Does Music Theory really apply for Electronic Music?

[Labalaia]

Hi Guys,

i´m trying to wrap my head around some more theory during the last weeks.
Im producing electronic music and really struggle with applying music theory here.

Often i try to work out the scales and chords of songs i really like. Very often i´m able to work out the notes and chords but cant find the appropriate scale.

I have the feeling that especially the more interesting songs break with theory and therefore sound much more interresting....still i´m a little confused about it..

So here´s an example.

I worked out the chords of a house track i really like - it´s: Eb minor, Bb minor, Eb, Bmaj7

While this sounds really nice - theory wise it doesn´t make any sense....so does learning all this theroy even make sense in the end....?

Hope someone can help me get out of my confussion

[vurt]

many people will say "you cant break the rules till youve learnt them!"

but the only thing you need to know is "if it sounds good it is good"
if youre just making music because you enjoy it then go for it. if youre doing it for exams then of course all the theory is needed.
in the end though, its art, there is no right and wrong

now over to the scheduled programme...

[Tricky-Loops]

I doubt that interesting tracks broke with music theory. Music theory is like a big ocean - you can decide which creatures you want to fish (i. e. which stuff you want to use in your songs)...

Even if you make the craziest chromatic chords, it's still inside music theory, there's no way out...

[ZenPunkHippy]

Check out this post by Cosmosis. He is probably best known for producing psychedelic trance, but is also a jazz guitarist with decades of playing experience.

http://cosmosis.co.uk/tips-and-tricks/m ... ed-it-pt-2

Peace,
Andy.

[Robmobius]

Better to have a basic grasp of it at least imo.

[Gamma-UT]

Often i try to work out the scales and chords of songs i really like. Very often i´m able to work out the notes and chords but cant find the appropriate scale.

I have the feeling that especially the more interesting songs break with theory and therefore sound much more interresting....still i´m a little confused about it..

They don't break with theory as such. They (or rather their folk-tune predecessors) actually led the theory. From the days of church music, music theory rules have been gradually augmented to take into account what folk musicians were doing in the outside world. A lot of this is to use scales and techniques that don't occupy the regular minor and major scales. So, the whole "stick to the major or minor scale in a tune" rule in simple theory is OK to get people off the ground when playing but it's pretty irrelevant to most pop composition.

Having said that, a lot of tunes do mostly stick to one key and simply shift between the minor and major forms to add variety. When you see some 'unusual' chord progressions, you will often find there is a chunk of music theory that describes it. And the progression often works because the sequence is slightly out of the ordinary, breaking out of the major/minor key straightjacket.

The thing about theory is that it can give you shortcuts to finding progressions and harmonic developments instead of having to try out lots of different things by trial and error. But trial and error can yield useful results – if it sounds good, it probably is.

This isn't going to help with composing a dance track, but might be useful background to the role of modes and scale in folk and how they differ to keys: http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOL ... mily.shtml

The house track looks as though it does a minor-major shift in the key of Eb, with a steady drone on the fifth - Bb.

[DJ Warmonger]

The problem of modern times is that thousands of people try to make music without knowing music theory. Moreover, they even don't imagine such a thing exist!

Music theory applies to every music, since it describes underlaying maths. Maths never lies, whether you like it or not.
Still, it's only a theory. You need to apply theory to real track and see how it works for YOU.

Also, if you're listening to electronic music and are still concerned about "music theory", go better pick some musical piece. Not everyone plays crap like martin Garrix, Hardwell and W&W.

http://youtu.be/GI9SHvMy0-k

[Gamma-UT]

Music theory applies to every music, since it describes underlaying maths. Maths never lies, whether you like it or not.
Still, it's only a theory. You need to apply theory to real track and see how it works for YOU.

[Western] music theory is not maths. It doesn't even really qualify as "theory". It's a bunch of rules and observations that have been assembled over a period of about 500 years.

[DJ Warmonger]

Are you trying to say that perfect fifth in wester scale is not equal to 2^(7/12) = 1.498, which is almost 1.5? That 1.5 equals to 3:2 ratio, which means every third harmonic of tonic is equal to every second harmonic of dominant?

It doesn't matter what people came up with over 500 years, but WHY they did. They did it because it's based on maths. And Joseph Fourier explained that the maths corresponds directly to physical nature of sound.

[Gamma-UT]

Are you trying to say that perfect fifth in wester scale is not equal to 2^(7/12) = 1.498, which is almost 1.5? That 1.5 equals to 3:2 ratio, which means every third harmonic of tonic is equal to every second harmonic of dominant?

It doesn't matter what people came up with over 500 years, but WHY they did. They did it because it's based on maths. And Joseph Fourier explained that the maths corresponds directly to physical nature of sound.

If maths is so important to composition and the use of intervals why is "almost 1.5" good enough in equal temperament? Why not the actual 3:2 ratio you would find in the early harmonics of a resonating chamber, like a musical instrument?

And, even within a 'pure' tuning system based on the simple ratios, beyond fifths, fourths and thirds, the ratios get really gnarly, really fast.

The result was that any early attempts to reconcile music with maths were doomed to failure. Other than some bits of set theory, please find a piece of mathematics that is useful to musical composition (aside from, if you ignore equal temperament, some pitch ratios are real simple). And I've never seen set theory used to teach music, oddly enough.

[BlackWinny]

There is music... and music.

If you want to simply play around with your synth, even to "make productions"... so no, you can probably do quite pretty things without theory of music (we hear so many things which are called "music" nowadays)... but...

But if really you want to make tunes which are structured and have a real value not only by aligning effects and effects and effects... so yes, really ! A minimal knowledge of music theory is very important !

One of the best ways to know if a tune has a real musical "value" is the piano test. You play your tune with nothing else than a piano or an acoustic guitar (or a piano or acoustic guitar emulation) with absolutely no effects at all. And above all... not only you hear it yourself, but you ask someone else (and better, several people) to hear it. If there are flaws in your harmony, the piano test (or guitar test) will reveal them.

Effects should never be the only matter of a tune. A tune should always be based in priority on music theory, even in electronic music. Effects should be the adding matter which brings still more to the tune already well structured.

See Tangerine Dream, Kitaro, Kraftwerk, Jean-Michel Jarre, Ashra Tempel, Isao Tomita, Tony Banks, Klaus Schulze, Keith Emerson, Rick Wright, Chick Corea, Joe Zawinul, John Foxx, Vince Clarke, Neil Tennant, Chris Lowe, Alan Wilder... and even in techno, see Aphex Twin which writes very simple but indeed melodies (he has even played with Philip Glass), Juan Atkins (one of the four founders of the techno style), Jeff Mills (who has a great knowledge of the harmony rules), Carl Graig (not only he plays techno... he also play jazz!), Kevin Saunderson, Richie Hawtin...

Why do they have such a huge celebrity ? Because they all know the music theory !

And yet, a minimal knowledge of music theory isn't so difficult to acquire ! Children learn the rudiments of music theory (and have always been able to learn them) since 5 or 6 years old !

Why so many people claim today that music theory is insane to learn ? It's not due to any difficulty in the rudiments of music theory... it's because they don't want to spend time to learn them.

But the fact is that all of these electronic "musicians" as they called themselves don't really compose, they only play around with their synths... and above all... with their effects to hide their total lack of knowledge. Their music is based only on the capabilities of the synths and the effects. Make them seat in front of a piano keyboard and you'll see immediately that they are not musicians, they are simply technicians of electronic effects. That is really the ultimate test to know if someone is really a keyboard musician and not simply a keyboard effect lover !

Rudiments of music theory are very easy to learn. As I said they are taught to young children as young as 5 or 6 years old, and that... since the beginning of the 19th century ! And now all these effect lovers claim that music theory is to hard ? Let me laugh ! What a ruin ! Two hundred years to suddenly in less than a decade arrive there !

There are even excellent ebooks (and very cheap compared to synths and effects at $200 or $300 !) to learn music theory in the purpose of electronic music.
One of the bests:

• http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B7RFAY6
• http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/?ean=97 ... 1598636802
• http://itunes.apple.com/fr/book/music-t ... d498756104

A book like this one (it is an example) is never money lost! It is books like these books... which will hugely enhance the musical quality of one's productions! Of course nothing will never replace a teacher for advanced theories, but these books are made to learn at the best (and quietly at home each one at one's speed) what is the most essential : the minimal to compose real music instead of simply play around with knobs !

To say "Music theory is useless" is in fact to confess to have no desire at all to study some rules of harmony which make real music and not simply play with sounds. That's all. All these musicians cited above create real music and are widely known around the world... because they compose on the knowledge of a minimal theory of how music is structured. It's not by fortune... it's by work on the rules of composition themselves.

To stay at the level of playing around for years and years with huge amounts of effects is to condemn oneself to do exactly the same "music" for years and years, with differences only in the synths used and the effects employed to hide one's total ignorance of the real music, i.e. the harmony which renders the real music so living by its variety. All those electronic music and techno artists that I cited above are famous because they create electronic music based on real compositions.

The test of the piano or of the acoustic guitar is one of the best tests to know if your production is really music and not simply an alignment of crazy effects on a suite of three or fours chords repeated ad lib.

[BlackWinny]

Are you trying to say that perfect fifth in wester scale is not equal to 2^(7/12) = 1.498, which is almost 1.5? That 1.5 equals to 3:2 ratio, which means every third harmonic of tonic is equal to every second harmonic of dominant?

It doesn't matter what people came up with over 500 years, but WHY they did. They did it because it's based on maths. And Joseph Fourier explained that the maths corresponds directly to physical nature of sound.

Exactly that!

And the mathematical rules which are behind the musical rules may be learned later if one wants.

A child can perfectly learn the musical theory without learning the mathematics which are behind them.

It's exactly the boundaries between the applied science (the music) and the formal science (the mathematics which subtends the music)

Therefore it allows to a child to perfectly learn the musical theory and to become a musician (amateur or professional being another story) without learning the mathematics which are behind them.

To play an instrument without learning any line of music theory is not to be a musician, it is to be a player (around) of an instrument of music which could be used to create real music.

Perhaps I'm a purist, but I prefer that. For the safe of the music.

[datroof]

And I've never seen set theory used to teach music, oddly enough.

Yeah, you don't see set-class theory until you get into 'post-tonal' theory courses. Pretty cool stuff.

[DJ Warmonger]

What I meant was not playing using the theory. I meant listening. People all over the world will enjoy a melody based on mentioned principles, because they are based on stronger foundations that taste or culture. That's why it's better to know something about it.
Especially in electronic music - you may apply these mathematical principles in endless number of ways and with high precision.

And I've never seen set theory used to teach music, oddly enough

Mess with the best Check the first lecture from Leonard Bernstein, as soon as it will be back in the internet.

[BlackWinny]

What I meant was not playing using the theory. I meant listening. People all over the world will enjoy a melody based on mentioned principles, because they are based on stronger foundations that taste or culture. That's why it's better to know something about it.
Especially in electronic music - you may apply these mathematical principles in endless number of ways and with high precision..

Yes. And there are even musicians who compose directly on geometrical rules.

It was already the case of Bach. And there are nowadays many synth composers who build very nice compositions on simple geometry rules that we learned at school.

It's of course much more than the simple rules of the theory of music, but also we are far, far, far from those people who simply align effects and effects on three chords and call that "Music".