Greetings and Merry Christmas to all,
I got a Barnes and Noble gift card and would like to buy some books about music theory or just fascinating books about music in general. For instance I read,' This is Your Brain On Music" by Daniel J. Levitin and loved it. Its a mix on music theory, physics of sound, etc.
Would also be interested in some good books about learning the keyboard as well.
All the best and appreciate your input,
Tim
Have a 50$ B&N gift card, Recommend me some music theory books
-
Touch The Universe Touch The Universe https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=190615 - KVRAF
- 5831 posts since 2 Oct, 2008
100 High Quality Soundsets: Omnisphere 2, Dune 3, Tone 2 Synths, Pigments, Uhe Synths, Halion, Spire, and others.
TTU Youtube
TTU Youtube
-
- KVRAF
- 1585 posts since 13 Nov, 2005 from St. Paul
Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy by Robert Jourdain is about similar topics to the Levitin book. No music learning though, more research and ideas about how music affects us.
What do you want to learn how to play on the keyboard? Prior experience suggests that you'll probably be advised by many people here to identify which musicians you like, and then find transcriptions of their music to learn from. It's good advice to be sure. There are some other books that break down different styles as well, so they're more like pieces of songs (e.g., riffs, chords, etc.) you could work on and then build up to whole songs later. Knowing your level of current playing skill and familiarity with written music would also help for giving tips.
What do you want to learn how to play on the keyboard? Prior experience suggests that you'll probably be advised by many people here to identify which musicians you like, and then find transcriptions of their music to learn from. It's good advice to be sure. There are some other books that break down different styles as well, so they're more like pieces of songs (e.g., riffs, chords, etc.) you could work on and then build up to whole songs later. Knowing your level of current playing skill and familiarity with written music would also help for giving tips.
-
Touch The Universe Touch The Universe https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=190615
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 5831 posts since 2 Oct, 2008
It's been a while since I took classes so far all intensive purposes I am a complete beginner. I would like to learn how to play electronic types of music, so any books focused around that subject area would be best. I've had enough of trying to play jazz etc from music theory books, which is for the most part useless in learning there songs. Classical is better though. I had that book you mentioned but can't seem to find it anymore. I might end up ordering it again. There are quite a few references listed in the levitin book I can sort through but wouldn't mind more suggestions from this community. Even music theory textbooks would be welcome if I have enough money. I could always pay the difference if it is over 50. Cheers!
100 High Quality Soundsets: Omnisphere 2, Dune 3, Tone 2 Synths, Pigments, Uhe Synths, Halion, Spire, and others.
TTU Youtube
TTU Youtube
-
- KVRian
- 1051 posts since 31 Mar, 2012
Essays on Music by Theodor Adorno.
-
- KVRian
- 1002 posts since 1 Dec, 2004
I like the Jazz Theory Book by Mark Levine
-
- KVRAF
- 11162 posts since 16 Mar, 2003 from Porto - Portugal
Music is much more about craftmanship than anything else (10% inspiration and 90% perspiration). So, I doubt your approach would lead anywhere. You can seek for "inspiration" anywhere, but if you don't have the "know how" you are pretty much doomed. How can you "make up your own rules" if you know nothing about the matter? Psychologywoggle wrote:The whole 'you have to know the rules to break the rules' thing is crap as there is no "the rules", you can make up your own rules or import 'rules' from other domains.
Fernando (FMR)
-
- KVRAF
- 5703 posts since 8 Dec, 2004 from The Twin Cities
Fundamentals of Musical Composition is the best practical book for composers that I have ever read.
Don't be put off by Schoenberg's intimidating reputation or his early book 'Theory of Harmony' ('Harmonielehre') which is a wordy, impressionistic ramble. This book is from late in his life, when he had been teaching for half a century, and is the finest example I've seen of simple and intelligent advice written by a master composer.
It is an 'advanced' text in the sense that it assumes you are thoroughly familiar with music notation, but it doesn't get bogged down in abstruse harmonic concerns, instead focusing on composition as an art of design.
As for the physics of sound and acoustics, you can't do much better than these two books (which are free).
Don't be put off by Schoenberg's intimidating reputation or his early book 'Theory of Harmony' ('Harmonielehre') which is a wordy, impressionistic ramble. This book is from late in his life, when he had been teaching for half a century, and is the finest example I've seen of simple and intelligent advice written by a master composer.
It is an 'advanced' text in the sense that it assumes you are thoroughly familiar with music notation, but it doesn't get bogged down in abstruse harmonic concerns, instead focusing on composition as an art of design.
As for the physics of sound and acoustics, you can't do much better than these two books (which are free).
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
That particular line 'You have to know the rules in order to break them' strikes me as coming from a half-baked understanding of what theory is, or does.
We see it all the time here, someone brings in this thing they're enjoying and trying to suss, and don't know why it's so outside the rule book but works.
Chances are pretty good the book was not referred to, as it wasn't directly pertinent. A lot of procedures have come and gone since the common practice period that are not a broken rule, that isn't what happens.
You're doing 'music theory' any time you formulate a principle as to how this is going to work consistently. Reifying a certain practice isn't really where it's at.
That said, for me doing a couple years of hard part-writing where there were things you are not allowed was really good for me as a musician.
As a discipline.
I haven't read anything really in years. I tried to read that heavy book on Webern's technique, where it's described in terms of six-note rows and it gets so detailed. Can never recall the author, it's quite well known.
I abandoned it, it gave me a headache too many times. I found Alain Danielou's North Indian Music a good *read*. But for me reading and 'theory' are almost separate compartments, 'theory' is technique, mechanics.
I found this one cat had written his phd dissertation on Zappa, formally. But it seems to proceed from a bogus reading of some anecdotal stuff... one of the theses is 'The music is like this because he didn't go for the usual education, lacking part-writing and counterpoint training.' (In fact FZ took a year at community college in a part-writing course.). Kind of cart pulling a horse to my view. I found the abstracted examples of the language, eg., the 'Chord Bible' as he puts it, and so forth voluminous but the arguments themselves, meh. I can do that kind of thing although I doubt I would excel in it, reading and writing is a different compartment than actual musical involvement to me.
We see it all the time here, someone brings in this thing they're enjoying and trying to suss, and don't know why it's so outside the rule book but works.
Chances are pretty good the book was not referred to, as it wasn't directly pertinent. A lot of procedures have come and gone since the common practice period that are not a broken rule, that isn't what happens.
You're doing 'music theory' any time you formulate a principle as to how this is going to work consistently. Reifying a certain practice isn't really where it's at.
That said, for me doing a couple years of hard part-writing where there were things you are not allowed was really good for me as a musician.
As a discipline.
I haven't read anything really in years. I tried to read that heavy book on Webern's technique, where it's described in terms of six-note rows and it gets so detailed. Can never recall the author, it's quite well known.
I abandoned it, it gave me a headache too many times. I found Alain Danielou's North Indian Music a good *read*. But for me reading and 'theory' are almost separate compartments, 'theory' is technique, mechanics.
I found this one cat had written his phd dissertation on Zappa, formally. But it seems to proceed from a bogus reading of some anecdotal stuff... one of the theses is 'The music is like this because he didn't go for the usual education, lacking part-writing and counterpoint training.' (In fact FZ took a year at community college in a part-writing course.). Kind of cart pulling a horse to my view. I found the abstracted examples of the language, eg., the 'Chord Bible' as he puts it, and so forth voluminous but the arguments themselves, meh. I can do that kind of thing although I doubt I would excel in it, reading and writing is a different compartment than actual musical involvement to me.
-
- KVRAF
- 5703 posts since 8 Dec, 2004 from The Twin Cities
On a different note, The Real Book is always a useful book to have around.
And on yet another note, The Audio Dictionary is the best concise source I have seen for technical information about recording and signal processing.
Of course, these two books alone cost more than 50$, so perhaps I should stop now.
And on yet another note, The Audio Dictionary is the best concise source I have seen for technical information about recording and signal processing.
Of course, these two books alone cost more than 50$, so perhaps I should stop now.
-
- KVRAF
- 5703 posts since 8 Dec, 2004 from The Twin Cities
I really doubt that Cage is anything like the most influential composer of the modern era, especially when you consider that he rarely authorized recordings of his compositions. Journalists and art mavens liked him the same way they liked Andy Warhol, but I have never once heard of any composer who actually heard a work by Cage and said: "I want to sound like that".woggle wrote: probably the most influential composer in the modern era would be John Cage - who made up his own rules and imported rules from other domains. He did of course study the 'rule set' of one of the world's musical traditions, was never very good at it and rather than break the rules or modify them, he ignored them and made his own.
No disrespect intended, but I think the mature Cage was a bit of a charlatan. He had some really interesting ideas when he was young, indeed, he was a maverick of the first order, though the interest of many of these ideas was more in their value as thought experiments than as music. But as he grew older he just kept reaching into the same old bag of tricks.
In any case, I think it makes little sense to openly discourage people who are interested in music theory from studying it because John Cage didn't like it.
Don't get me wrong, there are many problems with music theory, but if no one learns it those problems will just get worse.
Finally, you are reading too much into the phrase 'the rules'. English has rules. If you rules those ignore People. sentences Might. understanding....troublehaving????. andyesjamesjoycebrekekedtherules allatimes but he obviously DID know those rules quite well before he broke them, which is probably why people actually do occasionally go through the trouble of reading him.