MUSIC & SYTHESIS THEORY - Not for the faint hearted

[Dayl]

This should keep a few people busy.

http://www-crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/technique ... book-html/

I found it while searching out a few answers for pitch and frequency

have fun

[MaliceX]

I thought all we need to ever know about that stuff would be:

440hz = A (perfect)
and that octaves of that A would have to double, thus measurement of notes to frequencies are logarithmic compared to the linearity of how we read notes normally?

[Toxikator]

I thought all we need to ever know about that stuff would be:

440hz = A (perfect)
and that octaves of that A would have to double, thus measurement of notes to frequencies are logarithmic compared to the linearity of how we read notes normally?

That's certainly not all of it. In fact, from a compositional standpoint it behooves you to be familiar with the harmonic series; understanding the relationship of overtones is part of the theory behind the presence or absence of voices in chords, the strength of inversions, etc.

[MaliceX]

I'm talking from 'what people in general should know'.

Absence of voices in chords? Explain that to me, I'm interested in knowing about that. o_o

Strengths of inversions? The secret weapon of getting rid of vocals in a song with an instrumental. (Not 100% with seperate mastering methods such as songs with hard kicks.)

[Km7]

Well, in short:
For example, in a C-E-G chord, if you miss out the G, the essence of the chord sound will be kept. This is because the strenght of the 3rd overtone, which is an octave and a fifth above C and represents the fifth.
The inversions - in C-E-G chord (root position), the upper tones coincide with the 3rd and 5th overtones which are a fifth and a third above the root (transposed down to the same octave). But if we take the second inversion, we have different situation - G-C-E, C is a fourth above G and E is a sixth above G. Although these intervals appear in the overtone series and are consonant, they are not so stable because doesn't have direct relation to G. From the point of view of the Helmholtz's theory of dissonance, C is in a semitone conflict with the third of G (B), and E - a whole tone conflict with the fifth (D), which gives overall less stable sound.
Overtones are indeed probably the most important acoustical part for understanding music, but there is more, because not everything can be adequately explained with them.

[sante]

I'm talking from 'what people in general should know'.

Absence of voices in chords? Explain that to me, I'm interested in knowing about that. o_o

Strengths of inversions? The secret weapon of getting rid of vocals in a song with an instrumental. (Not 100% with seperate mastering methods such as songs with hard kicks.)

Either I am confused or your mistaken.

But hes talking not about how to remove voices (i.e. singing) from a track.
Inversion is not the same as inverting the phase of an instrumental track and layering it with the original to get the acapella.

He means chord inversions. The tonic triad of C: C-E-G and first inversion E-G-C, 2nd G-C-E.

Now referring to the other posts. This is some spooky stuff. The relationship between the various frequencies in a chord and the way the interact is quite complex but can be used effectively if you understand what u can do. Inversions for example (while playing the same notes) often sound very different to the normal chord (which is comparable to an optical illusion for the ear).

[whyterabbyt]

Has anyone actually even looked at the frigging book? Its about synthesis, not harmonic theory. Filters, wavetables, fourier analysis... closer DSP stuff.

Why does every bloody thread in this forum get dragged down the same bloody path?

[Toxikator]

I wonder if it's because this is a music theory forum?

[whyterabbyt]

I wonder if it's because this is a music theory forum?

and you're sole authority on what that constitutes, are you?

[Toxikator]

Let's ask wikipedia. That should be fairly up there on the "respected authorities" list, yeah?

"Music Theory is a field of study that investigates the nature or mechanics of music. It often involves identifying patterns that govern composers' techniques. In a more general sense, music theory also often distills and analyzes the elements of music - rhythm, harmony, melody, structure, and texture. People who study these properties are known as music theorists."

I think it follows from that that a discussion of DSP in a theory forum is sort of stuck on the discussion of how the physics of audio and audio manipulation are musically relevant.

[JumpingJackFlash]

I wonder if it's because this is a music theory forum?

and you're sole authority on what that constitutes, are you?

No he's not, but according to the main page, Music Theory constitutes "Chords, scales, harmony, melody, etc.".
Topics on synthesis, filters, wavetables, fourier analysis etc. would probably better be placed in the Sound Design or Modular Synthesis, or any of the other forums which it may be relevant to.

If you're not interested in discussing the theory behind the art of music (as opposed to the science or technology of music), or as you put it getting "dragged down the same bloody path", then don't come here. Simple.

[MaliceX]

It's quite long to read at its entirety. This will come useful to my Physics Unit3/4 class I will take on next year. Very interesting stuff!

Also, if this is going to turn into a flamewar over what's Music Theory and what isn't, piss off. Knowing the mechanics of sound in math one would consider an alternative take on theory of some form, in this case it's more applied to sound in general than music.
Course what makes music? Multiple sources of sound.

No argument please. All in all, someone move this to the correct forum please.

[herodotus]

I wonder if it's because this is a music theory forum?

and you're sole authority on what that constitutes, are you?

No he's not, but according to the main page, Music Theory constitutes "Chords, scales, harmony, melody, etc.".
Topics on synthesis, filters, wavetables, fourier analysis etc. would probably better be placed in the Sound Design or Modular Synthesis, or any of the other forums which it may be relevant to.

If you're not interested in discussing the theory behind the art of music (as opposed to the science or technology of music), or as you put it getting "dragged down the same bloody path", then don't come here. Simple.

I am sorry, but I am going to have to speak up here.

I wrote that page you mentioned, and I certainly didn't mean to exclude the sort of thing discussed in this article.

In fact, I have been meaning to change that page to make my meaning clearer, but this forum has taken on a life of its own and it is not really to my liking at all, so I have kind of given up on it.

Triads and tonal harmony are very important and worthy of discussion, but so are tone color, rhythm, meter, and the changes wrought by recording technology. The reason these things are such a miniscule part of standard music theory is not reason but tradition. A tradition that, whatever it's merits, is horribly out of date.

I mean, Schoenberg saw all of this and crucified himself on the altar of Dodecophony so we could move on. But no....

The whole concept of a triad is based on consonant intervals that are today used only in a debased tempered form. The mathematical simplicity that caused Pythagoras to get the whole music theory as harmony/tonality ball rolling in the first place has been totally lost.

But the tradition continues, ignorant or at least neglectful of the huge changes taking place in the world around it. And at least part of the reason for this is an attitude that would regard a discussion of the creation and manipulation and interaction of basic sonic waveforms as outside the purview of music theory.

Perhaps we should start a new forum:

Intelligent, reasoned discussions about the nature of music as a whole.

or something...

That way, the august business of this forum can continue, pure and unsullied by waveforms and oscillators and whatnot.

[Bernard Quatermass]

Strengths of inversions? The secret weapon of getting rid of vocals in a song with an instrumental. (Not 100% with seperate mastering methods such as songs with hard kicks.)

[MaliceX]

It's called a misunderstanding, buddy.
I'll have to agree with you herodotus. It appears certain people can't have a sensible discussion without ridiculing someone for a simple mistake.