3 ms·

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 expos

by 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.
quadrangle 12y ago
Actually, this theory of harmony is largely wrong. Harmony is actually explained in my original post's link: http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/ttss.html http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/ttss.html Just like other fields, people actually do advance in our understanding and figure out what was wrong in the old theories. The music world has just done a very poor job of disseminating the updated understanding. That's probably because academic music institutions are too often about cultural preservation rather than about furthering our understanding.

by pierrec 12y ago

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.

quadrangle 12y ago

Actually, this theory of harmony is largely wrong. Harmony is actually explained in my original post's link: http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/ttss.html http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/ttss.html Just like other fields, people actually do advance in our understanding and figure out what was wrong in the old theories. The music world has just done a very poor job of disseminating the updated understanding. That's probably because academic music institutions are too often about cultural preservation rather than about furthering our understanding.