Skot-e asked in another thread if there were any music theory books for people that use piano rolls and don't read standard notation. I don't think anyone came up with anything so here is a way to turn a chord progression like this


I7 I7 IVM7 IVM7 II7 II7 V7 V7
Vm7 I7 IVM7 IVM7 VIm7 II7 IIm7 V7

or this

C7 C7 Fmaj7 Fmaj7 D7 D7 G7 G7
Gm7 C7 Fmaj7 Fmaj7 Am7 D7 Dm7 G7

into noise on a computer using the Ableton Live piano roll.


Set up Live like this



Using the chordhouse online tool

convert the above chord progression into this

CEGBb CEGBb FACE FACE DF#AC DF#AC GCEF GCEF
GBEF CEGB FACE FACE ACEG DF#AC DFAC GBDF

using this

(C)=(0)

(C C# D D# E F F# G G# A A# B)
(0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T E)

turn the above note sets into pitch sets like this


(047E) (047E) (5904) (5904) (2690) (2690) (7056) (7056)
(7E56) (047E) (5904) (5904 (9057) (2690) (2590) (7E25)

arrange the above pitch sets vertically like this



(047E) |
(047E) |
(5904) |
(5904) |
(2690) |
(2690) |
(7056) |
(7056) |
(7E56) |____{unordered chord sets}
(047E) |
(5904) |
(5904) |
(9057) |
(2690) |
(2590) |
(7E25) |

now order the sets like this (5904) becomes (0459), (756E) becomes (567E) etc.

(047E) |
(047E) |
(0459) |
(0459) |_______(0 2 4 5 6 7 9 E) {subset}
(0269) |
(0269) |
(0567) |
(0567) |
(567E) | (0 2 4 5 6 7 9 T E) {superset} {pitch axis}
(047E) |
(0459) |
(0459) |
(0579) |________________________(0 2 4 5 7 9 T) {subset}
(0269) |
(0259) |
(257E) *


Download Paul Nelsons 15 page guide to Pitch class sets here and you're all set.



"Pitch Class Sets are a method for describing harmonies in 20th century music.
These notations and methods can describe and manipulate any type of chord that can be created within a 12-tone (equally tempered) scale
It is an extremely useful technique for composers to help understand and control the harmonies which make up their music. Pitch class sets are the chemistry of harmonic color."

Some introductory stuff on Pitch Class Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_class

Joe Satriani and PC theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_axis_theory

well, you're not using it to describe '20th century harmony' at all. the understanding of these basic chords in no way requires pitch class analysis. One should really have an understanding of the harmonies here completely sussed before they figure they're making music, and this particular understanding is at a very rudimentary level. It appears that the use of that software here is to avoid obtaining that understanding; leaving it to the machine to do your basic work is just lazy and you're cheating yourself out of a process of discovery (and a lot of fun in my estimation) to resort to this.

seems a lot easier to me just to learn standard music notation, than to decipher all that you wrote there!

No, it's a just way to categorize harmonies.
The categorization or analysis of a thing is NOT the thing itself. And those two sentences sound like *some marketing bs*.

One needs to 'understand and control' simple harmonies in the simple terms that are available before one gets into a more advanced area. This particular method is not needed or useful here.

Pitch class sets are used in academia to describe things such as harmonies derived by intervals other than thirds, there is no call for it in the classroom to understand triadic functional harmony such as in your own example.
You're kidding yourself here.

*Composers* do not really rely on devices like this to come up with harmonies, this theory is for classroom analysis of things in *20th century harmony* where the older systems don't apply.

One very experienced Live user seems to disagree with you.

http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php?p=1287904#p1287904


If set theory was OK by Bartok, Schoenberg and Stravinsky it's OK by me.

Tell you what, show me your understanding of a work by any of the three that requires this theory and you'll have somethng to say about pitch class sets. You have it describing things that absolutely do not.

I'm telling you something real from a lifetime of musical experience, a lot of as an actual composer in various 20th century musical language. You're free to disregard that and "disagree" trying to justify your posting some clueless shit, but that's you.

Stravinsky may have used this of that device to open up some possibilies and provide him a particular palette in a very advanced vocabulary, following an idea but you're someone early on in their coming to terms with the rudiments of music, clearly.

I freely admit that I am musical amateur and am in no way comparing myself to the three great musicians mentioned. That's not at issue here.

Someone asked if there was method of composing music without the need for reading standard notation. I have presented a solution to that problem that I think works and in the process I have learnt about Pitch Class Theory. I had no idea it existed a month ago, other than having a vague notion of what a 12 tone row was.

As my part in this is merely demonstrating how to use other peoples work (Paul Nelson and Ableton) I would be grateful if you would refrain from appeals to your own authority for a moment and point out which part of my post is "clueless shit".

Hello,


Hello,

By what right can you afford to say: "That ou're free to disregard and" disagree "trying to justify your posting some clueless shit, that's you goal?" Set Theory is useful for both the analysis to contemporary composition. And in particular the possibility of transposition, inversion, transposition-inversion using among others the chromatic circle in its combinatorial possibilities, calculating modulo 12. We can even, a tonal level, transpose chords, get her a major chord inversion triad minor get all transpositions with T5 and T7, and not talking about the modes of limited transposition Messiaen.
Coquillo you because of your interest in Set Theory is a tool that once assimilated is exciting to use. Online publishers are many on the net but it is necessary, however, for use on paper to understand the different possible operations.
To use an interactive chromatic circle, there are application Set Theory for Iphone and Ipad or analysis software in its Pro version :
http://itunes.apple.com/fr/app/music-set-theory/id359821937? mt=8

This book with many pictures based on piano roll, but maybe too basic:

http://www.amazon.com/Music-Theory-Computer-Musicians-Bk/dp/ 1598635034

Oh, I promise to use full sentences next time.

Yeah, what good is a (self-proclaimed) know-it-all who offers no useful advise or information? Here's some useful advise: try the "mute me" button.


12-tone theory is a deep subject, but well worth exploring. Although it's an alternative to - and completely separate from - traditional tonal (scale-based) theory, it can have useful applications in the realm of tonal theory, and its methods for describing music (set classes, etc.) are particularly useful for programmers writing music software.

in yellow.

as Bluedad said, how is this elaborate listing of sets easier than, let alone more appropriate to, the conventional means to understanding truly basic harmonic practice?

you don't need any theory necessarily to do simple triadic harmonies. You could learn songs! You could spend six months or even a year learning about the workings of music in the wholeness of musical reality!

you appear to be one of these foolish persons that seek to find an end-around to the act of playing music - outside of your zone of comfort? - so you can stick to reading 'music theory' on the internet. A lot of which is half-digested itself. And you reached for something that seemed as legit as you could find on the internet. Don't kid a person.

And if your argument with a person - instead of considering the points - is going to turn on 'your appeal to [yourself as] authority', check your own appeal to authority: 'this one Ableton user'.

What I had said before you went to the next level of appeal to authority (irrelevant. do you imagine Bartok used set theory to learn triads? That is ANNOYINGLY VAPID.), was "One needs to 'understand and control' simple harmonies in the simple terms that are available before one gets into a more advanced area. This particular method is not needed or useful here."

That's just being real. You don't want to hear that, do you.

What did you hope to gain by pretending? Did you hope to be congratulated??

those comments, which you are free to read in the context, followed an objection to this:

the understanding of these basic chords in no way requires pitch class analysis. One should really have an understanding of the harmonies here completely sussed before they figure they're making music, and this particular understanding is at a very rudimentary level. It appears that the use of that software here is to avoid obtaining that understanding; leaving it to the machine to do your basic work is just lazy and you're cheating yourself out of a process of discovery (and a lot of fun in my estimation) to resort to this.

Which I am happy to reiterate. it's solid advice. this kind of real world approach is really off-putting to people that would prefer to avoid it, evidently. Music is not reducable to maths. The reasons for choices in music - simple triadic harmonies? - are not found in lists of numbers. These are ways to sort things that are far beyond what they're used for here. This is misguided and useless. Sorry to have to point out the obvious.

I found this approach to be wrongheaded and silly, and I find the reinforcement of it such as yours - I have encountered the theory, but thanks SO much - unnecessary and not a little pompous.

Wait, 8 posts... and you're reaching for a dead thread to push an iPod app? very nice.

you presented an insanely complicated way to (that doesn't do more than) extract the notes from chord symbols, as if to avoid the conventional ways; which reinforces a syndrome of avoidance. Learning about music in the fullness of musical context can be rewarding. If people don't enjoy it, and need it to be reduced to maths, maybe music is not for them really.

('appeal to yourself as authority'. fallacies such as 'the appeal to authority' occur when someone can't make their argument stick. I had already made my argument, which you couldn't handle so you reached for this, a fallacious move itself. Get real.)

Are you saying Schoenberg would have been better employed as a salesman or something?