Understanding electronic music composing.

[vurt]

Well, people might argue but the modes themselves are categorised loosely by their major or minor root chord

Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense.

As I said, people here are willing to help you. You’re stating things that I assume stem from an incomplete understanding of theory, then wonder why you get all these comments. Why not just ask for help with understanding rather than continually do this?

See, how can you be taken seriously when I use the term 'categorised loosely' and you respond with 'absolute nonsense'. I'll call the author of that book then so and tell him to take it out of print because some donkey-jockey on a forum disagreed with me.

which book?
you didnt mention it sorry.

[Stamped Records]

Guitarists often think this. But there are uses of modes...and then there are other uses of modes. The approach you've mentioned is just one and not really one that applies well to techno or tech-trance.

I'm not at the point where I realise how these modes apply to various styles but Altering the position of the half steps in relation to the tonic appears to be a key melodic aspect.

I think the idea of "root chord" goes to the heart of the issue you have. You've got a bit more learning to do and that was the point I was making earlier: the trouble with conventional music theory is that it does force you through a series of hoops before you get to things that are useful for a wide range of genres or styles. When you get to the end of the process, it becomes much clearer. But up to that point, you run the risk of shoehorning everything into a framework for which it was not designed.

This is a recurring issue with learning theory. You learn something, it's a big step forward, but eventually, it's not quite it. I'm aware of the cycles only too well.

And microtonal, spectral or timbral music? Good luck if that even features on a university-level course. That's where you get into Curtis Roads territory - yet timbral/spectral music is the one closest to non-melodic techno.

How would you suggest a person learns music then? the reason I learned theory is because I do like the sound of classical harmony very much. If someone were just wanting to learn about music with no particular direction for style - all that concerned them was learning how music works, how would that be approached?

[Stamped Records]

Well, people might argue but the modes themselves are categorised loosely by their major or minor root chord

Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense.

As I said, people here are willing to help you. You’re stating things that I assume stem from an incomplete understanding of theory, then wonder why you get all these comments. Why not just ask for help with understanding rather than continually do this?

See, how can you be taken seriously when I use the term 'categorised loosely' and you respond with 'absolute nonsense'. I'll call the author of that book then so and tell him to take it out of print because some donkey-jockey on a forum disagreed with me.

which book?
you didnt mention it sorry.

Don't need a book, I've got Berklee with an article called 'Mastering music theory'. Oh, really.

https://online.berklee.edu/takenote/maj ... nor-modes/

[Gamma-UT]

How would you suggest a person learns music then? the reason I learned theory is because I do like the sound of classical harmony very much. If someone were just wanting to learn about music with no particular direction for style - all that concerned them was learning how music works, how would that be approached?

I'm not saying don't do it (well, I am bit but..there isn't a realistic choice today: its bonkers but there it is). Conventional western theory is pretty much what you have to play with. But go in with your eyes open and be aware that lots of things will seem to fall outside its scope until you're into the advanced stuff, where it suddenly becomes "do what you wanna do if it sounds right or even a bit wrong, it's all good".

Being able to interpret sheet music is handy though. And ear-training - it's easy to neglect ear-training whereas it's actually very useful.

[Stamped Records]

I'm getting to that point. The hard part about theory is that you do have to experiment a lot to hear what the box actually sounds like before you can break out of the box. I can tell I'm getting close to that point.

[Meffy]

Stamped Records, if you mess up a post, instead of posting again and again until you get it right, please use the "edit" function to go in and change the messed-up post.

I've deleted several incomplete posts, all of which were followed by complete posts (meaning no information was lost, just redundant attempts). This isn't a warning and it's not a big deal; reducing redundancy keeps threads neater and makes it easier for readers to follow the discussion, that's all.

P.S.: Do keep an open mind and try to avoid the toxic sarcasm. Plenty of KVR members know what they're talking about, have years or decades of experience, and are giving you their time in hope of improving your understanding.

Disagreement doesn't have to be adversarial. Keep it collaborative and you might learn a lot.

[Stamped Records]

There's an issue that I'm not aware of, I didn't see this happening.

[Hink]

likely because you hit quote instead of edit and when your post posts it shows you that post on top not previous ones

[Meffy]

No worries, try the "pencil" button on one of your older posts and you'll see how it works. Very handy if you're as clumsy/forgetful as I am and have to update your own text. I'm out, back to composing stuff.

[Gamma-UT]

Don't need a book, I've got Berklee with an article called 'Mastering music theory'. Oh, really.

https://online.berklee.edu/takenote/maj ... nor-modes/

Good old Berklee.

"The scale we now know as major was originally called the Ionian mode and its relative minor was known as Aeolian."

It's not egregiously wrong but I'm not sure it's actually helpful long-term. Maybe the reality is too intricate to get covered at this level but I think it's one reason why people get confused about modes.

Minor was actually derived from Dorian. Right up to the end of the 19th Century there was an active debate over whether the minor mode actually existed because of the way the 6th and 7th scale degrees keep moving around. For various reasons, the 6th kept getting lowered in what up to then seemed to be Dorian. So the natural minor scale settled on the same scale as what Glareanus called a couple centuries earlier the Aeolian scale, but which hardly anyone ever used in reality. It is simpler to write Natural Minor = Aeolian but it obscures the practical reality.

[Stamped Records]

Don't need a book, I've got Berklee with an article called 'Mastering music theory'. Oh, really.

https://online.berklee.edu/takenote/maj ... nor-modes/

Good old Berklee.

The book was actually called Songwriting secrets of the Beatles. I figured that music i know was a better reference point for studying music theory vs a lot of classical stuff that's great, but sadly I don't hear the sheet music and I'm not a good player. Knowing the songs meant I could actually hear and interpret the sheet music much better.

I've read quite a bit on theory actually. Started with Music Theory for Dummies way back when and worked up to Aldwell and Schacter, Harmony and Voice-leading. I found the Beatles book to have just as much coverage as the Aldwell and Schacter one and just as much depth.

[Forgotten]

Well, people might argue but the modes themselves are categorised loosely by their major or minor root chord

Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense.

As I said, people here are willing to help you. You’re stating things that I assume stem from an incomplete understanding of theory, then wonder why you get all these comments. Why not just ask for help with understanding rather than continually do this?

See, how can you be taken seriously when I use the term 'categorised loosely' and you respond with 'absolute nonsense'.

Because what you wrote is absolute nonsense.

Suggesting I can’t be taken seriously because of two words in your sentence doesn’t make what you said any less nonsensical.

There are people trying to help you with some of the errors you make, but you just double down with every error and react as if you’re a world-renowned expert who is being questioned.

We all had to learn, and we all got help along the way...

[Stamped Records]

No, what I'm actually doing now, is suggesting that you don't know what you're talking about because you told me what I said was nonsense even though I'm backed up by one of the leading music schools in the world. You should stop talking now, or read a few more books.

If you ever need any help with this stuff, just feel free to holler, I'll point you in the right direction.

[Ghost Snake]

It probably didn’t work as it’s not very good advice. Chords are not the start point for composition, they are the accompaniment; a result of harmonizing the melody.

My suggestion would be to write a melody then harmonize it as you feel appropriate.

That's a really good advice !

[Forgotten]

No, what I'm actually doing now, is suggesting that you don't know what you're talking about because you told me what I said was nonsense even though I'm backed up by one of the leading music schools in the world.

Rather than continue to post sarcastic responses, could you show me a citation for this then:

modes themselves are categorised loosely by their major or minor root chord