Ask me anything Music Theory and I'll answer

[VicDiesel]

There are books that teach you about a topic and books that coach you how to do a topic. 99% of the sites, resources and books out there are the "about kind" and it literally took an avid student like myself months and months to get a grip on the core of theory and even longer to apply it.

My goal is to give a totally different experience where my reader actually become students and are coached so they can use what they learn immediately from day one like I did with my general theory book, Music for the Simple Man.

It sounds like your book would be very useful.

It also sounds from the discussion here that you could use the feedback of some of the members here. Why not keep the drafts open for comment? You could even decide to open source the book, since you'll probably make much more money from lessons, and just use the book as advertisement of your services.

Victor.

[echomusic]

There are books that teach you about a topic and books that coach you how to do a topic. 99% of the sites, resources and books out there are the "about kind" and it literally took an avid student like myself months and months to get a grip on the core of theory and even longer to apply it.

My goal is to give a totally different experience where my reader actually become students and are coached so they can use what they learn immediately from day one like I did with my general theory book, Music for the Simple Man.

It sounds like your book would be very useful.

It also sounds from the discussion here that you could use the feedback of some of the members here. Why not keep the drafts open for comment? You could even decide to open source the book, since you'll probably make much more money from lessons, and just use the book as advertisement of your services.

Victor.

Victor my man, we're on the same page. I came here actually for their feedback, and you've intuitively stumbled unto the next phase after the book. Might as well let the cat out of the bag.

I'm not open sourcing the book. I'm open sourcing the website. It's called the Master Musician Online Coaching Program and it's an open-source wiki-like project built on the book, but will be checked by my professors and private teachers from the University of Florida (go Gators!) and the Harrid Conservatory of Music. That project I'm hoping will be ready late summer, early fall of 2010.

Per money-making, yes you do make more money teaching then doing. I've always made more money teaching than performing (with a few exceptions like the project I'm on now).

I tried using things as advertisements but from the business aspect, people don't take free things seriously. It's like someone gives you a training course it will sit on your shelf for months, but when you pay for something there is a sense of commitment and you tend pay more attention to it because of the personal value and financial commitment.

As all of you can tell I'm actually working from home today so I'll be close by. Now is a good time to ask me any questions that you may have or just to say hello and chat chit (yeah, I flipped it)

[VicDiesel]

I tried using things as advertisements but from the business aspect, people don't take free things seriously. It's like someone gives you a training course it will sit on your shelf for months, but when you pay for something there is a sense of commitment and you tend pay more attention to it because of the personal value and financial commitment.

Things can go any number of ways. I have open sourced a formerly officially published book, and it was downloaded 1000 times a day for the first number of days. From Google alerts I know that lots of people have and use it. However, I never got offers of employment through it. Shows you that I'm a lousy business man.

On the other hand, there is a guy named Bruce Eckel who puts excellent programming books online for free, and makes his fortune from his training courses.

But it's up to you. Your notion of a website/wiki doesn't sound bad.

Victor.

[echomusic]

I tried using things as advertisements but from the business aspect, people don't take free things seriously. It's like someone gives you a training course it will sit on your shelf for months, but when you pay for something there is a sense of commitment and you tend pay more attention to it because of the personal value and financial commitment.

Things can go any number of ways. I have open sourced a formerly officially published book, and it was downloaded 1000 times a day for the first number of days. From Google alerts I know that lots of people have and use it. However, I never got offers of employment through it. Shows you that I'm a lousy business man.

On the other hand, there is a guy named Bruce Eckel who puts excellent programming books online for free, and makes his fortune from his training courses.

But it's up to you. Your notion of a website/wiki doesn't sound bad.

Victor.

A big part of my business is teaching struggling artists the business of music, how to make money, profit potential, strategy, etc. The music industry is fickle. I've seen GOOD artists working bars to make ends meet and people with very little talent at all make millions of dollars. What's the difference between them?

I've found that it's the knowledge of business was applied along the line of their music career vs the lack of application. You'd be surprised how many times I've wanted to back a musician but wouldn't because they're a risky investment.

We (my company) had planned a concert at the RBC Center in Raleigh, NC with Godsmack and as a reward for a promotion that we had going, the winning band would open for them and play a set after, then the second place winner would close the show as people were leaving.

I hand-picked a group that I saw performing at a local club and ultimately I ended up having to cancel the entire thing. First they leaked the information all over the web and I lost thousands in a botched advertising campaign, then they tell me that they're planning on moving across the country, and it was just one thing after another.

I got a lot of bad press for it, but it goes to show that it takes more than talent to be a success in the industry. Talent is one of three parts to success. The other two are Theory and Business.

The talent shows you can deliver, the theory shows that you are able, and the business shows that you can make money and that you're not a risky investment. You'd be shocked at how many proposals I turn down because it was obvious that the artist wanted money for something and didn't even take the time to put together a decent portfolio, or even have a business plan.

I failed for a long time (many years in fact) before I learned how to make money and it took a lot to get there.

I guess where profit isn't my main focus for doing what I do because I'm already making the money. I bought my parents a house, I was able to retire my mom when she got sick, pay for my sisters to go to college, bought them new laptops, and so on.

It's not about the money. It's funny what happens when you don't have to think about money - you starting thinking about other things. For me I'm tweaked towards helping people become a success and hopefully bypass the years of frustration and failure that I went through myself.

It quite obvious that here on this board especially that music is a passion for many like it is for me and I've said it before but if I can help even one person do that then everything I've gone through is worth it.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Dexter, I was hoping you'd come back. I think your experience in music can add a good voice to the discussions.

You made several points about "core" or "practical" theory versus "nice-to-know" or academic theory.

Can you elaborate more with maybe an example or two on what might fall into a "core" category and which might be more of an "obscure" or "nice to know, but not really practical" category?

[echomusic]

Dexter, I was hoping you'd come back. I think your experience in music can add a good voice to the discussions.

You made several points about "core" or "practical" theory versus "nice-to-know" or academic theory.

Can you elaborate more with maybe an example or two on what might fall into a "core" category and which might be more of an "obscure" or "nice to know, but not really practical" category?

Of course. I'll take a real world example here. My pattern of instruction is to lean toward the performer on the basis that written music is no good if the person site reading can't play it. Which is why I almost always lean toward performance practicality over academic theory, (hence the fiasco where I said you really shouldn't see things like B Sharp, E Sharp, etc. Given there are always exceptions but more for the sake of theory than actual performance.

Real World Example:

I was recently helping someone with the half diminished 7th in C Major.

Theory goes like this. Diminished & half-dimished resolves (most times) to a Major. You form one by modifying the 1-3-5-7 construct to a 1-b3-b5-b5 (one, minor 3rd, dimished 5th and minor 7th of a Major).

Interestingly enough on the the 7th tone scale the notes for the half-dimished appear as well as on the 2nd degree of the natural minor. In the key of C Major (C Eb Gb Bb).

Good to know, but not practical in use...

I tell my students that for their own sanity they should stick with the Major and construct off of it.

When I play Jazz, we do 3 and 4 hour sets sometimes and it's way easier to know the major and construct off of it, especially when the majority is improvisation.

C Major is easy because it has no sharps or flats but when you get into something like the Bb Major (2 flats) or Eb Major (4 flats), hopping around in your head will drive you batty.

From a practicality standpoint of performing it's much better to throw out the theory and stick with the basics. Knowing where they appear on degrees and scales are awesome to know, but from a performance standpoint I don't think that it's entirely necessary.

So for example going back to the first statement the majority of people learning to play instruments are taught that there is no B Sharp, E Sharp, etc, (which is true except in theory), so when they see it on paper for site reading guess what usually happens?

I've seen it countless times and I've done it myself - it gets penciled out and replaced with the C natural or F natural, etc.

Thinking theory like that all the time confuses people and I almost always toss out the theory when it conflicts with performance.

In the half-dimished example, I say know what it is but stick to the Major for the simple reason that the different forms of dimished almost always resolvs to the Major.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Thanks Dexter, I think I followed most of that okay. Now on to your question...

The question is, How do you (personally for the composers and performers) translate the theory you know into application and use? What I'm getting at is, how much of the theory do you use when playing or composing?

I think that the best way of expressing it for me might be to use an analogy with language and grammar.

If I were a professional writer, I would obviously want to study sentence structure, grammar, spelling and other mechanics (English "theory"). I would want to learn the history of the language and word etimology, etc.

However, when I wrote a story, I would not be thinking, "Okay, I need a predicate here and a correct article and I need the right pronoun because of such and such..."

It would probably be more thinking in overall concepts like, what I am expressing and how I want to express it and what imagery I want to use, etc.

However, as a pro writer, all my sentences and paragraphs would be gramatically and structurally correct (unless I were using some creative uses of exceptions, in which case these would be concsiously employed).

So the bottom line for me is that I want to use 100% of the theory, but just not consciously. I use the principles that I've internalized such as voiceleading, melodic development, coherent phrase construction but not, "okay, I want to use a Neopolitan Sixth to prepare my Perfect Authentic Cadence."

I would not want to make any sort of distinction between "applied" and "theoretical only." To me, the principles of theory do not dissolve or break down when applied. They are all there, but just internalized rather than conscious.

But I am coming from a legit background, whereas maybe in jazz circles it's much different (although I'd have a hard time with that idea).

However, I DO apply a double standard in eating. I KNOW what I should be eating but in the "real world" I use a much more relaxed set of criteria.

[psenior]

Hi echomusic,

I find your example very interesting, because my thinking is completely different. I would say diminshed 7th functions as a dominant 7b9 and resolves to either major 6th or minor 6th. I would say a half diminshed is just a minor triad with the 6th in the bass.
I would say that all 4-note chords are most easily constructed starting from diminished 7ths. For example, if I want to play a dominant 7th chord, I start from a diminished 7th and lower one note one half step. I can easily create 4 different dominant 7th chords this way. Also, if I want to play a half diminshed chord, I start from a diminished 7th chord and raise one note one half step. Again, easily creating 4 different half diminished chords. Since there are only 3 diminshed 7th chords, this makes it super easy to construct a lot of different chords in any key without much thought on my part.
I could say a lot of other stuff along these lines, and probably have in other posts. I think I am the only guy on here that thinks like this. Since you are a working jazz musician, you have probably met a few people with my perspective on things. I do wish someone would explain these simple concepts in a book. It would have saved me from years of struggling to understand all the unnecessarily complicated garbage so commonly espoused in music theory today.
I think the best musicians don't think about anything much at all when playing. Carol Kaye said that someone asked Joe Pass what he was thinking about when soloing. He said he was thinking about what groceries he had to pick up on the way home from the gig!
I think I am a terrible writer because I use "I" way too much.

[alinenunez]

Hey everybody,

My name is Dexter and I'm glad to be here. I'm a musician, performer (double bass) and published author & composer. The reason I'm here is to find out what questions you all have about music theory. I am creating a second edition of my book and I want it to be focussed more around what people are having issues with in music theory rather than an overview or a 'how to read and write music' type of deal.

I really want this edition to help people so they can move past the 'sticky' parts and move forward.

With that said, I invite all of you to ask me ANY questions you may have about music theory. It doesn't matter what level you are, beginner, professional or anything in between. I'll keep track of who asks and they will receive a free copy when it's done.

I've set this thread to send replies to my email so message me directly or just reply, either is cool with me.

If you have specific theory questions about the Double Bass please mention that it's a Double Bass question before-hand.

Thanks Everybody,
Dexter Nelson
http://mastermusician.echoingwalls.com (under construction)

Thanks for sharing ur Knowledge!!
here is my question . can u tell me how to arranage a house track ? how many breaks or choruses needs to have ?

i will apreciate ur help thanks