Recommend me one essential music theory book for EM

[ghettosynth]

you can learn it and understand why it's not relevant

I would suggest that learning something simply to understand why it's not relevant is not a particularly good use of one's time.

This is really the crux of this argument. Choosing to learn anything is ALWAYS a tradeoff with choosing to do other things. If you reduced the problem simply to that of choosing to spend X percent of your music time on theory or X percent on simply practicing the skills that you already have then it's not immediate that your music will improve by choosing to learn theory.

An optimization problem requires that you define your objective/cost function so that you can make an appropriate tradeoff. As a trivial example, consider that you sing your child to sleep every night with nursery rhymes and it takes fifteen minutes. You might ask if learning music theory could reduce that time. Any reasonable person would probably argue that spending any amount of time on learning theory is wasted with respect to that objective.

Further, this nonsense example highlights another issue with these questions. Namely, that there probably is something that one can do to reduce the time, but it might not be learning music theory. With dance music, for example, you might see bigger gains from spending the time improving your music production skills than you would from learning music theory.

Which is why the advice is often very much dependent on what the OP hopes to gain from the experience.

What exactly do you want to learn, and why do you want to learn it?

[Nanakai]

Do you think that it helps to learn about and hear musical intervals? What about rhythm and meter? Key centers and resolution? There are plenty of topics that, when properly understood, will lead to better music.

Understood, perhaps. But not necessarily "studied".
So, for example, a person doesn't need to know what a "diminished fifth" is to be able to use it (or not).
A person doesn't need to know what "syncopation" means to be able to use it.
A person doesn't need to know the key signature of F# major... and so on.

By all means, study it if you want, but don't expect it to magically make you write better electronic music.
Theory is no substitute for natural ability.

I have studied, and continue to study. It has made me better, though it wasn't magic. No one is talking about "natural ability" (ironically, you invoke magical thinking here) being replaced by anything, just knowledge and the application thereof.

How can someone not know what syncopation is if they use it?

[HordePrime]

How can someone not know what syncopation is if they use it?

I don't know what a reflexive pronoun or a past participle is, but I'm sure I probably use them quite frequently (I may even have used them in this sentence myself).

[Nanakai]

How can someone not know what syncopation is if they use it?

I don't know what a reflexive pronoun or a past participle is, but I'm sure I probably use them quite frequently (I may even have used them in this sentence myself).

So then your issue is that they learn to call it syncopation?

[SampleScience]

What exactly do you want to learn, and why do you want to learn it?

I just want to be able to write tunes in "key". I wrote tunes for developpers that said some of my tunes weren't in "key", while for me they sounded good, I wanted to understand what they meant by that. So I asked them what it was all about, their explanation was good, but I'm still in the mist... I don't really understand.


I don't know how to apply that musical knowledge about chords...How can I be sure all my sounds are harmonicaly coherent? Is there a chart somewhere I could use? I've searched on the web and found all kind of charts for different genre of music (jazz, classical music, etc.).

My guess is I lack the basic musical knowlegde, so a basic guide/book is what I need.

[ghettosynth]

How can someone not know what syncopation is if they use it?

I don't know what a reflexive pronoun or a past participle is, but I'm sure I probably use them quite frequently (I may even have used them in this sentence myself).

So then your issue is that they learn to call it syncopation?

Why would you refer to that as "his issue" ? His "point" was that one can learn how to use something purely by feel or experience without ever understanding any theoretical description of what it is that he's doing, or, in fact, even be aware that they are learning something.

This is obviously a true statement and it's a bit absurd to me that you wouldn't acknowledge his point. You asserted that it was not possible that one could "not know what syncopation is if they use it" and HordePrime gave you a perfect example of how someone could not know what something was and still use it.

In fact, we use many things long before we know what they are. Children, for example, often use pronouns rather excessively long before they learn what they are in first grade or kindergarten. It's more than just that they "don't know what pronouns are called", they don't, in fact, know consciously that the thing that they are using has an abstract description that includes other words.

In fact, diatonic systems can be described both by group theory and also finite rings. Can you tell me what constructing a major scale and solving a Rubik's cube have in common with respect to one of the above math topics? Please be specific, because I want to be sure that it's clear that you know what thing it is that you are using.

Philosophers have been studying epistemology, or the study knowledge and how it is acquired for centuries and I'm fairly certain that they've addressed your point of view. Related, there is a fantastic lecture somewhere on MIT's open courseware that talks about what exactly we mean by common knowledge and the lecture demonstrates the limits of lay belief about common knowledge in a simple and interesting manner. I can't remember what class that it was in, perhaps an economics class, I'll try to remember, it's worth the effort to watch.

[Nanakai]

This is obviously a true statement and it's a bit absurd to me that you wouldn't acknowledge his point. You asserted that it was not possible that one could "not know what syncopation is if they use it" and HordePrime gave you a perfect example of how someone could not know what something was and still use it.

Calm down there. First of all, I made no such assertion, I asked a question. Second, I was referring to what he takes issue with about studying music theory, and was not saying that he has a problem rather than a point. What I'm saying is that HordePrime is more concerned with learning to call syncopated rhythm 'syncopated'. His point seems to be a problem with the language used rather than a problem of reality.

How children pick up their first language is unrelated to how adults learn a language, or music for that matter. Since you bring up language, try doing some searches with keywords 'metalinguistic knowledge' and 'language competence' for an idea of how knowing about language can affect your ability to use it. You can also check out how linguistic knowledge affects second language learning. For those of us who actually study things like cognition and human learning, your point is not so obviously true. And for those of us who regularly engage in language instruction, it's obviously wrong. I would be interested in the philosophers you think have dealt with my point of view, which you have miraculously gleamed from three short posts and then misrepresented.

[ghettosynth]

What exactly do you want to learn, and why do you want to learn it?

I just want to be able to write tunes in "key". I wrote tunes for developpers that said some of my tunes weren't in "key", while for me they sounded good, I wanted to understand what they meant by that. So I asked them what it was all about, their explanation was good, but I'm still in the mist... I don't really understand.

I don't know how to apply that musical knowledge about chords...How can I be sure all my sounds are harmonicaly coherent? Is there a chart somewhere I could use? I've searched on the web and found all kind of charts for different genre of music (jazz, classical music, etc.).

My guess is I lack the basic musical knowlegde, so a basic guide/book is what I need.

Did you use tonal sampled loops? If you can't hear problems like this then you might want to train your ear to hear the differences, or, you could be more careful about how you use tonal loops. Believe it or not, I actually agree with Jancivil on this, one good way to develop this sense is to just play music, specifically other people's songs. While doing that, you are forced to learn at least the basic language of music and you get a sense of what works and what doesn't. If that's not practical, then you should be aware of the potential of sampled loops to clash if they are not adequately labeled and your knowledge is insufficient to combine them without issue.

At any rate, you can read the first six chapters of Wayne Chase's book on his website and it's written in a friendly conversational tone. It's very accessible and a good place to start. Start with chapter 6 and then move backwards filling in gaps.

http://www.howmusicreallyworks.com

That is a free resource that should give you enough information to determine where the holes in your knowledge are.

The aforementioned "harmony for computer musicians" is also a good reference.

BTW: Do you remember specifically what the devs told you about your music? That might be helpful. It's probably pretty easy to avoid these problems with a lot of dance music. There are more than a few successful producers who "wing it."

[quayquay17]

How can someone not know what syncopation is if they use it?

I remember when I first began learning more about music in high school, when I learned the word syncopation and what it meant I was excited.

I was excited because I finally learned the term for what I had been doing for quite some time and had difficulty explaining to others. I just thought of it as "interesting rhythm".

[Nanakai]

I was excited because I finally learned the term for what I had been doing for quite some time and had difficulty explaining to others. I just thought of it as "interesting rhythm".

Exactly. You labeled it, but you already had knowledge of it. Part of the problem here is the idea that learning music theory is just labeling stuff.

Now, what benefits has that label afforded you? Would you say it was a waste of time?

[ouroboros]

Related, there is a fantastic lecture somewhere on MIT's open courseware that talks about what exactly we mean by common knowledge and the lecture demonstrates the limits of lay belief about common knowledge in a simple and interesting manner. I can't remember what class that it was in, perhaps an economics class, I'll try to remember, it's worth the effort to watch.

I would very much be interested in this lecture if it comes to you

[ghettosynth]

I was excited because I finally learned the term for what I had been doing for quite some time and had difficulty explaining to others. I just thought of it as "interesting rhythm".

Exactly. You labeled it, but you already had knowledge of it.

Knowledge "of it", but he didn't know "what it was." Your question wasn't "How can someone not have knowledge of syncopation if they use it?", it was "How can someone not know what syncopation is if they use it?"

Clearly, he used syncopation, but didn't know "what it was." It was more than a label, he learned the language and tools to describe his intuitive understanding to others.

Children learn that flame is hot without understanding either flame or heat. Understanding why flame is hot is a lot more than just "attaching a label."

Now, what benefits has that label afforded you? Would you say it was a waste of time?

You have yet to identify the appropriate mathematical label for the concept that I discussed above. Yet, should you identify it, I can assure you that you will experience diminishing returns from that knowledge.

The point here, and it always seems to slip by the theory pedants is that this is an economic argument, not a logical one. By that I mean simply that it is insufficient to demonstrate a conclusion, you must also compute it's value.

Most of us aren't saying "don't learn theory", we are saying "theory will have a variable return on the investment of time and that return may not be worth the effort." This statement is a function of what theory one already knows, what theory one is talking about learning, and what one is trying to accomplish.

[Aroused by JarJar]

I'd really like to hear a tune of yours some "developers" thought was "out of key".

[ghettosynth]

Related, there is a fantastic lecture somewhere on MIT's open courseware that talks about what exactly we mean by common knowledge and the lecture demonstrates the limits of lay belief about common knowledge in a simple and interesting manner. I can't remember what class that it was in, perhaps an economics class, I'll try to remember, it's worth the effort to watch.

I would very much be interested in this lecture if it comes to you

I'll post it if I can remember where it was.

[Nanakai]

Knowledge "of it", but he didn't know "what it was." Your question wasn't "How can someone not have knowledge of syncopation if they use it?", it was "How can someone not know what syncopation is if they use it?"

Clearly, he used syncopation, but didn't know "what it was." It was more than a label, he learned the language and tools to describe his intuitive understanding to others.

Children learn that flame is hot without understanding either flame or heat. Understanding why flame is hot is a lot more than just "attaching a label."

So in other words, "It was more than a label, he learned to label it for other people"?

I think the issue here is one of language. Like I said, music theory is often approached as just the formal description of musical experience. Quayquay's experience went from intuitive understanding to a label. Think about those, like the OP, who need to go the opposite direction, from the label to that primary musical experience. What is a key center? Is it possible to put into language, or is talking about music like dancing about architecture? You can't know what syncopation is just by describing it with language any more than a blind person can understand color. Quayquay knew what it was before he could tell other people. So, for those without the intuitive understanding, descriptive theories, like tonal harmony, are useful tools for learning and growth if they are studied. So, I think the statement, "study it if you want, but don't expect it to magically make you write better electronic music" isn't entirely wrong, but the essence of it is.

To your last point, children don't use knowledge of flame or heat like a musician uses knowledge of syncopation or harmony. Fearing pain is not the same as playing music.

I admit to being careless by mixing "know of it" and "to know what it is". I am such a bad person.

You have yet to identify the appropriate mathematical label for the concept that I discussed above. Yet, should you identify it, I can assure you that you will experience diminishing returns from that knowledge.

The point here, and it always seems to slip by the theory pedants is that this is an economic argument, not a logical one. By that I mean simply that it is insufficient to demonstrate a conclusion, you must also compute it's value.

Most of us aren't saying "don't learn theory", we are saying "theory will have a variable return on the investment of time and that return may not be worth the effort." This statement is a function of what theory one already knows, what theory one is talking about learning, and what one is trying to accomplish.

You obviously have an axe to grind that's bigger than you and me. I'm not interested in the mathematical model you're going on about, I'm not a "theory pendant" and I've never disagreed with any of the (few) actual points you just made.