5 ms·

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 lik

by 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...
  - archagon 12y ago
    Classical music theory is a rigid, structural, almost mathematical system that emerged over several centuries. In those centuries, composers learned some very powerful techniques to express ideas in their music. Although the specifics of classical music — the rhythms, the chords, the tonalities — may be antiquated, I really do think that the forces that guided their development are just as relevant to modern music. For example: why is a V7 chord so powerful? It's because you have the interval of a 5th — a tense interval with almost universal meaning vis a vis the overtone series — combined with two minor 2nd intervals that are brimming with tension to resolve to the tonic and the third. The study of intervals and of tension in voice leading is, I think, absolutely essential in jazz as well, and can help explain some extremely confusing jazz chords in analysis as almost incidental results of voice leading. This is what I mean by classical music theory offering insight into any genre of music: classical music emerged out of the study of things like intervalic tension, and even though our own century's music has diverged from this origin, I think it's very important to study the lessons learned over those hundreds of years. (EDIT: I just noticed that you said outside of Western music. Yes, that may be correct. Many systems of music in the world are very different from our own. But I think most people writing music today are writing with Western ears in mind. After all, we've been conditioned to understand this kind of music for hundreds of years!) As for your second point, I think what I latch on to in classical music more than anything is the use of motif, and Beethoven's 5th of course epitomizes this. Don't get me wrong — I love popular music, and I listen to it more than anything — but most of the "top 100" songs in any popular music ranking feature wandering, improvised music more than any systemic use of motif to make a rhetorical point. And that's not a bad thing! I love Stairway to Heaven. But it just "sounds good" — it doesn't really develop its musical material. Compare to something like this[1], where every single musical detail is repeated and developed across all the voices. It's so intricate. I've never heard this level of motivic development in popular music, and I've been looking for a few years now. I am sorry if this is not making any sense, I am having beers. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLotW5AKjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLotW5AKjg
tobr 12y ago
There are things that are useful to the extent that they're not inaccurate, but most of it is very incomplete with regards to how most of the music most people enjoy today works. Recorded music is not mentioned, blues tonality is not mentioned, there is no theory of groove or syncopation, and there's nothing about lyrics. Without these things, "music theory" is not useful for studying modern popular music. Your book recommendation looks quite interesting too, thank you. I'm not sure if Ethan Hein's blog is a great starting place for a beginner, but it's some of the best "theorizing" around recorded music that I know of.

by ambler0 12y ago

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...
- archagon 12y ago
  Classical music theory is a rigid, structural, almost mathematical system that emerged over several centuries. In those centuries, composers learned some very powerful techniques to express ideas in their music. Although the specifics of classical music — the rhythms, the chords, the tonalities — may be antiquated, I really do think that the forces that guided their development are just as relevant to modern music. For example: why is a V7 chord so powerful? It's because you have the interval of a 5th — a tense interval with almost universal meaning vis a vis the overtone series — combined with two minor 2nd intervals that are brimming with tension to resolve to the tonic and the third. The study of intervals and of tension in voice leading is, I think, absolutely essential in jazz as well, and can help explain some extremely confusing jazz chords in analysis as almost incidental results of voice leading. This is what I mean by classical music theory offering insight into any genre of music: classical music emerged out of the study of things like intervalic tension, and even though our own century's music has diverged from this origin, I think it's very important to study the lessons learned over those hundreds of years. (EDIT: I just noticed that you said outside of Western music. Yes, that may be correct. Many systems of music in the world are very different from our own. But I think most people writing music today are writing with Western ears in mind. After all, we've been conditioned to understand this kind of music for hundreds of years!) As for your second point, I think what I latch on to in classical music more than anything is the use of motif, and Beethoven's 5th of course epitomizes this. Don't get me wrong — I love popular music, and I listen to it more than anything — but most of the "top 100" songs in any popular music ranking feature wandering, improvised music more than any systemic use of motif to make a rhetorical point. And that's not a bad thing! I love Stairway to Heaven. But it just "sounds good" — it doesn't really develop its musical material. Compare to something like this[1], where every single musical detail is repeated and developed across all the voices. It's so intricate. I've never heard this level of motivic development in popular music, and I've been looking for a few years now. I am sorry if this is not making any sense, I am having beers. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLotW5AKjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLotW5AKjg

tobr 12y ago

There are things that are useful to the extent that they're not inaccurate, but most of it is very incomplete with regards to how most of the music most people enjoy today works. Recorded music is not mentioned, blues tonality is not mentioned, there is no theory of groove or syncopation, and there's nothing about lyrics. Without these things, "music theory" is not useful for studying modern popular music. Your book recommendation looks quite interesting too, thank you. I'm not sure if Ethan Hein's blog is a great starting place for a beginner, but it's some of the best "theorizing" around recorded music that I know of.