Recommend me one essential music theory book for EM

[HordePrime]

This whole argument that people shouldn't bother learning music theory is just silly.

I never said that. I just think learning theory is not a particularly good use of your time if all you're interested in is electronic dance music.

Because jazz is a more modern style of music, and it's conventions apply quite well to modern western music. The same cannot always be said of classical theory.

Rubbish. Where do you think jazz came out of anyway?!

[seacouch]

This whole argument that people shouldn't bother learning music theory is just silly.

I never said that. I just think learning theory is not a particularly good use of your time if all you're interested in is electronic dance music.

Because jazz is a more modern style of music, and it's conventions apply quite well to modern western music. The same cannot always be said of classical theory.

Rubbish. Where do you think jazz came out of anyway?!

Why would that be even remotely relevant? It is a more modern style, that has much more in common with modern western music than does classical music. What part of that do you disagree with?

[HordePrime]

It is a more modern style, that has much more in common with modern western music than does classical music. What part of that do you disagree with?

"modern Western music" encompasses a very wide field indeed. Yes, jazz will be relevant to some of it, but by no means all. For some of it, classical theories are much more relevant, or, at least as relevant.

[SampleScience]

The books that I have found helpful for basic music theory, the fundamentals of the electronic music styles and the practical understanding of mixing are as follows:

Melody in Songwriting: Tools and Techniques for Writing Hit Songs - Jack Perricone

The Songwriter's Workshop: Harmony (Book + CD) - Jimmy Kachulis

Dance Music Manual - Rick Snoman

The Secrets of House Music Production - Marc Adamo

Thank you, I'll check if these books are available on Amazon, usualy I get the best prices there.

[SampleScience]

I'd really like to hear a tune of yours some "developers" thought was "out of key".

I'll post them on Soundcloud this weekend as examples of what I did "wrong". But I won't say who's the dev out of respect for his opinion.

[Adversary]

I think its good to know music theory, but Its not worth looking into too much. I honestly think there is a down side to knowing TOO much music theory. I would recommend getting a book that's simple and made for computer musicians. I have used the Dance Music Manual by Rick Snoman which only has a few chapters on music theory, but it was still very helpful. Also, The title is kind of misleading since it doesn't only cover dance music.

[SampleScience]

Here are the rejected tracks, I renamed them with song titles (instead of the dev's name):

http://soundcloud.com/samplesciencemtl/ ... -rough-cut

and

http://soundcloud.com/samplesciencemtl/moms-acid

While I'm sure there's "mistakes" in those trakcs, I quite like them.

[stillshaded]

I can't believe you dorks.

some dude: how can I learn music theory?

kvrer 1: here are some links.
kvrer 2: DONT LEARN IT THERES NO POINT
kvrer 3: YES THERE IS!
kvrer 2: NO THERE"S NOT
kvere 4: YES THERE IS
kvrer 3: NO THERE'S NOT
kvrer 3: I MEAN NO THERE'S NOT

etc.


sheesh...


anyways, I'm just going to say that you can use musictheory.net to learn all the basics, then you could try to learn one new concept a week or something via wikipedia + cross-referencing.

[tapper mike]

This whole argument that people shouldn't bother learning music theory is just silly.

I never said that. I just think learning theory is not a particularly good use of your time if all you're interested in is electronic dance music.

Because jazz is a more modern style of music, and it's conventions apply quite well to modern western music. The same cannot always be said of classical theory.

Rubbish. Where do you think jazz came out of anyway?!

think? think?


There is a whole history of jazz showing it's evolution into popular music.
Show me a classical song with a standard 32 measure repeating chord progression using ii-V-I that was written before the 20th century.

Show me a classical piece of music where the melodic structure is based on the chord progression and not the other way round. Even when a classical motif is "borrowed" in popular music it is in the constructed in the form of the popular progression.

Show me a classical song form an ABAA structure or an ABCAB one.

Show me a pre 20th century classical song that features a G7b13 chord like....
Stray Cat Strut.

Popular music developed from musically itinerant individuals who had little to no formal classical training. They put things together which sounded good based on the limited information they had. A lot of conventions of popular music were not derived from great mathematical computations instead they used "it sounds good to me lets run with it"

Here are three chords


It's that KISS (keep it simple stupid) not "Applied Counterpoint" which has launched thousands of songs in rock, country, blues, pop and more.

[breakmixer]

Here are the rejected tracks, I renamed them with song titles (instead of the dev's name):

http://soundcloud.com/samplesciencemtl/ ... -rough-cut

2nd note of the lead dark string sound(the sound at 1.07), sounds 'off' every time. Sometimes it the first note also(when it changes). Everything else sounds fine. That is what I think they are refering to in that demo...

[breakmixer]

http://soundcloud.com/samplesciencemtl/moms-acid

Couldn't spot any notes out of tune here....

[SampleScience]

http://soundcloud.com/samplesciencemtl/moms-acid

Couldn't spot any notes out of tune here....

Each time I ask if my tunes are in "key" (or in tune), I have a different anwer each time for the same track. I guess it depends on what background you have (jazz, electronic, classical, cha cha cha, etc.)...

Thank you for taking the time to listen to it tough, your comment is appreciated.

[Plasuma!!!]

This is the book you want:
Hearing and Writing Music, Professional Training for Today's Musician
ISBN 0962949671

That's about as basic as it gets while still being practical and useful.

[Aroused by JarJar]

Here are the rejected tracks, I renamed them with song titles (instead of the dev's name):

http://soundcloud.com/samplesciencemtl/ ... -rough-cut

and

http://soundcloud.com/samplesciencemtl/moms-acid

While I'm sure there's "mistakes" in those trakcs, I quite like them.

Most obviously, just after one minute in the first example, there is a synth that comes in which is consistently flat, technically speaking.

I think what your critic meant by "out of key" was "off key", which is an old-fashioned way of saying out of tune. "Key" isn't a very appropriate concept for a lot of electronic music. For example I heard a guy doing a long ambient piece in which the melody was just c-b-a over and over again, and other sounds coming in could be any damn note. You could say there was a tonal center, but there wasn't a key in any formal sense of the word, because c-b-a could be a scale fragment of whatever else was going on in the bass and elsewhere. From a "technical" "academic" viewpoint it was obviously naive. But it sounded really good so f**k it.

Sometimes flatness or sharpness is timbral- detuning multiple oscillators or even just an unusual spectrum can make things sound out of tune. In the first example, I would assume as a listener that it's a deliberate effect- I've heard flatness just like this in electronic music plenty of times. It just kind of makes things darker.

In the second tune it sounds more like there is improper sample mapping or "out of tune" loops. Personally I like the "out of tuneness" of it, especially at 1:30 when a noticeable "oddness" comes in.

I checked out some of your other stuff to see if I could figure out whether there are actually "mistakes" in these two pieces, or whether this is your style. From the other pieces, most obviously in "1972 Documentary", it is clear that this is just how you're liking things.

So yeah you could say there's out-of-tuneness in your music. But it is the same flavor of out-of-tuneness in all the pieces I listened to. It's kind of like listening to an 8-track in a car, which I guess you wouldn't remember. So I would say that without be aware of it you are doing it deliberately to get a sound you dig. That is musical. Obviously you can hear by nature otherwise you wouldn't be consistent in feeling, you'd be all over the place in a random kind of way.

In my opinion it's up to you. You could take an ear-training class, the proper kind where you have to sing solfeggio, and just a basic course in tonal harmony, and you could quickly learn to "fix" these things with ease. You could say screw it and go on as you please, but that's really hard to do without a big fat attitude. Definitely not just piano lessons, because you need to be practising tuning instruments. A basic old-school solfeggio course then see where you want to go from there is your best bet in my opinion.

These are my opinions. Take everything on the internet with great caution. I think there are other older "trained" musicians here who will pretty much agree with what I'm saying, though.

[SampleScience]

Thanks a lot Aroused by JarJar, your answer is very helpfull!

I, indeed, like the oddness of mixing detuned sounds with each other, stretching what is pleasing to the ear. For me it is pushing things foward.

That being said, I'd like to be able to have that squeaky clean sounds you can hear in commercial "dance" music too. With some of the books suggested, I'll be able to do that.