5 ms·

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

by 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.
  - quadrangle 12y ago
    > That's what most people want when they search for 'music theory'. I think most people are actually thinking, "I want to understand music more." when they search for "music theory", and instead of learning deeper understanding about the nature of music, they are taught about notation traditions. Then, most people decide they do not especially care about "music theory" anymore. The folks who continue are those who like studying notation patterns.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      We're going to disagreee about this. I do get where you're coming from and I actually don't care for musical notation; I can read it but I can't sight-read to play so studying notes on a staff involves a lot of painfully keyboard pecking (or occasional cheat transpositions into a DAW) followed by a bunch of more fluid experimentation with the musical elements I played so badly, and it's during this experimental phase that I may or may not learn something. Like you I'd much rather read text about the psychology of musical perception and the why of music. I disliked the notation drills etc. when I had piano lessons as a kid, but as I never had a natural ear for chords or harmony (and thus frequently found myself wanting to improvise things but without a good understanding of how to go about it) I came back to the theoretical stuff as an adult, and ended up getting interested in other musical traditions like Arabic and Indian styles as well as the western one (though I don't want to oversell my knowledge or skills here). Different traditions use different schemes but they all have some way to codify things, because unless you stay within a single tradition or are blessed with an eidetic memory chances are you'll need to note things down at some point. Where I'm disagreeing with you is on the terminologyl I hold that when people search for 'music theory' it's because they want to be conversant with other people on the basics, even if they just want the bare minimum of how to distinguish between major and minor, construct a few basic chords, or read/write a melody outside of a piano roll. It's unfortunate that the label 'music theory' has become associated with this basic stuff; it's as if we used 'literature' to refer to basic spelling, grammar, and vocabulary and used some other term to describe the actual study of artistic writing - but that's how it is.
- leephillips 12y ago
  "a jazz tradition" What system of notation do you think jazz musicians use? I don't think you'd have any luck trying to find employment as a jazz musician since at least the 1930s unless you could at least read music, and be fairly good at sight-reading as well. And as far a composing and arranging? Those guys not only knew tons of theory, but very consciously developed their own extensions to it. They were very familiar with Western classical music, as well as Blues.
quadrangle 12y ago
Indeed "music psychology" is a good term but is almost a truism. There is no such thing as music otherwise. Music is only psychology. Everything about patterns of dots on paper and the theories about them is valid when it aligns with psychology and invalid otherwise. A pattern in notation that isn't psychologically experienced is not music. Teaching the notation by the hypotheses about music that the canon of "music theory" gives us is like teaching chemistry by 100 year old diagrams and names of chemicals. To be perfectly fair, the post here does do a BETTER job with the Western-notation-scope than most other examples.
- graycat 12y ago
  Okay, okay, okay! I get it! Now, explain to me the music theory of the D major section of the Bach Chaconne! Say the first few notes of that section after the opening open D string and the D an octave higher on the A string; or if want to avoid the open string, play the D of the open D string on the G string and the other D on the D string. Then what is the role of the notes repeated three times, and those triplets repeated several times? These triplets are insistent? Heifetz played them this way, but not all violinists do! Then what is the connection from the last few bars of the D major section and the first few bars of the following D minor section? Or the last of the D major is the climax of the piece, and the start of the D minor is a catharsis? For more, at the beginning of the second to last bar of the D major section, there is a chord the first G above middle C, the next G up, and the B above that. The notes are quarter notes except the upper G is an eighth note and changes to the D just below, also an eighth note. Well, what is the role of the change from that G to that D? Some violinists emphasize that change from the G to the D a fourth below, that is, make the D easy to hear and the fall something dramatic, say, as some kind of resignation. What's going on here? What likely did Bach have in mind? Rostropovich, with his recording with von Karajan of the Dvorak concerto, made something really special at the beginning of the second movement: He has some depiction of remembered pathos. So, how'd he (Dvorak and/or Rostropovich) do that? From Rostropovich I hear emphasis with vibrato, volume, and tone color and careful timing, phrasing. It's passionate music. What's going on? It sounds a little like some abstraction of some speech with pathos. Maybe easier is the Prelude of the first Bach piece for solo cello and, there, the rising chromatic passage to what is apparently the climax of that piece. So, what else is going on there just besides that rising chromatic passage? Then there is the cello solo early in the first act of Die Walkure, maybe representing the girl? How to write a cello solo that sounds like a compassionate girl? For some more, there is the duet, "Presentation of the Rose" in Der Rosenkavalier with Barbara Bonney and Anne Sophie von Otter as at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuS337uc-4Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuS337uc-4Y Some parts of the duet with the two voices are just marvelous, and I'm not understanding how Strauss did that. What's going on? How'd he do it? For more, there's too much going on in Ein Heldenleben, but I'd be happy knowing a little about what Strauss did there, even how the girl, that is, the violin solo, worked, or even just how Stauss made the girl so comforting in the last section. Are such issues what you have in mind as music theory? How'd I get into such questions? One night on a radio I heard Beethoven's 7th symphony, and it seemed easy to like, e.g., the dance. Occasionally Dad gave me some money, and I bought some recordings, Vivaldi through Rachmaninoff. Then I was a grad student in math at Indiana University in a dorm next to the music building, and a Stern protege put his old Italian violin under my left chin, gave me a lesson, and I took a violin course, starting with how to tune the thing. I learned the music theory of perfect fifths, that is, three times the frequency of the lower open string is the same frequency as two times the frequency of the upper open string, and the beats between those two can be used to tune to perfect fifths. Not long after making it in some form through much of the Chaconne I got too busy to continue on. So, I like the music but don't fully understand just why. Music theory has an explanation?

by zeroxfe 12y ago

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.
- quadrangle 12y ago
  > That's what most people want when they search for 'music theory'. I think most people are actually thinking, "I want to understand music more." when they search for "music theory", and instead of learning deeper understanding about the nature of music, they are taught about notation traditions. Then, most people decide they do not especially care about "music theory" anymore. The folks who continue are those who like studying notation patterns.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    We're going to disagreee about this. I do get where you're coming from and I actually don't care for musical notation; I can read it but I can't sight-read to play so studying notes on a staff involves a lot of painfully keyboard pecking (or occasional cheat transpositions into a DAW) followed by a bunch of more fluid experimentation with the musical elements I played so badly, and it's during this experimental phase that I may or may not learn something. Like you I'd much rather read text about the psychology of musical perception and the why of music. I disliked the notation drills etc. when I had piano lessons as a kid, but as I never had a natural ear for chords or harmony (and thus frequently found myself wanting to improvise things but without a good understanding of how to go about it) I came back to the theoretical stuff as an adult, and ended up getting interested in other musical traditions like Arabic and Indian styles as well as the western one (though I don't want to oversell my knowledge or skills here). Different traditions use different schemes but they all have some way to codify things, because unless you stay within a single tradition or are blessed with an eidetic memory chances are you'll need to note things down at some point. Where I'm disagreeing with you is on the terminologyl I hold that when people search for 'music theory' it's because they want to be conversant with other people on the basics, even if they just want the bare minimum of how to distinguish between major and minor, construct a few basic chords, or read/write a melody outside of a piano roll. It's unfortunate that the label 'music theory' has become associated with this basic stuff; it's as if we used 'literature' to refer to basic spelling, grammar, and vocabulary and used some other term to describe the actual study of artistic writing - but that's how it is.
leephillips 12y ago
"a jazz tradition" What system of notation do you think jazz musicians use? I don't think you'd have any luck trying to find employment as a jazz musician since at least the 1930s unless you could at least read music, and be fairly good at sight-reading as well. And as far a composing and arranging? Those guys not only knew tons of theory, but very consciously developed their own extensions to it. They were very familiar with Western classical music, as well as Blues.

quadrangle 12y ago

Indeed "music psychology" is a good term but is almost a truism. There is no such thing as music otherwise. Music is only psychology. Everything about patterns of dots on paper and the theories about them is valid when it aligns with psychology and invalid otherwise. A pattern in notation that isn't psychologically experienced is not music. Teaching the notation by the hypotheses about music that the canon of "music theory" gives us is like teaching chemistry by 100 year old diagrams and names of chemicals. To be perfectly fair, the post here does do a BETTER job with the Western-notation-scope than most other examples.

graycat 12y ago
Okay, okay, okay! I get it! Now, explain to me the music theory of the D major section of the Bach Chaconne! Say the first few notes of that section after the opening open D string and the D an octave higher on the A string; or if want to avoid the open string, play the D of the open D string on the G string and the other D on the D string. Then what is the role of the notes repeated three times, and those triplets repeated several times? These triplets are insistent? Heifetz played them this way, but not all violinists do! Then what is the connection from the last few bars of the D major section and the first few bars of the following D minor section? Or the last of the D major is the climax of the piece, and the start of the D minor is a catharsis? For more, at the beginning of the second to last bar of the D major section, there is a chord the first G above middle C, the next G up, and the B above that. The notes are quarter notes except the upper G is an eighth note and changes to the D just below, also an eighth note. Well, what is the role of the change from that G to that D? Some violinists emphasize that change from the G to the D a fourth below, that is, make the D easy to hear and the fall something dramatic, say, as some kind of resignation. What's going on here? What likely did Bach have in mind? Rostropovich, with his recording with von Karajan of the Dvorak concerto, made something really special at the beginning of the second movement: He has some depiction of remembered pathos. So, how'd he (Dvorak and/or Rostropovich) do that? From Rostropovich I hear emphasis with vibrato, volume, and tone color and careful timing, phrasing. It's passionate music. What's going on? It sounds a little like some abstraction of some speech with pathos. Maybe easier is the Prelude of the first Bach piece for solo cello and, there, the rising chromatic passage to what is apparently the climax of that piece. So, what else is going on there just besides that rising chromatic passage? Then there is the cello solo early in the first act of Die Walkure, maybe representing the girl? How to write a cello solo that sounds like a compassionate girl? For some more, there is the duet, "Presentation of the Rose" in Der Rosenkavalier with Barbara Bonney and Anne Sophie von Otter as at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuS337uc-4Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuS337uc-4Y Some parts of the duet with the two voices are just marvelous, and I'm not understanding how Strauss did that. What's going on? How'd he do it? For more, there's too much going on in Ein Heldenleben, but I'd be happy knowing a little about what Strauss did there, even how the girl, that is, the violin solo, worked, or even just how Stauss made the girl so comforting in the last section. Are such issues what you have in mind as music theory? How'd I get into such questions? One night on a radio I heard Beethoven's 7th symphony, and it seemed easy to like, e.g., the dance. Occasionally Dad gave me some money, and I bought some recordings, Vivaldi through Rachmaninoff. Then I was a grad student in math at Indiana University in a dorm next to the music building, and a Stern protege put his old Italian violin under my left chin, gave me a lesson, and I took a violin course, starting with how to tune the thing. I learned the music theory of perfect fifths, that is, three times the frequency of the lower open string is the same frequency as two times the frequency of the upper open string, and the beats between those two can be used to tune to perfect fifths. Not long after making it in some form through much of the Chaconne I got too busy to continue on. So, I like the music but don't fully understand just why. Music theory has an explanation?