The guide formerly known as Ravenspiral Guide

[funky lime]

But this book presents a sort of bible like approach , everything in one guide and those types of compilations always just fall flat. I mean it is like I had a book, all math, the pdf, and didn’t actually provide a system to integrate the information and that is assuming the information is in the book which well, I can say for sure it isn’t.

He literally writes in the preface:

"i'll explain things as simply as possible, or half-explain it and leaving you to discover the rest yourself"
and
"i'll drop more useful knowledge on you than you can immediately assimilate, then refuse to make sense of it for you. Take these trinkets and make of them what you will."

So you're right, it doesn't present itself as a definitive resource, but I don't think that was ever the intent anyway. That's more of a mismanagement of expectations on the part of the reader, in thinking that they can learn music solely from reading a book/pdf. I feel like it is an attempt to make (certain elements pertaining to) music theory more accessible to the layperson, not as a replacement for actual education. Everyone knows that "visual coding," for instance, is no replacement for actually writing code... yet both have a place in this world. I feel like this guide is kind of like that.

Some people also have a physical inability to read sheet music, akin to dyslexia, so I'm all for anything that helps include them, even if someone's professor scoffs at the notion.

Thing Explainer is surprisingly informative; sometimes we can learn a lot about the essence of a thing by dumbing it down too, not just by trying to elevate ourselves to someone else's "proper" understanding. Both have a place in my life, anyway.

[NKF]

But by presenting too many concepts , and no pathway to really explore the concepts , it is more just a wikipedia style compendium.

I think you would have more bang for your buck just listening to music. All those rockstars / pop artists that claimed they didn't learn theory just learned a form of theory that worked for the very basic requirements needed for the genre they were in.

This book however attempts to broach certain concepts that to actually learn , well it requires you to learn notation , to learn certain paradagims like one would learn addition and subtraction, to be able to analyze scores , to actively listen , to transcribe ...

That's why I said I kinda don't see the value. Too much information in one pdf that doesn't really a deal with any of the issues it touches on.

Perhaps a better use of time would have been a knowledge tree / learning pathway to point to the sources most people use to learn this stuff. The process has been formalized and hasn't really changed in any significant way in a really long time.

[NKF]

But this book presents a sort of bible like approach , everything in one guide and those types of compilations always just fall flat. I mean it is like I had a book, all math, the pdf, and didn’t actually provide a system to integrate the information and that is assuming the information is in the book which well, I can say for sure it isn’t.

He literally writes in the preface:

"i'll explain things as simply as possible, or half-explain it and leaving you to discover the rest yourself"
and
"i'll drop more useful knowledge on you than you can immediately assimilate, then refuse to make sense of it for you. Take these trinkets and make of them what you will."

So you're right, it doesn't present itself as a definitive resource, but I don't think that was ever the intent anyway. That's more of a mismanagement of expectations on the part of the reader, in thinking that they can learn music solely from reading a book/pdf. I feel like it is an attempt to make (certain elements pertaining to) music theory more accessible to the layperson, not as a replacement for actual education. Everyone knows that "visual coding," for instance, is no replacement for actually writing code... yet both have a place in this world. I feel like this guide is kind of like that.

Some people also have a physical inability to read sheet music, akin to dyslexia, so I'm all for anything that helps include them, even if someone's professor scoffs at the notion.

Thing Explainer is surprisingly informative; sometimes we can learn a lot about the essence of a thing by dumbing it down too, not just by trying to elevate ourselves to someone else's "proper" understanding. Both have a place in my life, anyway.

But by presenting too many concepts , and no pathway to really explore the concepts. it is more just a wikipedia style compendium.

I think you would have more bang for your buck just listening to music. All those rockstars / pop artists that claimed they didn't learn theory just learned a form of theory that worked for the very basic requirements needed for the genre they were in.

This book however attempts to broach certain concepts that to actually learn , well it requires you to learn notation at a minimum , to learn certain paradagims like one would learn addition and subtraction, to be able to analyze scores , to actively listen , to transcribe ...

And notation is also visual. I really doubt dislexia is the reason people aren't learning notation.

That's why I said I kinda don't see the value. Too much information in one pdf that doesn't really a deal with any of the issues it touches on.

Perhaps a better use of time would have been a knowledge tree / learning pathway to point to the sources most people use to learn this stuff. The process has been formalized and hasn't really changed in any significant way in a really long time.

Anyone that has learned something complicated, or taught it knows you need to parse the steps or you will get overwhelmed and discouraged. Regarding dumbing things down , I think the actual goal is to present the right amount of information that is challenging enough but not discouraging , limited in scope so progress can be tracked.

[funky lime]

But by presenting too many concepts , and no pathway to really explore the concepts. it is more just a wikipedia style compendium.

I think you would have more bang for your buck just listening to music.

You say that as though the two are mutually exclusive ...

[jamcat]

I saw this new Practical Melodic Minor music theory course in KVR News. It actually looks pretty useful for understanding melodic minor and how to use it. It reminded me of this discussion, so I thought I'd leave it here.

https://www.kvraudio.com/news/fisound-r ... ions-63440

[jancivil]

But this book presents a sort of bible like approach , everything in one guide and those types of compilations always just fall flat. I mean it is like I had a book, all math, the pdf, and didn’t actually provide a system to integrate the information and that is assuming the information is in the book which well, I can say for sure it isn’t.

He literally writes in the preface: blah blah blah

You're extremely verbosely defending some real bullshit.
The writer of this tome should have spent the time studying instead of the incredibly pretentious act of writing a book when the reality is here is a novice. I remember too well this thread and looking at all the misconstructions and cluelessness. I am however heartened that NKF gets it.
Well said, all of it, man, better than I did getting into the weeds that no one is getting into with me.

[funky lime]

Necro'ing this sad thread is bad form, just to do what?