me most - from all those years of classical piano training is the ear training. I don't have perfect pitch, but I remember A440 vividly (thanks to my electronic metronome) and the training left me with a strong sense relative pitch that helps me figure out pretty much any melody and chord progression relatively quickly.
  - sbrother 29d ago
    I really wish I had studied piano for that reason. I put many years into flute and almost went to conservatory for it, so I can play pretty much any melody by ear after hearing it, but I have zero ability to do the same for harmonies/chord progressions. I've tried to learn some piano (and like the parent said, was forced to as part of music curriculum at college) but it's incredibly difficult to learn a new instrument to a satisfying level as an adult.

HexDecOctBin 29d ago

As a non-musician non-Western programmer, the only music book that is making sense to me (still reading) is Robert Snyder's Music and Memory[1]. It's the first book that doesn't trick me by trying to pass cultural artefacts (notes, scales, raga, etc.) as some universal truth, or douse me in medieval pseudo-science (Pythagorean small ratios, etc.) I am not an expert, so maybe this book has its own shortcomings which I am being blind to. But this is the first book on music I have been able to read this far without having to fight the urge to fling it against a wall. [1] https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262692373/music-and-memory/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262692373/music-and-memory/

pianopatrick 29d ago
If you like that book, you might also enjoy David Huron's books on voice leading and anticipation. I have not read the book you referenced, but from the description it seems like a similar approach.
strenholme 29d ago
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say 2/1, 3/2, 4/3, 5/4, and 6/5 are intervals which sound pleasant to the human ear. [1] Once that is established, as per the linked article, 12-tone equal temperament makes a lot of sense (but isn’t universal, obviously) because it’s resulting tuning gives us a really close 3/2 and 4/3, and having a simple 12-tone scale reasonably in tune everyone can agree on makes sense. We can then explain that 5/4 and 6/5 are a bit off in 12-tone, but are “good enough” that we tolerate them being slightly out of tune when using equal temperament. Once we accept that 12-tone has imperfect thirds, we can then look at the I IV V chord progression (I IV V comes from 3/2, 5/4, and 4/3 sounding pleasant to the human ear), and explain why that chord progression is so common in western popular music. These aren’t universal truths—12-tone equal temperament is a compromise, but, as per the linked article, a reasonable one. Just intonation is, of course, another possible compromise. [1] 2/1: Octave; 3/2: Perfect fifth; 4/3: Perfect fourth; 5/4: Major third; 6/5: Minor third
- ludston 29d ago
  > we tolerate them being slightly out of tune And in many cases we don't need to tolerate this because most instruments barring guitar and piano allow musicians to tune chords to just temperament, and players will do this automatically and completely subconsciously.

ripharamberip 29d ago

You say that the article isn't music theory but don't bother to say why.

seanhunter 29d ago
It's a fun webpage about a programmer dipping their toes in the very most basic elements of music and documenting some of their current understanding.Imagine I wrote an article called "Programming for musicians" that was mostly about how to turn your computer on and install homebrew[1] and finished by showing you step by step how to cut and paste "hello world" in javascript from stack overflow. You might rightly say that while "programming-adjacent" the article didn't really address programming. Here[2] Is the syllabus for ABRSM Grades 1-5 music theory. So this is super-basic music theory of the level that you couldn't really expect to pass high school music without knowing. I've picked associated board because this is the most generic music theory syllabus possible, and grade 5 is very basic. If you were actually studying music you'd go way way beyond this. To a first approximation none of this is in the article. It also doesn't have any more advanced topics (functional harmony, orchestration, voice leading, transposition, key/scale relationships, advanced rhythmic concepts etc). That's why I say the article isn't really music theory. And then for completeness, when I say that what is music theory is wildly misleading I'm talking about things like "chords are notes stacked in thirds". There's so much wrong about about this it's hard to even start, but for starters it's an if and only if when it really shouldn't be. Notes stacked in thirds are chords, but there are a whole heck of a lot of chords that aren't stacked in thirds. It's like if I said "even numbers are 4 and 6". It's like sure, but there's more to it than that. [1] without mentioning that this was only needed if you were using a mac [2] https://www.abrsm.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/music-theory-syllabus-outline-grades-1-5-from-2020.pdf https://www.abrsm.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/music-theo...
- sddsasdasda 29d ago
  [dead]
- pprotas 29d ago
  The author admits that this article applies to only a specific flavor of music theory, and says that it only covers a small part of it. The article even mentions at the end it does not cover some of the topics you think are missing. The article is not a comprehensive syllabus of all elementary music theory, and it does not claim to be. I believe you are being too harsh, as this approach to understanding music feels much more intuitive to some (like the author, and myself), compared to traditional music education.

dyzone 29d ago

What is your opinion of open music theory v2? People on reddit think very highly of it. https://viva.pressbooks.pub/openmusictheory/ https://viva.pressbooks.pub/openmusictheory/

seanhunter 29d ago
I don't know it personally but skimming it looks pretty good.
Rochus 29d ago
Doesn't look like really a "v2" to me, rather v1 a bit re-arranged. A true "theory" able to explain present music (or even Jazz from the seventies) and also support its creation is still widely lacking, or just a naive variation of what was used for classical music. Tymoczko & co go a bit in a more general/useful direction where the theory eventually can also be used to define algorithms which can "compose" credible contemporary music, but still a long way to go. The latter is like the "litmus test" from my humble point of view whether a theory is indeed useful.

andyclap2 29d ago

strenholme 29d ago

Yes, he could have approached it differently. It’s really good at explaining the octave, the fifth, it shows the mathematical basis for why just intonation has “wolf notes”, and why we use 12-tone equal temperament. Once it hits the 12-tone scale, and explains why we generally avoid the tritone, it doesn’t explain very well why we generally use diatonic instead of chromatic scales (well, OK, great music can use chromatic scales, but there’s a reason “Entrance of the Gladiators” sounds like a clown show). I would had, after explaining how 12-tone gives us an almost perfect fifth and fourth, explained that a major third is 5/4, and a minor third is 6/5, and that the thirds are noticeably but tolerably out of tune in 12-tone equal temperament. Once we have the fifth and the major third, we then explain the major chord (Base note, 3/2, and roughly 5/4). Next, we explain the perfect fourth. From there, we can show the I IV V chord progression. And once we have I IV V we can then demonstrate the major scale. (The linked article shows us a major scale but doesn’t explain why the major scale is tone-tone-semitone-tone-tone-tone-semitone—it’s that way because if we take all of the notes that exist in a I IV V chord progression, we get the seven notes of a major scale) After I IV V, I would then look at a basic 4/4 rhythm, quarter notes, eight notes, the kick drum, the snare drum, and the closed hi hat. I IV V, the major scale, and a simple 4/4 rhythm is enough music theory to write a good number of rock and pop songs. I IV V and the major scale is roughly equivalent to understanding variables and variable assignment. Adding the structure of a 4/4 rhythm, with kick, snare, and high hat is equivalent to if-then-else and while. From there, if I were to continue, I would next explain the minor third (6/5) and minor scale, the pentatonic scales (minor pentatonic gives us a large number of rock guitar solos), and probably show the I V vi IV chord progression. Obviously, this is very basic, but things like ABRSM Grade 5 are the music equivalent of Forth-like and Lisp-like languages: They can be useful, but just as the majority of programs aren’t written in Forth or a Lisp dialect, the majority of music doesn’t use, say, an irregular time signature.

cubefox 29d ago

Many subject matters are initially so confusing and inaccessible that I have often wished for an audio-visual video lecture series in the following format: Part 1: Music theory explained in just 5 minutes Part 2: Music theory explained in just 20 minutes Part 3: Music theory explained in 80 minutes Etc. Starting with an extremely simplified overview and then making the overviews progressively more detailed. Many people instead try to give simple explanations without making them short. But no confused beginner wants to be overwhelmed by a huge wall of text, let alone by a long theoretical book. Unfortunately most people who have become knowledgeable about some subject matter then quickly and thoroughly forget how confusing, overwhelming or intimidating it was before.

bossyTeacher 29d ago

> if you get to the point where feel you want to learn more and take it seriously in and of itself, buy “The Jazz Theory Book” by Mark Levine[1]. In spite of what it says, there really isn’t any such thing as Jazz theory - it’s just music theory Your recommendation seems to mostly apply to western music (I assume so since you only mentioned western music), no? Will Jazz Levine's book help with ragga or gamelan?

0815beck 29d ago

It is presented with a tone of "music theory, the way a musician could never understand it, because they do not know what a sin wave is" which makes it so infuriating.

teiferer 29d ago

Props for mentioning “The Jazz Theory Book”! It's an excellent book. The only thing I'd add to your recommendations is: Listen! When you hear a song, some melody, a rhythm, listen carefully, try to deconstruct the components, how they interplay, and try to figure out what is it that you like. Was it a feature of the harmony? The melody? Pacing? Whatever it is, keep listening. Theory is just a way to try to explain what we hear and why we might like it. The more you listen, the more you have that you can base the theory on.

SwtCyber 29d ago
Yeah, this is the advice I wish showed up more often in "learn music theory" discussions
- apercu 28d ago
  I'm sort of the opposite - when I can name something, then play it, then I can hear it. E.g., going from minor third to major third to root. I can't "unhear" that in blues-based music now. But before it had a "name" it was just an interesting sounding "thing" that didn't pop out to me in any specific way.

deleted 29d ago

[deleted]

runarberg 29d ago

I started learning guitar last July, and I wanted to learn music theory (and standard notation) from day 1. I am following Absolutely Understand Guitar[1] as my music theory lessons (and Hal Leonard method for notation) along side my regular tutorials. So far I am very impressed. Quite beginner friendly, and learning music theory while starting out with the instrument has not been difficult for me at least. 1: https://www.absolutelyunderstandguitar.com/ https://www.absolutelyunderstandguitar.com/

hatradiowigwam 28d ago
I can't possibly agree loudly enough with this recommendation. I started with Hal Leonard method classical guitar books(1 & 2) and that was one thing...great books, but nothing compared to Absolutely Understand Guitar. That guy teaches and explains music theory in a way so effective it's not even comparable to other systems. Fantastic teacher, fantastic material, nothing but praise for Scotty West's music program.

coldtea 29d ago

A counter argument to the typical "piss on TFA" HN top voted comment: (musician of many decades) the post IS music theory of the kind it purports to be, it's not misleading in the least, at worst it's incomplete (but never claimed to be complete) and simplified. It's just not conventional music theory (which is just a set of rules thrown at you). But the whole point that the parent missed, is that it is told in a way to arrive to music theory from first principles as understood by computer programmers and math nerds. Any statement made in TFA is true (at least to a basic level, and, for some of claims, when focusing on western music). You'll learn nothing of the sort you learn in TFA by reading "The Jazz Theory book" suggested by the parent. The opening paragraphs of TFA explicitly address why that doesn't cut it: "The problem was never the practice. It was that every explanation of music theory seemed to miss out the fundamental reasons for how and why things are the way they are. Here is a staff. Here are the notes on it. This is a major scale, memorise the pattern. Why those notes? Why that pattern? Because that is the convention. Which is a strange way to teach a system that essentially comes out of physics and arithmetic. There are twelve notes for a reason. The major scale has the shape it has for a reason. Chords that sound good sound good for a reason, and you can compute those reasons." The parent comment is stuck on trying to sell the conventional music theory nomenclature and its extensions, which, despite the name "theory", is a descriptive set of norms and rules based on historical practices. The author of the above comment's "postgrad in music" and experience in conservertoires make then unable to see the worth of TFA, because they're too invested in the conventional description and "how things are done". If you want to understand music theory as a construction, not merely as "here's a set of arbitrary rules and other rules that build on them", ignore jazz/classical musicians and people with music degrees trying to sell you on what they've been taught, as it will be near useless. This requires a different type of mindset. There are books on musicology that address the concerns of TFA in an official and deep way, but TFA is a good programming-nerd oriented introduction to the matter.

simonask 29d ago
I'm a programmer with a degree in musicology as well. This ain't it. I'm reading your comment with a certain disdain for analysis and theory, which I get - a lot of people come out scarred from music theory training, and I'm sorry someone hurt you that way. But music theory is fundamentally a way to talk about music. Nobody is trying to "sell" you anything, but it does become much easier to work together as musicians when we share a language we can use to talk about the music. "Take it from the candenza", "a bit more ritenuto", etc. is just more efficient and precise than "take it from the place where it goes dun-dun-dunnnn", or "go more slowly-like". Seriously, you're doing yourself a huge favor as a musician and broadening your conceptual thinking about music by learning this stuff.

deleted 29d ago

[deleted]

odyssey7 29d ago

+1 on recommending Schoenberg. Harmonielehre is a philosophical work as much as it is a music theory treatise.

alwa 29d ago

Thank you for sharing this (and your other reactions downthread) with such depth and care. Setting your off-the-cuff comment alongside TFA’s Claudish muddle reminds me—as if I needed reminding—about the hazardous parts of self-education, particularly when that education is, as it seems maybe to have been in the author’s case, led by LLM… I appreciate a programmer hacking on sound and music—that’s awesome, and I’m really grateful the author did so and shared his experience. The trouble comes from the unearned air of authority. When I worry about the broader question of subtle truths getting lost in the slop cycle, it feels reassuring when authentic expertise like yours still stands out clearly. I’ll take what optimism I can find!

SwtCyber 29d ago

I think there's still a pedagogical niche for what the article is doing. For someone coming from programming, "here's why these conventions aren't completely arbitrary" can be the thing that gets them interested enough to later learn harmony properly

nuxi 29d ago

Do you have any opinions on Everyday Tonality II? https://www.tagg.org/mmmsp/EverydayTonalityInfo.htm https://www.tagg.org/mmmsp/EverydayTonalityInfo.htm

curious_soul 28d ago

Off topic, but given your credentials you might be a good person to ask. Any recommendations on how I should go about learning to play piano? I am just starting out. I have no music background except playing some basic self taught guitar in my teenage years. I can't read music fluently yet. I have access to a nice Yamaha with weighted keys.

simonask 28d ago
The tried and true approach is to find a piano teacher in your area, schedule weekly appointments, set aside at least one hour of practice every day between lessons.
- runarberg 27d ago
  I am hoping you can get pretty far by self studying if your study material is made by experts and vetted by peers, and you are diligent in practicing an hour a day using a practice routine recommended by experts. Personally I am aiming towards becoming a low-intermediate guitar player over the course of a full year by self studying. My biggest fear is that I develop bad habits, but I am hopeful that the bad habits can be trained out of me with a lot of effort during the intermediate phase.

jakkos 28d ago

I originally read your comment as quite gatekeep-y and elitist. The article explained some of the "theory" behind certain things around music in a way that made sense to me, yet here was a professional telling me it was bad because it was bad. However I've realised that "Music Theory" is a strictly defined term. If someone made an article called "Intro to Algebraic Geometry", and it was actually about geometric algebra, it'd be really annoying, even if to a uninformed person the meaning behind those terms would seem interchangeable.

robofanatic 27d ago

[dead]