7 ms·

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

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 junk. It's extremely culturally-biased and, again, offers no real theoretical explanation. If you want real understanding of music in a useful way for real people, I recommend Bob Snyder's book "Music and Memory: An Introduction" which was actually written to teach creative artistic people about how music actually works rather than how aristocratic European music notation works. For some other perspectives, check out http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/htmlRT/contents.html http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/htmlRT/contents.html and http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/ttss.html http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/ttss.html (normally I wouldn't push these on average folks, although they are superb but the HN crowd should be fine with them)

erikschoster 12y ago
James Tenney's thesis "META Meta / Hodos" is another great attempt at constructing a real music theory. https://www.scribd.com/doc/167561563/James-Tenney-Meta-Hodos https://www.scribd.com/doc/167561563/James-Tenney-Meta-Hodos
theOnliest 12y ago
> A theory is something that explains an observed phenomenon. That's true, but if you take the "observed phenomenon" to be "Western, common-practice tonal music (and notation)," then this certainly helps to explain it. It's certainly what gets taught in undergraduate music theory classes (much of it in "fundamentals" courses). Graduate work in music theory involves doing exactly what you say: explaining observed phenomena, in both "classical" music as well as about any other musics you might imagine. That's not to say that all music is Western, common-practice tonal music, but a great deal of music comes out of that lineage; an understanding of these basics are often necessary (or at the very least, useful) before branching out. You see this sort of thing in all disciplines. I might find an "Introduction to computer science for normal people" that explains big-O notation, or teaches some basic Python, or what have you. Someone might well say "This isn't 'computer science,' but instead 'jargon and programming.'" This person might be right, of course, but for "non-computer scientists and normal people," the distinction is not so clear.
- quadrangle 12y ago
  "Western, common-practice tonal music (and notation)," is not anything close to a good definition of the word "music".
  - theOnliest 12y ago
    Of course it's not. I was just responding to the thought that a theory explains an observed phenomenon, and trying to show how for at least one definition of music that the OP was indeed "music theory." It never claims to be "a comprehensive guide to all things musical" or "a theory of all music," but it certainly qualifies as music theory.
pierrec 12y ago
This is music theory, or at the very least, the bulk of the document is about the theory of harmony. The first few pages may give the impression of solely exposing jargon, but as you progress through the pages, the author moves on to the theory of harmony, or what has been referred to as such for the last century and a half (at least). I'm not saying the expression is semantically perfectly sound, but it's been in use for long enough to be considered correct. It's true that a better expression may have been "Harmonic Aspects of the Practice of Composition". Schoenberg's classic 1910 Theory of Harmony is a shining example of this. It's pretty much a practical guide for composition, and follows a structure strikingly similar to that of this document.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  It's a practical guide for music written before 1910. Unfortunately quite a lot has happened in music since 1910, and if you're trying to write music for the 2010s Harmonielehre and 'theory' of this kind won't just confuse you, it will actively mislead you. The problem is that it teaches you nothing about the importance of performance expression, or the many different ways modes get used and abused in pop/rock/electronica, or how to create arrangements that capture and keep listener attention. Pop has become a massive historical experiment in perceptual psychology. The most popular bands can literally fill a stadium - something common practice music has never done. While that doesn't mean pop is better in some absolute sense, it does suggest it's doing something right for many listeners. If your training is too rigidly classical it actively stops you being able to hear and understand what that right thing is, because you're too busy concentrating on a small subset of the many details in the music.
  - oelmekki 12y ago
    > Pop has become a massive historical experiment in perceptual psychology. The most popular bands can literally fill a stadium - something common practice music has never done. > While that doesn't mean pop is better in some absolute sense, it does suggest it's doing something right for many listeners. Not Saying you're necessarily wrong, but you can't say just that without pondering that question : is it due to discoveries in music composition, or is it due to efficiently applying marketing to it ? I don't know if it's the same everywhere in the world, but here in france, if you turn on the radio and zap through channels, you will hear the same song up to 10 times a day. Then you turn on TV on night and see those same groups as guests on TV show. Then you read in local newspaper than they will play in your town. I can see how it could produce the effect you describe.
dominotw 12y ago
>Our first sensory impression as we float in our mother's womb is the rhythmic sound of her heart. http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/htmlRT/1%20intro.html http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/htmlRT/1%20intro.html Umm..what?
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  It's pretty dark in there.
squeaky-clean 12y ago
>This isn't "music theory" (although almost everyone thinks it is). Isn't that how language works though? If everyone calls this music theory aside from a small minority of people, then it is music theory. "Music Theory" as a term is a study on it's own, it's not "the theory of music" and you can't really use the terms interchangeably like that.
- laumars 12y ago
  > Isn't that how language works though? If everyone calls this music theory aside from a small minority of people, then it is music theory. That's not really how language works in specialist fields though. For example "theory" and "proof" mean different things in science than they do to the general public (which is part of the reason why the general public misunderstand science so much). Or, for a more relevant example, the problems with how the term "hacker" is misunderstood.
ewoodrich 12y ago
I would certainly consider species counterpoint and harmonic analysis to be "theory", although the first sections are clearly notation and not theory.
kazinator 12y ago
"music theory" is the widely used and accepted term for "music jargon and notation systems" and their related concepts. It is not a "scientific theory", as, say, Thomas Kuhn might have used the term. "Music theory" uses the word "theory" as the colloquial antonym of "practice". As in the adage, "In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they aren't". Music practice means strumming an axe, blowing a horn, banging a drum or tickling ivories, and so on, whereas music theory is ... any study related to how to do these things, away from the instruments.
baddox 12y ago
> A theory is something that explains an observed phenomenon. That's equivocation. Nearly everything in this document is widely considered to be part of music theory.
zeroxfe 12y ago
I'm not sure how parent became the top comment, but "music theory" is absolutely appropriate here. This terminology is commonly accepted by musicians, educators, and practitioners. OP's link could say "western music theory", but that seems unnecessary given the audience. Secondly, why would you call this junk? This is actually very useful for people learning to play, and for those who want to understand the basics of harmony and rhythm. What you are talking about is typically called "music perception theory", "music cognition", or "music psychology".
- subdane 12y ago
  Knowing how to spell doesn't make you a writer. I think the parent is trying to explain that there's a cultural bias and inscrutability with respect to how music theory is taught. Does learning a notation system make one a theorist? One can be a western musician in, say, a jazz tradition, understand theory, have theories and play music and have never used the system of notation explained in the otherwise awesome comic.
  - zeroxfe 12y ago
    > Knowing how to spell doesn't make you a writer. Of course. But knowing how to spell is the first step towards learning to write -- my four-year-old will tell you all about it. :-) Music theory is more than just spelling. It's also grammar -- it puts together rules for harmony and rhythm, and allows you to analyze music and communicate ideas by giving names to patterns (such as scales, chords, cadences, functions, meters, etc.) It allows you to learn for yourself how to break these rules and deviate from these patterns. You can learn the theory without learning the notation, which is quite common among guitarists. You can also make music without knowing any theory at all, but it is always more helpful to know some theory. > I think the parent is trying to explain that there's a cultural bias and inscrutability with respect to how music theory is taught. Maybe, but the parent is also trivializing what is commonly referred to as "music theory" by calling it just "jargon" and "non-theory junk."
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    The poster above is trying to one-up the OP. Of course a notational cheat sheet is not the same thing as a rigorous intellectual foundation, but the phrase 'music theory' is the most common term to describe the traditional notation and grammar for the western music corpus by a mile. That's what most people want when they search for 'music theory'. It's not a good use of the word 'theory' but the context within which it is embedded is widely familiar. One can be a western musician in, say, a jazz tradition, understand theory, have theories and play music and have never used the system of notation explained in the otherwise awesome comic. True, but it's pretty unlikely. Most people who play music pick some up theory (in the sense of this submission) along the way if only so they can have meaningful conversations with other musicians.
duairc 12y ago
> If you want real understanding of music in a useful way for real people, I recommend Bob Snyder's book "Music and Memory: An Introduction" which was actually written to teach creative artistic people about how music actually works rather than how aristocratic European music notation works. Thank you! I've long been suspicious of so-called music theory for exactly the reasons you outline. I always wanted to learn more about music and why it "works" as you say, so I assumed what I wanted to learn was music theory, but then when I tried to learn it it didn't seem to explain any of the things I was looking for. I'll have to check out that book.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >Thank you! I've long been suspicious of so-called music theory for exactly the reasons you outline. I always wanted to learn more about music and why it "works" as you say, so I assumed what I wanted to learn was music theory, but then when I tried to learn it it didn't seem to explain any of the things I was looking for. I'll have to check out that book. The reasons he mentions are bogus -- simply his bias against a term in common use ("music theory") , only because "theory" is used with a different meaning in academic contexts. That said, there's nothing to be suspicious of in music theory, and what's in TFA is not "so called music theory", it's actual music theory, the way every composer, musician, etc in the western world knows as such. That it doesn't explain other aspects of music (psychological, physical etc) does not make it any less "music theory", nor does it make those other things "music theory".
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - quadrangle 12y ago
    I did mention I have a music degree, right? I teach music lessons for a living. So if you were implying that I'm a scientist who doesn't get the value of this notation-system stuff and am just being pedantic about the word "theory", you're totally wrong. The reason I complain about the term is exactly because of the post above yours: people actually do think they are going to learn explanations about the nature music and they don't get that.
JDiculous 12y ago
Thank you for this comment, seriously. I hear a lot of producers talk about the importance of music theory, but I've never actually seen anything useful. All it is is notation. Notation by itself is meaningless and does not make anybody a better musician.
zedshaw 12y ago
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.

erikschoster 12y ago

James Tenney's thesis "META Meta / Hodos" is another great attempt at constructing a real music theory. https://www.scribd.com/doc/167561563/James-Tenney-Meta-Hodos https://www.scribd.com/doc/167561563/James-Tenney-Meta-Hodos

theOnliest 12y ago

> A theory is something that explains an observed phenomenon. That's true, but if you take the "observed phenomenon" to be "Western, common-practice tonal music (and notation)," then this certainly helps to explain it. It's certainly what gets taught in undergraduate music theory classes (much of it in "fundamentals" courses). Graduate work in music theory involves doing exactly what you say: explaining observed phenomena, in both "classical" music as well as about any other musics you might imagine. That's not to say that all music is Western, common-practice tonal music, but a great deal of music comes out of that lineage; an understanding of these basics are often necessary (or at the very least, useful) before branching out. You see this sort of thing in all disciplines. I might find an "Introduction to computer science for normal people" that explains big-O notation, or teaches some basic Python, or what have you. Someone might well say "This isn't 'computer science,' but instead 'jargon and programming.'" This person might be right, of course, but for "non-computer scientists and normal people," the distinction is not so clear.

quadrangle 12y ago
"Western, common-practice tonal music (and notation)," is not anything close to a good definition of the word "music".
- theOnliest 12y ago
  Of course it's not. I was just responding to the thought that a theory explains an observed phenomenon, and trying to show how for at least one definition of music that the OP was indeed "music theory." It never claims to be "a comprehensive guide to all things musical" or "a theory of all music," but it certainly qualifies as music theory.

pierrec 12y ago

This is music theory, or at the very least, the bulk of the document is about the theory of harmony. The first few pages may give the impression of solely exposing jargon, but as you progress through the pages, the author moves on to the theory of harmony, or what has been referred to as such for the last century and a half (at least). I'm not saying the expression is semantically perfectly sound, but it's been in use for long enough to be considered correct. It's true that a better expression may have been "Harmonic Aspects of the Practice of Composition". Schoenberg's classic 1910 Theory of Harmony is a shining example of this. It's pretty much a practical guide for composition, and follows a structure strikingly similar to that of this document.

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
It's a practical guide for music written before 1910. Unfortunately quite a lot has happened in music since 1910, and if you're trying to write music for the 2010s Harmonielehre and 'theory' of this kind won't just confuse you, it will actively mislead you. The problem is that it teaches you nothing about the importance of performance expression, or the many different ways modes get used and abused in pop/rock/electronica, or how to create arrangements that capture and keep listener attention. Pop has become a massive historical experiment in perceptual psychology. The most popular bands can literally fill a stadium - something common practice music has never done. While that doesn't mean pop is better in some absolute sense, it does suggest it's doing something right for many listeners. If your training is too rigidly classical it actively stops you being able to hear and understand what that right thing is, because you're too busy concentrating on a small subset of the many details in the music.
- oelmekki 12y ago
  > Pop has become a massive historical experiment in perceptual psychology. The most popular bands can literally fill a stadium - something common practice music has never done. > While that doesn't mean pop is better in some absolute sense, it does suggest it's doing something right for many listeners. Not Saying you're necessarily wrong, but you can't say just that without pondering that question : is it due to discoveries in music composition, or is it due to efficiently applying marketing to it ? I don't know if it's the same everywhere in the world, but here in france, if you turn on the radio and zap through channels, you will hear the same song up to 10 times a day. Then you turn on TV on night and see those same groups as guests on TV show. Then you read in local newspaper than they will play in your town. I can see how it could produce the effect you describe.

dominotw 12y ago

>Our first sensory impression as we float in our mother's womb is the rhythmic sound of her heart. http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/htmlRT/1%20intro.html http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/htmlRT/1%20intro.html Umm..what?

GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
It's pretty dark in there.

squeaky-clean 12y ago

>This isn't "music theory" (although almost everyone thinks it is). Isn't that how language works though? If everyone calls this music theory aside from a small minority of people, then it is music theory. "Music Theory" as a term is a study on it's own, it's not "the theory of music" and you can't really use the terms interchangeably like that.

laumars 12y ago
> Isn't that how language works though? If everyone calls this music theory aside from a small minority of people, then it is music theory. That's not really how language works in specialist fields though. For example "theory" and "proof" mean different things in science than they do to the general public (which is part of the reason why the general public misunderstand science so much). Or, for a more relevant example, the problems with how the term "hacker" is misunderstood.

ewoodrich 12y ago

I would certainly consider species counterpoint and harmonic analysis to be "theory", although the first sections are clearly notation and not theory.

kazinator 12y ago

"music theory" is the widely used and accepted term for "music jargon and notation systems" and their related concepts. It is not a "scientific theory", as, say, Thomas Kuhn might have used the term. "Music theory" uses the word "theory" as the colloquial antonym of "practice". As in the adage, "In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they aren't". Music practice means strumming an axe, blowing a horn, banging a drum or tickling ivories, and so on, whereas music theory is ... any study related to how to do these things, away from the instruments.

baddox 12y ago

> A theory is something that explains an observed phenomenon. That's equivocation. Nearly everything in this document is widely considered to be part of music theory.

zeroxfe 12y ago

I'm not sure how parent became the top comment, but "music theory" is absolutely appropriate here. This terminology is commonly accepted by musicians, educators, and practitioners. OP's link could say "western music theory", but that seems unnecessary given the audience. Secondly, why would you call this junk? This is actually very useful for people learning to play, and for those who want to understand the basics of harmony and rhythm. What you are talking about is typically called "music perception theory", "music cognition", or "music psychology".

subdane 12y ago
Knowing how to spell doesn't make you a writer. I think the parent is trying to explain that there's a cultural bias and inscrutability with respect to how music theory is taught. Does learning a notation system make one a theorist? One can be a western musician in, say, a jazz tradition, understand theory, have theories and play music and have never used the system of notation explained in the otherwise awesome comic.
- zeroxfe 12y ago
  > Knowing how to spell doesn't make you a writer. Of course. But knowing how to spell is the first step towards learning to write -- my four-year-old will tell you all about it. :-) Music theory is more than just spelling. It's also grammar -- it puts together rules for harmony and rhythm, and allows you to analyze music and communicate ideas by giving names to patterns (such as scales, chords, cadences, functions, meters, etc.) It allows you to learn for yourself how to break these rules and deviate from these patterns. You can learn the theory without learning the notation, which is quite common among guitarists. You can also make music without knowing any theory at all, but it is always more helpful to know some theory. > I think the parent is trying to explain that there's a cultural bias and inscrutability with respect to how music theory is taught. Maybe, but the parent is also trivializing what is commonly referred to as "music theory" by calling it just "jargon" and "non-theory junk."
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  The poster above is trying to one-up the OP. Of course a notational cheat sheet is not the same thing as a rigorous intellectual foundation, but the phrase 'music theory' is the most common term to describe the traditional notation and grammar for the western music corpus by a mile. That's what most people want when they search for 'music theory'. It's not a good use of the word 'theory' but the context within which it is embedded is widely familiar. One can be a western musician in, say, a jazz tradition, understand theory, have theories and play music and have never used the system of notation explained in the otherwise awesome comic. True, but it's pretty unlikely. Most people who play music pick some up theory (in the sense of this submission) along the way if only so they can have meaningful conversations with other musicians.

duairc 12y ago

> If you want real understanding of music in a useful way for real people, I recommend Bob Snyder's book "Music and Memory: An Introduction" which was actually written to teach creative artistic people about how music actually works rather than how aristocratic European music notation works. Thank you! I've long been suspicious of so-called music theory for exactly the reasons you outline. I always wanted to learn more about music and why it "works" as you say, so I assumed what I wanted to learn was music theory, but then when I tried to learn it it didn't seem to explain any of the things I was looking for. I'll have to check out that book.

coldtea 12y ago
>Thank you! I've long been suspicious of so-called music theory for exactly the reasons you outline. I always wanted to learn more about music and why it "works" as you say, so I assumed what I wanted to learn was music theory, but then when I tried to learn it it didn't seem to explain any of the things I was looking for. I'll have to check out that book. The reasons he mentions are bogus -- simply his bias against a term in common use ("music theory") , only because "theory" is used with a different meaning in academic contexts. That said, there's nothing to be suspicious of in music theory, and what's in TFA is not "so called music theory", it's actual music theory, the way every composer, musician, etc in the western world knows as such. That it doesn't explain other aspects of music (psychological, physical etc) does not make it any less "music theory", nor does it make those other things "music theory".
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- quadrangle 12y ago
  I did mention I have a music degree, right? I teach music lessons for a living. So if you were implying that I'm a scientist who doesn't get the value of this notation-system stuff and am just being pedantic about the word "theory", you're totally wrong. The reason I complain about the term is exactly because of the post above yours: people actually do think they are going to learn explanations about the nature music and they don't get that.

JDiculous 12y ago

Thank you for this comment, seriously. I hear a lot of producers talk about the importance of music theory, but I've never actually seen anything useful. All it is is notation. Notation by itself is meaningless and does not make anybody a better musician.

zedshaw 12y ago

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.