Ask a Music Theory Guru Anything

  On 2/4/2010 at 11:22 PM, wahrk said:

  On 2/4/2010 at 11:17 PM, Alcofribas said:

what is happening, technically, when a donk is put upon a piece?

 

From my experience it involves sacrificing any shred of dignity for a bit of booty-shakin' dance-ability.

*puts a donk on it*

do you have any recommendations for some light reading? particularly dealing with chord progressions and melody creation. i've been self taught up to this point and figured i might see what all the fuss is about. the more casual the better, i get bored rather easily when things get too technical. just something thought provoking. thanks.

  On 2/4/2010 at 11:28 PM, Rabid said:

Heh. Even though your thread is kind of being trolled at least I got something out of it. Thanks a lot.

 

  Quote

Why does a major chord sound bright and a minor chord sound dark? We don't really know. Same goes for why I should go to IV and V to I. It just sounds good that way. The thing about music theory is that it's all theory. It's all just a big set of guidelines, not rules, and they were all written down because following them sounded good

If the overtone series can be used to explain consonance/dissonance then I'm sure there's some explanation for other things in theory, even if the explanation is something really technical. What you said makes sense though.

Yeah, you can go that route if you want as well. Studying sound reveals a lot of correlation in that respect.

I guess I tend to avoid the overtone series because I've been playing the trumpet, which uses the overtone series as its open notes, since 6th grade, and I absolutely abhor the idea of using the overtone series as a basis for an instrument since it doesn't have the direct correlation to western 12-tone theory I desire.

  On 2/4/2010 at 9:22 PM, wahrk said:

Seeing as how I've got years of formal training in music theory (not to mention an unhealthy obsession with it), I figured I should offer it up to the community.

 

Keys, scales, chords, modes, progressions, voice-leading, rhythms, time signatures, etc.

 

Ask away.

what is your favorite modal scale, and why?

wow... well my friend professor ansen dussel from the university of caledonia and i were discussing the utz-umeme theorem that was disseminated at the ICMT last summer, so that'd be a good topic of discussion.

utz and umeme postulate that dyson's split-tone mathematics should not (or, more accurately, can not) apply to just intonation as accurately as they can to equal tempered scales.

when dyson illustrated this (), the evanescent wave wasn't taken into account, of course, so the question becomes whether or not the total internal reflection negates the initial wave energy.

ansen and i both had to laugh when utz brought up the electrostatic function as though it had ANY bearing whatsoever. luckily, those in attendance pretty much had the same reaction.

as we all know, none of this is even relevant when operating above the nyquist rate (in the digital realm - also, not to be confused with the nyquist FREQUENCY, of coures), and since we all pretty much work within the digital realm, that's a pretty serious consideration.

hmm.

  On 2/4/2010 at 11:37 PM, uptowndevil said:

do you have any recommendations for some light reading? particularly dealing with chord progressions and melody creation. i've been self taught up to this point and figured i might see what all the fuss is about. the more casual the better, i get bored rather easily when things get too technical. just something thought provoking. thanks.

Hmmm. I'm sorry to say that I don't have any straight up theory books to recommend. All of my learning was in a classroom, which I think is the best way if you can do it.

There is, however, an incredible book called This Is Your Brain On Music, that deals with a lot of the concepts behind theory and behind the enjoyment of music in general. It's an eye-opening read and definitely something I would recommend for anyone who makes music.

in all seriousness, though...

the only aspects of theory that even remotely interest me are really more the psychology and mathematics of animal response to frequency and rhythm (melody, harmonic structure, etc.)

i reference "this is your brain on music" by daniel levitin pretty regularly as a good text on the subject. it was the first time i'd ever read a neuroscientist's take on the whole affair, and it's pretty fascinating.

what defines "major" as "uplifting" and "minor" as "sad" could either be something innate (some sort of chemical response to the combination of mathematical frequencies), or something culturally "learned". after all - while similar "music theory" concepts exist across all cultures, a lot of what is considered "happy" or "sad" in terms music is bound by region. so it becomes a nature vs. nurture argument.

the "rules" of theory are more or less, in my opinion, an abstraction of true mathematical rules as they apply to tonality and rhythm. as BoC famously used as a title, "music is math". the contradiction, of course, being that most people don't approach music mathematically - rather, it's some sort of hard-coded comprehension of the mathematics involved that allow us to create and appreciate music.

it's similar to walking. one could 'theorise" and dissect the mathematical concepts of balance, momentum, and motion that comprise how to walk, but we dont' need to. it's useful if you're trying to build a robot that can walk, since your'e starting at zero... but our brains process this information at a rate and level that's so vastly beyond comprehension that it becomes useless information to the layperson.

okay, seriousness over.

  On 2/4/2010 at 11:48 PM, hahathhat said:

  On 2/4/2010 at 9:22 PM, wahrk said:

Seeing as how I've got years of formal training in music theory (not to mention an unhealthy obsession with it), I figured I should offer it up to the community.

 

Keys, scales, chords, modes, progressions, voice-leading, rhythms, time signatures, etc.

 

Ask away.

 

what is your favorite modal scale, and why?

In the typical 7 modes, I'm down with Mixolydian mostly just because bVII to I sounds epic. If you wanna go outside the realm of normal modes, take a whack out how spacey this hybrid mode sounds: 1 2 M3 #4 5 m6 m7.

  On 2/4/2010 at 11:50 PM, maus said:

wow... well my friend professor ansen dussel from the university of caledonia and i were discussing the utz-umeme theorem that was disseminated at the ICMT last summer, so that'd be a good topic of discussion.

 

utz and umeme postulate that dyson's split-tone mathematics should not (or, more accurately, can not) apply to just intonation as accurately as they can to equal tempered scales.

 

when dyson illustrated this (), the evanescent wave wasn't taken into account, of course, so the question becomes whether or not the total internal reflection negates the initial wave energy.

 

ansen and i both had to laugh when utz brought up the electrostatic function as though it had ANY bearing whatsoever. luckily, those in attendance pretty much had the same reaction.

 

as we all know, none of this is even relevant when operating above the nyquist rate (in the digital realm - also, not to be confused with the nyquist FREQUENCY, of coures), and since we all pretty much work within the digital realm, that's a pretty serious consideration.

 

hmm.

Oh, acoustics.

  On 2/4/2010 at 11:56 PM, maus said:

what defines "major" as "uplifting" and "minor" as "sad" could either be something innate (some sort of chemical response to the combination of mathematical frequencies), or something culturally "learned". after all - while similar "music theory" concepts exist across all cultures, a lot of what is considered "happy" or "sad" in terms music is bound by region. so it becomes a nature vs. nurture argument.

in all likelihood, it's a matter of both. we're an absurdly social species and a large percentage of the decisions we make on a day-to-day basis are made with our theory of mind -- our ability to reflect upon our own experiences and project them onto another being's actions to try and determine what they are thinking/what made them do what they did. continuing this vein of thought, it has become incredibly easy for us to read people based on the sounds they make -- a baby's cry can induce lactating in her mother, etc. following this thought further yet, it seems natural that we would come to associate various tones with various moods. mix in a few thousand years of civilized life and the ways in which our society has changed the criteria upon which our species selects mates and you're going to end up with fairly deep-seeded ties between emotion and sound. there's a ton of abstraction that occurs when our brain processes vision and language, but music hits us on a more primal level. in some sense, we've been trained -- both by evolution and society -- to respond to various sounds. if we explore this idea from a more mathematical basis, we can probably create some models of the characteristics of sounds that inspire various emotions. what i would give for an fMRI machine...

edit: oh, also... thanks for taking all of this in stride, wahrk! i've learned quite a bit and will certainly come back to you when i've got some questions!

  On 2/5/2010 at 12:09 AM, wahrk said:

Oh, acoustics.

not really. i made everything in that post up.

  On 2/4/2010 at 11:56 PM, maus said:

in all seriousness, though...

 

the only aspects of theory that even remotely interest me are really more the psychology and mathematics of animal response to frequency and rhythm (melody, harmonic structure, etc.)

 

i reference "this is your brain on music" by daniel levitin pretty regularly as a good text on the subject. it was the first time i'd ever read a neuroscientist's take on the whole affair, and it's pretty fascinating.

 

what defines "major" as "uplifting" and "minor" as "sad" could either be something innate (some sort of chemical response to the combination of mathematical frequencies), or something culturally "learned". after all - while similar "music theory" concepts exist across all cultures, a lot of what is considered "happy" or "sad" in terms music is bound by region. so it becomes a nature vs. nurture argument.

 

the "rules" of theory are more or less, in my opinion, an abstraction of true mathematical rules as they apply to tonality and rhythm. as BoC famously used as a title, "music is math". the contradiction, of course, being that most people don't approach music mathematically - rather, it's some sort of hard-coded comprehension of the mathematics involved that allow us to create and appreciate music.

 

it's similar to walking. one could 'theorise" and dissect the mathematical concepts of balance, momentum, and motion that comprise how to walk, but we dont' need to. it's useful if you're trying to build a robot that can walk, since your'e starting at zero... but our brains process this information at a rate and level that's so vastly beyond comprehension that it becomes useless information to the layperson.

 

okay, seriousness over.

Ha ha. I like how we both mentioned This Is Your Brain On Music. Incredible book, I agree.

I have found myself many a time saying that "music is math", and I think it's only half true. That's part of it, but if that were all of it, then there would be nothing to make, as we would have the perfect recipes for any song. The other part is the expression involved. That's what makes it an art.

The "abstraction" of the way we hear music into music theory serves the same purpose as a high level programming language like C++ as opposed to machine code. The higher level you're thinking, the further away you are from the true form, BUT the easier it is to manipulate that true form and do truly complex and interesting things.

I'm thinking about signing up to a forum that has been around for 11 years and has 7000+ members and then acting like I know more than anyone else on there. Any tips?

Who made that track on the beginning of Windowlicker?

  On 2/5/2010 at 12:17 AM, maus said:

  On 2/5/2010 at 12:09 AM, wahrk said:

Oh, acoustics.

 

not really. i made everything in that post up.

Ha ha. Well that'll teach me to make assumptions based on the phrases "intonation", "evanescent wave", and "Nyquist rate" when I'm skimming over things.

  On 2/5/2010 at 12:14 AM, bigs said:

edit: oh, also... thanks for taking all of this in stride, wahrk! i've learned quite a bit and will certainly come back to you when i've got some questions!

Any time.

  On 2/5/2010 at 12:23 AM, analogue wings said:

I'm thinking about signing up to a forum that has been around for 11 years and has 7000+ members and then acting like I know more than anyone else on there. Any tips?

Put your points into charisma and watch out for bears.

  On 2/5/2010 at 12:24 AM, 4d0lf said:

Who made that track on the beginning of Windowlicker?

Jesus.

  On 2/5/2010 at 12:23 AM, analogue wings said:

I'm thinking about signing up to a forum that has been around for 11 years and has 7000+ members and then acting like I know more than anyone else on there. Any tips?

i suppose if you have to be a dick, you could at least give it more effort than that... the ultra dry internet sarcasm is getting old.

  On 2/5/2010 at 12:49 AM, bigs said:

  On 2/5/2010 at 12:23 AM, analogue wings said:

I'm thinking about signing up to a forum that has been around for 11 years and has 7000+ members and then acting like I know more than anyone else on there. Any tips?

i suppose if you have to be a dick, you could at least give it more effort than that... the ultra dry internet sarcasm is getting old.

Amen Brother.

  On 2/4/2010 at 11:56 PM, maus said:

what defines "major" as "uplifting" and "minor" as "sad" could either be something innate (some sort of chemical response to the combination of mathematical frequencies), or something culturally "learned".

That's interesting. I don't think all music is innate, though the simpler repetitive tunes probably are. When I used to hear something completely new I almost never knew what to think of it, then when I got back a few years later it would seem a lot more understandable. This happened a lot when I was younger and probably occurred because this strange music wasn't a part of my "nurture" and so i had no emotional association to it. I've noticed it also with some idm tracks, usually autechre, where different people have completely different ideas about the mood of a track. Autechre is a great example because it is so far removed from most people's "emotional nurture".

  On 2/4/2010 at 9:22 PM, wahrk said:

Seeing as how I've got years of formal training in music theory (not to mention an unhealthy obsession with it), I figured I should offer it up to the community.

 

Keys, scales, chords, modes, progressions, voice-leading, rhythms, time signatures, etc.

 

Ask away.

I personally believe music theory is overrated.

Heat or night?

Can we hear some of your music?

  On 2/5/2010 at 12:58 AM, The Dark Lord said:

I personally believe music theory is overrated.

Happens. My drummer's the same way. I think there's been a lot put into developing music theory and thus there's a lot to be gained by picking it up and taking it into consideration when making pieces.

I think it gets a bad rap because every resource in the world teaches you the super basics, which are like 10% of all of it, if even that. It's like judging the internet based on MySpace. The world of slightly more advanced tonal harmony rocks, what with secondary dominants and modal mixture. It's cool to have a bunch of presets to play with on a synth instead of starting from scratch every time, and that's what theory does for me. It gives me a ton of options that I wouldn't have known about otherwise.

I think it's super underrated myself.

  On 2/5/2010 at 12:32 AM, wahrk said:

  On 2/5/2010 at 12:23 AM, analogue wings said:

I'm thinking about signing up to a forum that has been around for 11 years and has 7000+ members and then acting like I know more than anyone else on there. Any tips?

 

Put your points into charisma and watch out for bears.

Whoops I seem to have failed my "be tolerant of n00bs" saving throw. I meant to say "read the rules"