How to be better at theory ?

[NotreDame]

Hi, this question can look silly, but is a difficult problem for me, let me explain :


I am a Trance music passionate,or I may say simply "music", but Trance is the genre I want to go in.

The problem is that we look electronic music as a genre that does not need theory.

So, when you want to be a composer in that genre, but you don't come from a classical/jazz school wich trained you, this is hard to go into the right direction.

I have a basic knowledge of theory (I want to say I took 3 years of piano and basic theory lessons), but I want to go far more deep in theory, I want to have a broad an a real comprehension of music.

So, my questions are :

Is there a book, a ressource that could be good for me ? What domains should I learn ?

Also, when I'm reading theory books, I understand the lessons, but when I see for example someone that teach a point of theory on youtube, (example someone that explain the construction of 13th chords and their use) they are very often very trained pianists in one domain, for example jazz, funk, etc.
So, when I see someone appplying theory and playing like it, I always feel that I miss something, even if I don't want to play like them (I mean their genres does not interest me) they go far more deeper in their chords constructions than me.

So, being good at theory require necessary to get a formation on wether classical or jazz music for example ? Even when we want to compose in a genre totally different ?

Thank you !

[stratology]

There's a common fundamental misunderstanding of what music theory is all about.

Music theory is not a set of rules you use to create music.

Music theory is an attempt to understand the music that was created in the past, and to find out if there are underlying rules.
This is why the 'rules' differ from period to period. Music theory used to understand music in the era of Bach is completely different to the theory used to understand Beethoven, which is completely different to the music theory used to understand Schoenberg.

A good book about current theory is '20th Century Harmony' by Vincent Persichetti. Maybe not the best if you're just getting started, but good for understanding music in the last 100 years. 'Any note can by followed by any other note'. Good explanation of intervals, and how they work in context.


If you want to get started with theory, trying to thoroughly understand intervals is a good foundation. Once you have that, everything else, like scales, chord construction etc., is quite simple.

[jancivil]

(example someone that explain the construction of 13th chords and their use) ...

So, being good at theory require necessary to get a formation on wether classical or jazz music for example ? Even when we want to compose in a genre totally different ?

Well, there your 13th chord is likely to function the same. It may not, it may be something you see in say Persichetti's book there, but typical jazz usage is not so very different than late romantic 'classical' type, except that in the classical harmony type of courses it tends to be considered 'non-harmonic' more often than not (typically your '13th chord' is a dominant 7th chord underpinning that addition).

So, it's a matter of theory being both principles which inform a style and principles which are just known to work in a certain way which may be useful in more than one type or style of music. I've noted how Wagner's "Tristan chord" works much like 'flat 5 substitution principle' in bebop and later jazz.

Learning music from the standpoint of 4-part harmony, a part-writing course is in my view valuable per se. Certain proscriptions in that type of course are there to serve a more particularly bound style. It's basically JS Bach's practice is the Bible here. Later in music people moved away from the notion of particular practices as inviolable. You really don't do parallel fifths in your Harmony course, eg., 1st or 2nd year 'Theory' in music school because the point of the writing is mobility and transparency, fluidity of voice leading in that sort of harmonic language. Where parallels like that are... clunky.
But we get to later 19th century and eg., Debussy got to hear Asiatic musics and people chose to explore other pathways.

Knowing those kinds of principles shouldn't force one to remain inside the style they serve. I strongly advocate a solid part-writing course because you learn to connect harmonies in this fluid manner. It opens the mind in a way that isn't availed thinking of harmony only in terms of vertical chunks.

[stratology]

Well, there your 13th chord is likely to function the same.

Erhm, not really, '13th chord' is not really a description of a function of a chord, it just means that the 13th is somewhere in the chord. It could be the dominant chord you suggested, or a minor7/13, or a major7/13, or any number of things.

I found studying 4-part harmony useful for understanding 4-part harmony, but not for much else.
Regardless, when studying harmony, it's essential to play (and be able to hear) what you learn. Just reading a book in the abstract is not really terribly useful. Better to take small steps, and do them thoroughly.

Again, I'd start with intervals, learn their names, play them. Once you know those, understanding what a chord with a 13th in it is and how it's constructed is trivially easy.
4-part harmony may be a useful next step once you understand what chords are, and how they are constructed.

[jancivil]

Really. So you didn't notice the broad exception I noted there, or the qualification in the statement itself. Or that the dominant function remark followed talking of it in terms of classical usage.

Ok: I find that saying theory applied to Beethoven is 'completely different' than to JS Bach bizarre. I will have avoided that as too... well, just gainsaying a point, but hey.

I believe 'likely to function the same' a good illustration of it's that thing in two kinds of music that one might find to be quite different.
And I think my observation of the experience of part-writing, because it's part-writing and linear which opens the mind up beyond stacks of notes making chords is valuable. You're missing something to be that dismissive.

Yeah, I suppose one should know how to construct a tertial harmony before embarking on part-writing.

[stratology]

I find that saying theory applied to Beethoven is 'completely different' than to JS Bach bizarre.

Listen to any of Beethoven's late string quartets, or look at what's happening harmonically in any of the symphonies. There's simply no way to explain that with Bach-era theory.

To take it one step further: try to apply Bach era theory to any 12 tone music.

There are, of course, commonalities. 12 notes, some chords constructed by stacking 3rds.

Not looking for an argument, just trying to offer a different perspective..

(I'm serious about the late string quartets, there's some truly amazing things in there, you might like it...)

[Triplefox]

When theory appears directly in performance, it tends to be because the setting is one like a jam session or improvisation, in which all the players must know the song structure well enough to be able to play "around" it and still retain coherency. In classical (as it's practiced today) there's a separation of roles between performance and composition, so the composer does all their theory work "offline" and the player just has to read and interpret the result. That allows classical the design space to realize some very complex theoretical ideas. In contrast, jazz, rock, blues and other popular styles retain some ability to improvise on a base set of chord changes, leading to a set style with a common language employed by the players to quickly convey the structure.

The instrument you play also affects the kinds of theories that are "at hand." A guitar player thinks about different hand positions, and thus different go-to chords, from a pianist. Switching from a traditional piano layout to an isomorphic keyboard has a similar effect. Sequencers and arpeggiators built into synthesizers are foundational to several electronic styles, for example Berlin school. Hence, a fast way to break out of a rut in your use of melody and harmony is to switch instruments.

Returning to the general picture, you can retain the jam-session paradigm and seek to improvise music, in which case you may be served very well with an arranger keyboard or sequencer/arpeggiator synth to kick-start the backing tracks - or you can go towards the classical approach, build up your design ideas from abstract elements, and then put in the long slog necessary to realize them into a well-developed sound. There are a lot of artists that straddle the divide these days. In EDM, the overwhelming tendency is to use basic chord structures and focus instead on modulating timbral and percussive elements(filter sweeps, riser-and-break structures, sample manipulation) which is amenable to doing some of both - create some material offline, then manipulate it live.

[stratology]

The instrument you play also affects the kinds of theories that are "at hand." A guitar player thinks about different hand positions, and thus different go-to chords, from a pianist

Very true. For us guitarists, 4th chords are easy to play, because of the way the guitar is tuned. Big finger stretches for a piano player.
For a piano player, incorporating 2nds in a chord is easy, the keys are right next to each other, easy to finger. Big stretches for guitarists.

[Hooj]

The problem is that we look electronic music as a genre that does not need theory.

Therein lies your problem! What makes you assume this?

[jancivil]

I find that saying theory applied to Beethoven is 'completely different' than to JS Bach bizarre.

Listen to any of Beethoven's late string quartets, or look at what's happening harmonically in any of the symphonies. There's simply no way to explain that with Bach-era theory.

To take it one step further: try to apply Bach era theory to any 12 tone music.

There are, of course, commonalities. 12 notes, some chords constructed by stacking 3rds.

Not looking for an argument, just trying to offer a different perspective..

(I'm serious about the late string quartets, there's some truly amazing things in there, you might like it...)

Very patronizing. Just a tip: see if you can get a sense of who you're talking to before you posture like this. You look like a poser and that pose does not make the things you say make more sense to anybody. A different perspective? Than what? There is no perspective to contrast with.
I said something possibly useful. You ain't said anything!

FFS, 12-tone to JS Bach as an analogy to make your statement theory applied to Beethoven is *completely different* than to Bach is absurd. Bach and Beethoven are both tonal. You use the same Roman Numeral analysis and the principles for voice-leading for JS Bach had not changed really by Beethoven's day. The late quarters, yeah? What is new harmonically, why don't you say something about it. What approach did you use, that was brand new? Where is your analysis?

Our main thing in both chromatic harmony {part-writing, chiefly} courses focused on harmonic language quite a bit later than the late quartets. Guess what? It's the same type of analysis.
A German sixth, for instance in JS Bach and in Richard Wagner? Same deal. If you do hidden fifths because there's no good answer, whether you've gone practically to Schoenberg's romantic music, as long as we can say there is a key, it's the same deal as Mozart Fifths.

The Tristan chord, seen as a French 6th with an appoggiatura G# for the fifth, then that A, to A# over the E7, V7 chord. Guess what? It's a V7. It's an augmented sixth chord, iv as secondary dominant, same as it ever was. There are some new wrinkles, yes; the sonority is the same as a half-diminished then it expands out, that was novel, sure.
But, it's the same exact type of analysis. In the study of music theory, there is no radical break, straight line, coherent, no problems arise to make a new way of analysis necessary. Now, eventually Schoenberg et al pushed it past a breaking point, and analysis gets very hairy as to where is I anymore. Then, serial atonality.

[jancivil]

NB: both courses, back in 1976 and 1977.

Well, there your 13th chord is likely to function the same.

Erhm, not really,

Look, I took some care to think my advice through. There was a reason I chose something common to two very different styles based in the OP saying he did not want to do some style where they were theory-wise or something.
And your move is that shit. "Erhm..." FFS, read_the_thing and then act.

Listen to any of Beethoven's late string quartets, or look at what's happening harmonically in any of the symphonies. There's simply no way to explain that with Bach-era theory.

Bullshit, 100% unadulterated bullshit. You must be accustomed to being around people that know nothing to expect that to fly.

I found studying 4-part harmony useful for understanding 4-part harmony, but not for much else.

You're foolish and overconfident, then. You lost all credibility with me with that junk. Just made me think you're another picture for the Dunning-Kruger Effect file.

[Harry_HH]

Hooj's statement before is correct.

To your question "Is there a book, a ressource that could be good for me ? What domains should I learn?" :

Any theory book, take first domains which interests you most.

Although you said you master the basic theory, according to what you said later "So, when I see someone appplying theory and playing like it, I always feel that I miss something..."
hints that you need study even the basics more than you did in youf 3 years time.

For me the music theory has given help in many different level:

1. To understand what may work well. If you know the theory of intervals and harmony, or if you have studied e.g. the polyrhythmics, it helps you to understand what you are doing, or which way to go.
2. To play an instrument and make music. If you know the theory, you can build up new chords and scales, although no one has never shown you those chords and scales - its like learning fishing in stead of buying a fish.
3. To analyze music, any genre, how the piece is constructed, to learn about it.
4. Intellectual satisfaction. Expands your abstract thinking.

This all, regardsless what genre of music you are working with.

Theory can never substitute practice. And e.g. mastering your own instrument(s) is very much an artesan skill, too. And creativity and imaginativeness are qualities you can't teach.

[stratology]

Just a tip: see if you can get a sense of who you're talking to before you posture like this.

OK, done:
I get a sense I'm talking to a person with 12656 posts (> spends more time on the Internet than working on music), who uses a harmless, civil discussion about harmony in music to fire off personal insults (> severe anger issues that require therapy), without understanding basics of the subject matter (> insecurity can be a trigger to overblown emotional reactions).


Suggestion: let's step back from being personal, and go back to talking about harmony instead.

Any college level course will teach different harmonic approaches in different time periods. To claim that harmony has not evolved since Bach is bizarre.

[jancivil]

There it is, you can't manage to deal with the criticism so it's my post count.
See my links? They take you to where you may experience my music.
You may now kiss my ass.

That's so incredibly lame. So you're butthurt at what I said. Sorry, but the remark dismissing part-writing is beyond silly. Part-writing is everything to a composer.

Any college level course will teach different harmonic approaches in different time periods. To claim that harmony has not evolved since Bach is bizarre.

Ok, you compounded something vague and unprovable {nice!} with a strawman. I said nothing like that. I said that the same principles of analyzing harmony are in use until tonality was pretty much impossible to discern. And I showed that. I'll reiterate the whole bit below, then.

Do yourself a solid and investigate logical fallacies. For one, fabricating a straw man which looks ridiculous like that is dishonest. Because I bloody well understand the evolution of harmony.
Again, you assume the next person is inferior in knowledge to you. Here's some advice: that shit is in your way, you'll dismiss someone that may have something to show you because you're too cool for school.

Your actual comment was you cannot use the same theory for Beethoven as you did Bach. Now, if you want to convey more detail than that, do_that. You expect me to do your work for you to make that seem better than it did to me? That, something you actually said, is what is bizarre here.

So, can you make that argument work, or not? You simply can't explain the harmony of Beethoven's Symphonies with 'Bach-era theory'. What about it? What's so new?

As I pointed out, concretely, even the Tristan Chord is explainable with 'Bach era theory'. I don't know what you could possibly mean, and that's because I'm versed in it. Augmented sixth is the iv6 with that sixth raised to make the subdominant into a stronger function to the dominant, a dominant to the dominant known as a secondary dominant. Same as it ever was, eg., in JS Bach.

If you are forced to go with hidden P5ths in a German sixth in late romantic part-writing, you have done Mozart Fifths. Can you make this clear point into something disagreeable, or is it all you can do to point out how many posts I have, this STUPID ad hominem {at someone you already assumed is not your equal for no good reason} which showed nobody anything at all. No, I'm calling you out. Check yourself.

Now, we have some actual concrete harmony you won't discuss because...

[jancivil]

who uses a harmless, civil discussion about harmony in music to fire off personal insults (> severe anger issues that require therapy), without understanding basics of the subject matter (> insecurity can be a trigger to overblown emotional reactions).

Yeah, that's seriously twisting what happened and rather suggests classic psychological projection.

And it's personal in a sense I will absolutely avoid. I did mention Dunning-Kruger but that's about how you dismiss things you didn't even try to grasp. You're as full of shit here as anything I can even imagine. That's really flagrant abuse.