Recommend me one essential music theory book for EM

[HordePrime]

There is a whole history of jazz showing it's evolution into popular music.

You're committing the classic fallacy of not breaking things down far enough:
A G7b13 chord derives from a G7 chord with a few extra notes in.
ABAA form comes from ABA form with a repetition.
The ii-V-I progression goes back to the very first pieces of tonal music, around the turn of the 17th century.

None of these things are uncommon in pre-20th century music, and in all cases, the basic underlying theories had been in place for hundreds of years. Jazz musicians expanded on them of course (based on other influences), and went off in their own direction, but the basic building blocks are the same.

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"

And you think this description doesn't apply to classical musicians too?

It pains me sometimes to see how deeply some people misunderstand "classical" music. They view it as rigid, formal and simplistic - or, in your words "derived from great mathematical computations" (nonsense by the way). You fail to understand that "classical" musicians have been improvising over a chord sequence and so on for hundreds of years.

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.

But if you really wanted to learn music theory, you'd be much better off finding some classes, getting a teacher, and reading a professional book or two.

[optofonik]

Western music theory teaches one how to achieve one's musical goals. Want to create feelings of tension, sadness, power? Music theory provides a reliable road map to achieve such goals and from which a composer can intelligently diverge from when he or she wishes.

An understanding of music theory is also quit helpful during periods of writer's block.

If on holiday one wishes to find one's way around a city, one can drive for hour after hour and hopefully arrive at the desired destination. More than likely one will give up and settle for wherever one finds oneself and try to enjoy the scenery nonetheless. One can also employ the aid of a road map to get to the destination one desired all along. When not on holiday and trying to make an appointment on time in an unfamiliar city one uses a map or one doesn't get the gig.

Man, I really tried to read through all these posts but by the time I got to the middle of page four it was like wading through a landfill. Too much rubbish.

To answer the OP, I would suggest at least learning basic theory through the baroque period. It's about as simple as it gets and maybe, once you see the benefits, you'll consider pursuing more in depth knowledge.

Music in Theory and Practice,Volume 1 with Audio CD: Bruce Benward,Marilyn Saker: 9780077254940: Amazon.com: Books

Workbook to accompany Music in Theory and Practice,Volume 1 with Finale Discount Sticker: Bruce Benward,Marilyn Saker: 9780077294236: Amazon.com: Books

Music in Theory and Practice,Volume 2 with Audio CD: Bruce Benward,Marilyn Saker: 9780077254957: Amazon.com: Books

Workbook to accompany Music in Theory and Practice,Volume 2: Bruce Benward,Marilyn Saker: 9780073127415: Amazon.com: Books

These are standard music theory texts you'll find in any number of classrooms.

Hope these help.

[optofonik]

"... fluency in language, does not require the ability to read or write."

WTF???

If only I had known earlier how illiteracy could have improved my ability to successfully communicate.

[ghettosynth]

"... fluency in language, does not require the ability to read or write."

WTF???

If only I had known earlier how illiteracy could have improved my ability to successfully communicate.

No matter how we interpret the phrase that you are quoting, or your own response, there is no way that your conclusion follows from the previous statement. The assertion that a condition is unnecessary in no way implies that the absence of that condition leads to an improved result.

Whether the original statement makes sense is largely dependent on how we define fluency.

From a speech perspective

Fluency is a speech language pathology term that means the smoothness or flow with which sounds, syllables, words and phrases are joined together when speaking quickly.

Meaning that it has litle to do with literacy. Young children are considered fluent.

Language fluency is used informally to denote broadly a high level of language proficiency, most typically foreign language or another learned language, and more narrowly to denote fluid language use, as opposed to slow, halting use. In this narrow sense, fluency is necessary but not sufficient for language proficiency: fluent language users (particularly uneducated native speakers) may have narrow vocabularies, limited discourse strategies, and inaccurate word use. They may be illiterate, as well. Native language speakers are often incorrectly referred to as fluent.
Fluency in English is basically one's ability to be understood by both native and non native listeners. A higher level would be bilingual, which indicates one is native in two languages, either having learned them simultaneously or one after the other.

Pay attention to the part in bold. Even when used in terms of language proficiency, fluency does not mean literate. That's what's great about language, words mean things.

So, it is clearly not necessary to be literate to be fluent. However, even without this distinction, there is no argument at all in the original assertion that the absence of literacy improves fluency.

[Charlotte]

AUTO-ADMIN: Non-MP3, WAV, OGG, SoundCloud, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter and Facebook links in this post have been protected automatically. Once the member reaches 5 posts the links will function as normal.

For an understanding why it is important to learn music theory (it will help people with their playing/composing, and to gain a better understanding of the music they play) see... http://www.aaronpublications.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://www.aaronpublications.blogspot.co.uk/) I think the article sums things up nicely.

[KevAquarian]

I read this thread with great curiosity.

I am a musician, composer, producer and tutor. The topic of "is it helpful to learn music theory?" in all its guises is a contentious one to say the least - as is amply demonstrated in this discussion

The topic is vast and complicated. I don't wanna right an essay here, but I'll just add a couple of bits which may be helpful for some people, including the OP.

Note 1: I am talking below, about composition from scratch - not "construction kit" sample library "drag and drop" jigsaw puzzle tune building. If one deviates from the key labelled files in this scenario, then one only needs an ear to make the call as to whether it "works" or not. This will still be subjective, but can be nailed down, as in the OPs very welcome Soundcloud examples, which exhibit "conflict" between mode/key/tonal centre etc in both tracks.

Note 2: I work with a guiding principle that there is no "right" or "wrong" note/chord. There is simply a judgement by a listener about whether it moves them the way they wish to be moved, or not. It is a matter of taste. Beyond that, there is the diatonic judgement, which can be useful if the music needs to be sounding a certain way, at the call of some party (as in the OPs tune feedback about being "off key" or whatever phrase they used).

• In terms of so-called "electronic music", arguably it matters most, what kind of music you are looking to create. Music that often requires very minimal melody/harmony (e.g. minimal techno) may place much lighter demands on the ear/music theory combination skill area of the writer. Writing for example, soulful house music with lots of harmonic elements and layered melodies/counter melodies may well need more ear/music theory awareness for consistent results tune after tune.

• In the OPs tunes, it is immediately clear to a trained ear (or a naturally diatonic/key aware ear) that some parts conflict diatonically - the synth line in the first one, and the arpeggiator lines in the second. Reading a theory book will not help in detecting this if detecting it is a requirement in a particular scenario. Again, the point of discussing "right vs wrong" is moot, as the OP says "I like it". Exactly - but someone else (could be a client for e.g) does not like it, and in this case it's gonna be useful to know how to change it so they do - if you want the gig.

• For composition, ear training is arguably more useful than what is normally thought of as "music theory". Although, there is such crossover that it's probably not that beneficial/easy to separate the two. Not least in terms of useful feedback/communication while training the ear.

I don't have any book recommendations I'm afraid. What I do recommend is trying to find a good teacher who can match the content and teaching style to your needs and your learning type. In my experience, trying to short cut the learning curve of theory/ear training by "missing out" some "irrelevant" elements, leaves most people with a dysfunctional "gappy" understanding of things, that eventually rears its ugly head at some point in the future. I feel that the basics all need to be understood, from first principles. A few hours of high quality one-to-one lessons with a good, intuitive teacher may be more useful and enlightening than hours and hours of reading theory books.

Massive topic. Lots to get into. I hope I've found a balance between contributing some valuable substance to the [inevitable?] general discussion (which wasn't the OP's question - noted!), and addressing some helpful angles on the OPs line of enquiry.

[ghettosynth]

• In terms of so-called "electronic music", arguably it matters most, what kind of music you are looking to create. Music that often requires very minimal melody/harmony (e.g. minimal techno) may place much lighter demands on the ear/music theory combination skill area of the writer. Writing for example, soulful house music with lots of harmonic elements and layered melodies/counter melodies may well need more ear/music theory awareness for consistent results tune after tune.

• In the OPs tunes, it is immediately clear to a trained ear (or a naturally diatonic/key aware ear) that some parts conflict diatonically - the synth line in the first one, and the arpeggiator lines in the second. Reading a theory book will not help in detecting this if detecting it is a requirement in a particular scenario. Again, the point of discussing "right vs wrong" is moot, as the OP says "I like it". Exactly - but someone else (could be a client for e.g) does not like it, and in this case it's gonna be useful to know how to change it so they do - if you want the gig.

• For composition, ear training is arguably more useful than what is normally thought of as "music theory". Although, there is such crossover that it's probably not that beneficial/easy to separate the two. Not least in terms of useful feedback/communication while training the ear.

Spot on. I think that this post, and the post a couple of pages ago by Aroused by Jarjar really nail the essence of balance that, in my point of view, the average KVR electronic musician is seeking when they ask questions about "theory."

[seacouch]

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.

Any examples of "modern Western music" to which classical theory is more relevant than jazz theory (let alone "much" more relevant)?

[Nystul]

Any examples of "modern Western music" to which classical theory is more relevant than jazz theory (let alone "much" more relevant)?

It's such an odd distinction. Jazz is based largely on a foundation of classical music. When you learn how to play some basic ii-V-I progression you are learning something straight out of Mozart and Clementi. Granted the jazz musician will spice up those harmonies with chord extensions and alterations that are somewhat distinctive. But the punk rocker won't. The trance producer won't. The creepy metal guitarist from Sweden won't. They won't use Alberti bass lines like Mozart either, but that is getting too far beyond the basic principles.

I feel like there is some disconnect on this forum as if "music theory" starts with a college level text. If you are a music major then presumably you have been involved in musical performance for 10 or 15 years prior to entering college. The college level theory book does not have to start at the beginning. But music theory as a discipline must start with very simple principles, and there is a lot of common ground within the realm of Western music.

[wrench45us]

given that so much electronic music has these one finger pads that behind the curtain are chords of some sort, I'm coming down on the side of those that seem sensible to me and advocating at least as much ear training as the most basic theory.
theory is a way of looking at things that I'm sure appeals more to some than others. When I took up sailing I got a couple of technical books that explained the points of sail and 'apparent wind' and gusts and puffs and headers and the rotation of wind in weather systems. I was fascinated because I like abstracting the real world into manageable diagrams and a connected system.
Did any of that make me a better sailor? -- if it did it was minimal compared to spending time on the water in various conditions. So that's my extended analogy with music. Now one offshoot of all that technical sailing stuff is a certain sensitivity to the progression of weather -- predictive cloud types and wind awareness. Same thing sort of rubs off with some theory, sensitivity to what's happening in the music; I can hear chord changes with a predictive sense. Not all that special, but a certain informed awareness.

[jancivil]

I feel like there is some disconnect on this forum as if "music theory" starts with a college level text.

When one has been working with music for a little while, picking songs out by ear and subsequently emulating the result in one's own songs, the observations made as to what worked and applying them is 'music theory'. Every person that has noted that "Johnny B. Goode" uses the chord changes it does, 12-bar blues model, knows that music theory and sees that the other songs that do that same thing employ that 'theory'.

there is the idea today, more than when I was coming up I believe, that you read some book and that is going to take you to a place you're trying to avoid where you'll get your hands greasy.

I think that practical sailing analogy is great! I'm an inept sailor myself as I am too lazy and weak for the work, it isn't my thing.