Does Music Theory really apply for Electronic Music?

[Uncle E]

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

If Bach had written that, we might say the Eb is a substitution for C minor, which is the ii of Bb minor, and that the Bmaj7 is actually an Eb sus flat 6...or something like that.

I personally found theory to be very limiting the first few years I was learning it. Once I got into modulations and substitutions, though, it opened up a lot of doors for me. Jazz theory might have been a better way to start out since that gets into modulations a lot faster.

[D.Josef]

It's not maths, it's physics.
Ie. the naive method of dividing a resonating string by integers, effectively shortening it by half, two-thirds, three-quarters, etc. Think of the hunter-gatherer who might have played the world's first melody on a bowstring made of animal gut.
This naive approach (dividing a string into equal lengths is pretty natural) yields the harmonic series, and so yielded agreeable intervals for the ear.

That said, the harmonic series is pretty much only the first step of music theory. Most of it is not nature, but instead, convention. Starting with how you reconcile the mathematical discrepancy between the perfect fifth and the octave... (Or, rather, whether to build your scale upon the perfect fifth, or another interval.)
Some of the convention did come from mathematical thinking, but is, ultimately, just one way of doing things, and thus arbitrary.
That doesn't mean it's unimportant though. Languages are convention too, and just as arbitrary, and still, communicating requires the use of a language. And as writing a book requires knowledge of language, so does writing a song require knowledge of music theory.

[jancivil]

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.

The why of 12th root of two as a system was not because it was good maths, it was because there came a sort of critical mass of people desiring a predictable result of the harmonies that came about through particular conventions, for all of 12 keys. There were people in antiquity that did maths that more or less give 12 equal divisions of the octave, but the systems of intonation were not these things, for some reason. They came about through manipulation of ratios to solve the first big problem, which is 2:1 geometrically doesn't agree with that 3:2. So we have eg., "the Pythagorean Comma'.
In baroque times for instance, quarter, fifth, and sixth/comma means were designed to lessen the intervallic differences in rational intonation when you went to a new 'tonic'. These maths followed what people did, not the other way around. This is perfectly clear. You actually chose the best example to refute your premise. For 'every third harmonic...' to be a true statement, maths had to be applied. If you merely followed harmonics, we would never have 2:1. It was noticed that 12 of the 3:2 was close to reiterating 1:1 at that level, but it did not fit. This is the basis for 12.
Hence temperament. Maths are an adjustment to suit a musical idea, in this fundament.

So 12th root of two is not natural, it was created as an ultimate solution to the modulation of keys problem. It follows naturally that that fifth is the closest to a just interval, but they are all by definition irrational numbers. The 'natural' major third, fifth harmonic, is ~13.69¢ flatter than the one in 12tET. The 'pythagorean' interval by M3 is ~8¢ sharper than the one in 12tET. These are different objects.

The materials of music through these centuries do not directly correspond with the physics, eg., the overtone series, past the first few parts of it.
There is a correspondence with it only so far and past that it's some pretty out-of-tune stuff to you if you are very entrained to the temperament of any of that music.

[jancivil]

Knowing overtone series is physics, eg., used in acoustics, physical applications; but 'music theory' is typically more tied to convention and usage.

Overtone series is used by more modern composers and physics has been more applied in things we put under the heading 'music theory' today, but more conventionally, eg., 12 tone Equal Temperament rather violates physicality for a certain end, to satisfy what people wanted in their musical conventions.

[jancivil]

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.

Which mentioned principles? 3:2 kinda sorta in 12tET? If you follow what was done out of this, you'll find a lot of things which were bypassed by other principles in order for a music to sound a certain way, but on the other hand embraced by someone such as al-Farabi and a system devised which suits an ethnicity in music that sounds weird to many others.

What are these stronger foundations? I think one is tempted to read this statement as to say there is a universal something ruling melody per se.
I think the more one knows about melody throughout the world, the less true one will find such a notion. Why does Arabic music contain so many intervals other cultures do not sing? Where is this solid ground, can you describe it please?

[V0RT3X]

Hey Jan when did you start learning music theory? I got this feeling you definitely know your shit..

[jancivil]

I took a course at community college in 1974. I had various things to look at before then.
I became interested in intonation allergically reacting to 'Grout' [History of Western Music] at CCM, late 70's and I was exposed to things in the sort of liberal arts environment. I began to study it kind of seriously in the 90's.

[V0RT3X]

I took a course at community college in 1974. I had various things to look at before then.
I became interested in intonation allergically reacting to 'Grout' [History of Western Music] at CCM, late 70's and I was exposed to things in the sort of liberal arts environment. I began to study it kind of seriously in the 90's.

Awesome, i've been thinking of taking music courses at my university, but I'm guessing i should become somewhat proficient with an instrument before applying.

[jancivil]

I had a fantastic teacher at CPCC and again one at CCM. I think experience with pieces of music had a lot to do with my own eureka moments, but I don't know how much 'proficiency' is de rigeur for 'Music Theory 101'.

This naive approach (dividing a string into equal lengths is pretty natural) yields the harmonic series, and so yielded agreeable intervals for the ear.

I don't know whose ears to go by for the, EG: 11th and 13th harmonics which amount to 11:8 and 13:8. The 11th is approximately halfway between the 5th and 6th semitones of 12tET, so per C as unity ~49¢ short of 'F#'. 13:8 for Ab is ~840¢ from [C] 1:1, back within the octave.

The natural 7th, 7:4, is around 31¢ flatter than the ET m7. I have seen it discussed as a 'barbershop' seventh and there may be something to it as a normal thing for the voice to produce, even in harmonizing. It does exist in the bagpipes. I saw something just now about a study of infants coming out with a 'neutral third'.

But we run into some interest at 11 and 13. And some real interest at 25 vs 26 ('G#' and 'Ab' 68¢ apart), & 28 vs 29 (A# and Bb 61¢ apart), so '12 as a scale' is now out the window completely. (as regards previous assertions of nature vis a vis 12 tone)

[ghettosynth]

...

[jancivil]

So, while it is very tempting to notice this 7/12ths of the 'octave' as a natural product - and I have stated that in the 12tET it follows 'naturally', actually the 12 was where the legendary 'Pythagoras' noticed through the idea of 3:2 'here is a definite issue' and eventually we receive '7 semitones of 12' as close enough to nature for rock 'n roll.
But Ching Fang found that 53 3:2s is so close to 31 2:1s, difference being (accurate to six places) 177147:176776 (which we consider a 'comma'; cf. Pythagoras 531441:524288). The comma of Mercator is similar.
Finally, 53-ET which gives many results very close to 5-limit just.

So this maths produces intervals closer to nature, but who uses it? Actually one Syrian musician [al-Sabagh] has suggested a scale of 24 out of 53 ET be taken as the Arabic theory foundation.

I think 'electronic' or virtual music is in such a unique position to make use of these things in the furtherence of music, but of course I would be making a mistake to do other than what an earlier poster did, talking directly of 'dance music', as per the original poster at least.

But while it is true that the 'perfect fifth' has shown to be crucial in most of the world's music, to say that the musics themselves are based in the maths is problematic. Music theory such as is more often talked about in a forum such as this is about harmony in western music and it is tied inextricably with a convention that came up along with the music.

Certainly instrument design uses the physics, but we must notice that we have keys and valves to bring a horn/wind instruments tones, vs open harmonic tones, into line with the expectations of some music. The preference of 'early music' exponents is for early instruments which produce different results.

[Robmobius]

I wouldn't get too hung up on theory tho'... Music with 'real value' (as it was coined by OP) is very subjective. So, if you are writing music that you like that's the main thing.

Use music theory to open musical doors, but don't ever feel too bound to it, or it can stunt your creativity.

[whyterabbyt]

And Joseph Fourier explained that the maths corresponds directly to physical nature of sound.

Actually, he didnt. Fourier's work pertained to heat transfer.

[BlackWinny]

And Joseph Fourier explained that the maths corresponds directly to physical nature of sound.

Actually, he didnt. Fourier's work pertained to heat transfer.

You're right. By the way he never discovered really anything, but he was the first to suggest a method (by decomposition of a complex wave in successive simple waves) to better analyze the heat transfers in a gaz and their absorption and diffusion in a solid, to try to explain the observations made years before by Horace-Bénédict de Saussure. He developed this method of iterations in decompositions to series of the most simple waveform, method that many of us know here, I assume, simply because some physicists understood that this genious method could be immediately applied to the decomposition of all kind of complex radiations (electromagnetic, optic, vibrations of solids...) and also to the study of the sound. And his works led some years later to the discover of the greenhouse effect by John Tyndall then by Svante Arrhenius and Thomas Chamberlin, then finally by Robert W. Wood.

Joseph Fourier has never studied acoustic physics.

BlackWinny
Ph.D in biology of wild life and geological history of the Earth (now retired)

[Nystul]

I think there is an issue of people wanting to jump into complex ideas before they have mastered the basics. We should keep in mind that a college level music theory textbook is targeted at people who have been formally studying music for 8 to 15 years *before* they went to college. Foundational concepts won't be covered if it is safe to assume the students already know them.

What types of things are really first year music theory? Understanding the difference between a quarter note and an eighth note, and recognizing the symbols for them. Understanding time signatures like 4/4. Knowing how to build a major scale. Being able to identify notes on a staff. Learning some musical vocabulary. Things like this.

Is this sort of thing essential for electronic music? Pretty much, yes. Maybe it will be learned from the context of piano roll fluency instead of traditional notation, but the same concepts need to be learned in order to grasp musical composition. You need some sense of connection between the sounds you want to make and how to notate them, or you will spend a lot of time hunting and pecking until you do get that sense of connection. If you don't understand 4/4 time, well... you can borrow a drum loop from someone who does and throw some random notes on it.