KVR Audio

tenshin111 · Post by **tenshin111** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:09 am

Nanakai wrote: 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.

The answer is not so obvious here...in many cases learning about those things and then applying them in practice will lead to boring and predictable tunes. Why should I care about key centers? Why should I care about I-V progression and other classic rules? Only to repeat what others have been doing for centuries?

If something sounds good to my ears then...it's good. Whether it fits some theoretical 'framework' or not...who cares? I don't need to explain the inner workings of the tune to someone else and I don't think any "normal" listener would dissect and analyze the track instead of just enjoying it (or not).

Learning some theory is good...mostly to realise that you don't really need it to make beautiful music

tenshin111 · Post by **tenshin111** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:21 am

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

Because syncopation is just a term that describes certain type of 'rhythmic phrasing'. You can do it intuitively without knowing what it is called. Just like million other things in life...

Nanakai · Post by **Nanakai** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:22 am

You're right. That's a very good point that I hadn't considered. It made my music "better" because I tend to enjoy tonal music and that's what I have on my head. But I wasn't saying that because I think we should fulfill some abstract structural requirements or follow classical rules. Tonality is just a style of aural art, and it can be abandoned if desired.

Nanakai · Post by **Nanakai** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:31 am

tenshin111 wrote:
Nanakai wrote:How can someone not know what syncopation is if they use it?
Because syncopation is just a term that describes certain type of 'rhythmic phrasing'. You can do it intuitively without knowing what it is called. Just like million other things in life...

Right. See my argument above. Does it matter if you know what everyone else calls it? If you can use it, you know what it is better than someone who can just say the word or give you a dictionary definition.

manducator · Post by **manducator** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:50 am

This topic is already on page 3 and there are only 3 posts that give a clear answer to the question where to find books or videos. Just saying....

HordePrime · Post by **HordePrime** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:05 pm

Nanakai wrote: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.

This is the problem.
The theory always comes after the practice. Theory is a way of explaining what has gone before, it was never meant to be a recipe to describe how to create new things.

Music is an art, it shouldn't be a "painting-by-numbers" type thing, which is what you inevitably end up with if you follow "theory" too prescriptively.

Some of the most successful "musicians" today have never studied theory to any significant level. Equally, there are dozens of music professors who know loads about theory but don't have the practical skills necessary to consistently produce high-quality music.

So, it depends on which avenue you wish to follow. Both are equally valid, and there is a certain amount of overlap between the two, but pursuing the "wrong" avenue for a significant length of time is not likely to be fruitful.

JumpingJackFlash · Post by **JumpingJackFlash** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:02 pm

SampleScience wrote:I just want to be able to write tunes in "key". ...How can I be sure all my sounds are harmonicaly coherent? Is there a chart somewhere I could use?

For basic information, have a look at my Introduction to Music Theory.

For something more extensive, I recommend this book on harmony. (You can claim a 50% discount if you agree not to photocopy it). - Although obviously focussed on harmony, it covers several other aspects of theory which you might find useful.

deleted · Post by **deleted** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:12 pm

DELETED

pmczar · Post by **pmczar** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:36 pm

The books that I have found helpful for basic music theory, the fundamentals of the electronic music styles and the practical understanding of mixing are as follows:

Melody in Songwriting: Tools and Techniques for Writing Hit Songs - Jack Perricone

The Songwriter's Workshop: Harmony (Book + CD) - Jimmy Kachulis

Dance Music Manual - Rick Snoman

The Secrets of House Music Production - Marc Adamo

Charlotte · Post by **Charlotte** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:43 pm

A great music theory book for explaining the basics is All-In-One to grade 5 by Rachel Billings which explains things with such clarity that I've not found before, especially things like chords, scales and harmony. Composing occupies a large portion of the book, with loads of detailed examples and exercises. I like the fact it covers both ABRSM and Trinity Guildhall music theory (there is a supplement music theory book for TG), the latter which is more geared to jazz harmony/composing and pentatonic scales etc..

Nanakai · Post by **Nanakai** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:08 pm

HordePrime wrote: This is the problem.
The theory always comes after the practice. Theory is a way of explaining what has gone before, it was never meant to be a recipe to describe how to create new things.

Yes, a good point and I agree. But the theory is a useful tool for educating people.

seacouch · Post by **seacouch** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:13 pm

I think it's out of print, but if you can find a copy: Jazz Theory, by Andrew Jaffe is probably my favorite beginner/intermediate theory book. It basically covers the Berklee curriculum in one concise volume, much better than any Berklee publications I've seen. And I think it's worth noting that in general, 'jazz theory' is going to be much more relevant to modern music styles than 'classical theory', for reasons that should be fairly obvious.

HordePrime · Post by **HordePrime** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:22 pm

seacouch wrote:I think it's worth noting that in general, 'jazz theory' is going to be much more relevant to modern music styles than 'classical theory', for reasons that should be fairly obvious.

I'm afraid this is not obvious to me, care to elaborate?
Sure, jazz theory is more relevent to jazz, but If I wanted to write a pop ballad for example, neither jazz theory nor classical theory would be especially relevant.

seacouch · Post by **seacouch** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:24 pm

This whole argument that people shouldn't bother learning music theory is just silly. It's something that lazy people tell themselves. At least 99.9% of my favorite musicians are very well educated and certainly know their shit. The remaining .1% (I can only think of 1 or 2) are the exception; they're total freaks. And I've never, ever heard of a musician saying "I wish I hadn't learned that theory" or "I would've been more successful if I didn't have that knowledge". Never. It's a ridiculous notion.

seacouch · Post by **seacouch** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:30 pm

HordePrime wrote:
seacouch wrote:I think it's worth noting that in general, 'jazz theory' is going to be much more relevant to modern music styles than 'classical theory', for reasons that should be fairly obvious.
I'm afraid this is not obvious to me, care to elaborate?

Because jazz is a more modern style of music, and it's conventions apply quite well to modern western music. The same cannot always be said of classical theory.

Recommend me one essential music theory book for EM