8 ms·

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 u

• tomsthumb 12y ago
  a somewhat more structured introduction with exercises and examples to boot: http://www.musictheory.net/ http://www.musictheory.net/
  • jordanpg 12y ago
    +1 for this actual intro. The OP is more like Cliff's Notes.
• seomis 12y ago
  Understanding real music theory (as in the OP and musictheory.net exercises) will allow you to understand folk and popular music, as well.
• ambler0 12y ago
  I completely disagree. For one thing, a lot of what one learns studying Common Practice music theory most definitely is applicable to modern styles. Things like dominant function, for example, aren't going anywhere. That said, I agree with the point that is implied by your post, namely, that "music theory" as the term is usually used is actually a description of a specific period of music (Common Practice) and it is a mistake to view modern popular music as some kind of degenerate case of it. I suggest that people who are interested in learning a theory that applies to more recent music take a look at "What to Listen For in Rock" by theorist Ken Stephenson. http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300092394 http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300092394 I also don't think the link you sent is going to make things much clearer for a beginner. I think that Desi Serna's guitar theory lessons in podcast form actually do a great job of explaining the basics, even if the guitar isn't one's primary instrument. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/guitar-music-theory-lessons/id258401691?mt=2 https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/guitar-music-theory-less...
  • archagon 12y ago
    One of the most enlightening things I learned while studying music in college was discovering why classical harmony ended up the way it did. What makes a V7 chord work? Where did augmented 6th chords come from? How did the Neapolitan chord fit into these systems? By looking at the progression of music history from one-voice chants to counterpoint to harmony and then to the explosion of ideas in the Romantic era and beyond, you acquire the skills to know why music — any music — can sound good and express rhetorical ideas. With a foundation in classical music theory, you can go beyond what anyone is doing in popular music today. I strongly believe that (for example) Beethoven's 5th, from a compositional perspective, has more rhetorical power than any music produced in the last century. I think this is largely due to popular music being very simple structurally. Where is the counterpoint? Where are the modulations? All we get is simple chord progressions repeated ad nauseum. Imagine how much farther we could go if we combined the lyrical and textural variety of popular music with the compositional depth of classical music! I salivate at the thought of an electronic or metal musician[1] delving into this territory... [1]: Phish is one of the few bands I know of who actually focus on this stuff. Some of their pieces even include bona-fide fugues. I'm not the biggest fan, and it's a simple example, but I love listening to the motifs and variations in "Stash": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OfQCAj2Ppg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OfQCAj2Ppg
    • ambler0 12y ago
      I feel the same way about gaining insight from studying the history of music theory, but I have to disagree with a couple of points, too: 1. Studying the history of Western music theory doesn't give you insight into any music, as you claim. It gives you insight into Western music. Check out music from another part of the world with a completely different notion of tuning, different scales, etc, and your music theory background isn't going to help very much. The only thing that is truly universal is the overtone series, because that's based on physics. 2. I think we could come up with plenty of structurally complex music from recent idioms, particularly jazz and jazz-influenced music. I would say that a bigger difference between something like, I dunno, Steely Dan, and Beethoven's Fifth, is length. Popular musicians don't seem to attempt such longer pieces. But for me personally, longer != more powerful. For that matter, more complex != more powerful, but I happen to share your desire for what we're calling "compositional depth", whatever that may be...
• anigbrowl 12y ago
  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.
  • lucasgw 12y ago
    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 ...
• keithpeter 12y ago
  Thanks for posting the link to Hein's blog which I was previously unaware of. http://www.ethanhein.com/wp/2014/blues-tonality/ http://www.ethanhein.com/wp/2014/blues-tonality/ Especially of interest.
• baddox 12y ago
  Wait, what? You're claiming that basic intervals and chord are useless for understanding music that wasn't written by people in powdered wigs? I'm very confused. You need that to understand playing Brown Eyed Girl on an acoustic guitar. In fact, Hein's blog covers much of the same material.
• tiglionabbit 12y ago
  The guide I usually see people point to is RavenSpiral's https://www.scribd.com/doc/5220863/Ravenspiral-Guide-to-Music-Theory https://www.scribd.com/doc/5220863/Ravenspiral-Guide-to-Musi...
  • TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    That's very good indeed, and much closer to my personal idea of a useful theory guide.
  • frik 12y ago
    Thanks. I found the PDF using Google: https://www.google.com/#q=Ravenspiral+Guide+to+Music+Theory+PDF https://www.google.com/#q=Ravenspiral+Guide+to+Music+Theory+... (Scripd.com is annoying, like a PDF download scam)
• lucasgw 12y ago
  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 melody in Mozart's Piano Sonatas, and you hear the beauty in the evolution of counterpoint as written by Bach, Scarlatti, and their band of powdered wigs. Listen to Bach and Scarlatti, and you hear the echoes of Gregorian Chant and the Diabolus in Musica (and why Black Sabbath sounds like Black Sabbath.) Those who forget the past are doomed to be Miley Cyrus.
  • baddox 12y ago
    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.
    • tomsthumb 12y ago
      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.
      • baddox 12y ago
        That's pretty much the definition of pop music, or at least good pop music.
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  • Energy1 12y ago
    Suppose I am listening to Les Claypool's bass work. What olden stuff am I hearing?
• kazinator 12y ago
  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 language being used to discuss it is conventional, main stream music theory: "major", "minor", "tonality", "tritone", "dominant", ... No surprises! Someone looking for basic music theory will not get into this at all. Secondly, parallel major and minor does occur in classical music. So do dominant sevenths functioning as tonics: at least secondary tonics. Moreover the people who came up with the blues tradition (and jazz) were not completely isolated from hearing classical music. Lastly, there is orchestral music that doesn't consist of "powdered wig" scales conforming to cycle of fifths progressions. Let's see what comes to mind: Moussorgsky's "Night on Bald Mountain", or Ravel's Boléro, ...
  • leephillips 12y ago
    "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 music, but found that the classical music establishment at the time would not accept a black composer or musician. Jazz was the only genre in which he was allowed to work. (Ellington/Strayhorn and Monk are considered the most important composers in Jazz, and their initial training was in European classical music.) Jazz is a development of Western classical music, and knows it. In fact, it's a rather miraculous revival of the improvisatory tradition that was central to European art music until it died out with the rise of symphonic music in the 19th century. If you listen to some contemporary jazz pianists, for example, Marcus Roberts, there's no mistaking the strong influence of European classical music.
    • was8309 12y ago
      > Jazz is a development of Western classical music only of Western classical music?