A-Z of Rhythm -For Beginers

[tapper mike]

The discussion was about how hard it was for professional music theorists to edit and maintain Wikipedia pages on music theory subjects because people who don't have the same level of expertise could have just as much control over the content of articles. Consequently the majority of music theorists won't bother with editing Wiki articles.

As Gandhi would say "Be the change you want to see in the world"

Rather then fight someone in their own house build your house based on your foundations. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And a valued reference is one worth returning to.

[Fox Crazy]

As Gandhi would say "Be the change you want to see in the world"

Rather then fight someone in their own house build your house based on your foundations. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And a valued reference is one worth returning to.

I was actually going to make that same quote for different reasons in the first post I made.

It really sums up what a lot of people here need to do. Fact is, it's stupidly hard to find good sources that break things down in easy to understand terms, because people seem to have this aversion to saying something like "a semi-tone is a fraction of a tone, usually one half, such as from C to C Sharp." Most sources out there tend to explain things in such a way that seems to expect you to know just about everything but what's being explained, and thus it's no wonder why people come here with "how do I music?" If they knew how to shot note and wat buttan 2 C minor already, they'd be reading the technical articles you can find everywhere.

You can complain about people being completely clueless, or you can do something about it, one solution isn't productive and the other very much is.

Also, on Wikipedia, usually who you end up fighting with and getting in page edit wars with isn't people with less expertise, but rather people who insist that THEIR TAKE on something is better than HIS TAKE on it or YOUR TAKE on it. In most cases, all involved parties have a take on something that is overly complicated and while not wrong generally not useful to someone who's trying to learn something. This is part of a reoccurring Wikipedia issue of people being more interested in seeing their text on a popular webpage than actually writing useful and effective articles to help people learn things.

Once again, these sort of attitudes don't help to do anything other than stifle meaningful discussion and they certainly do more to hurt this discussion than people of varying expertise (or more often, people coming from different angles). Right here we have a runaway thread for absolutely no reason, despite several people's attempts to be useful and present interesting and meaningful information.

[tanabarbier]

I really like this part of the forum, because of the long lasting discutions precisely.

Experts are not meant to agree, because it is definitely NOT a science or a sport. Things can be teached, learned, but there is no unicity, it is not a place for certainty, and it is what makes music special! Fighting over vocabulary allways has a meaning, because we are using the same word for different concepts, or differents ways of using the concept behind it (I recall a thread about modes, well a good example indeed, because modes are not the same thing if you speak about a musical tradition or an other).

But one thing that all thoses experts agree on is that you need to practice first and foremost, and even a lot more.

So if I were to be clueless about music theory I'd think "well it seems like a complex field with lots of differents points of view, people being passionate about it, and it seems like I'll need to learn it slowly, keeping it close to music practice".

Then, teacher or not, well, to each is own... I know that the things that brought me my teachers are not to be found in the street, being google or whatever, to me anyway. But people looking for info are not necessarily avoiding having classes, it's maybe just not the right moment for them to go to classes (time, money, level of personal investment, etc.).

So to me: keep fighting please!

Have a good day!

[stringtapper]

As Gandhi would say "Be the change you want to see in the world"

Rather then fight someone in their own house build your house based on your foundations. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And a valued reference is one worth returning to.

I think this misses the point. The fact is the house is already built on a strong foundation and that foundation is all of the musical scholarship and pedagogy that exists up to this point in the form of textbooks, treatises, and peer-reviewed journal articles. The references are there for those with the will to find them.

I have already been doing my part by continuing my own musical education, teaching others (university level), and engaging in my own music scholarship. IMO the "change" needs to happen within the culture so that people place more value on the study of music, not in merely creating more online tutorials.

You can complain about people being completely clueless, or you can do something about it, one solution isn't productive and the other very much is.

I'm not really complaining about people being clueless. We don't come from the womb knowing music theory. What I'm complaining about is the failure of our modern culture to place importance on the craft of music as something to be studied alongside all other subjects (as it was for centuries). When people look for shortcuts it can lead to holes and errors in their understanding of music fundamentals. If these people then go on to answer questions online or even make their own tutorials then you have a situation where holes and errors become compounded and risk becoming engrained and generational.

Also, on Wikipedia, usually who you end up fighting with and getting in page edit wars with isn't people with less expertise, but rather people who insist that THEIR TAKE on something is better than HIS TAKE on it or YOUR TAKE on it.

This was certainly NOT the case in the example from the SMT list I cited. The people on the list talking about the Wikipedia issue were professional music theorists, people who have put a considerable amount of time, effort, and probably money into the study of music, whereas the people who would edit the pages as if others were stepping on their "turf" were almost certainly not, evidenced by the fact that they (1) often included egregious errors in their editing and (2) would invariably remain anonymous when members of the music theory community would reach out to discuss such issues.

Once again, these sort of attitudes don't help to do anything other than stifle meaningful discussion and they certainly do more to hurt this discussion than people of varying expertise (or more often, people coming from different angles). Right here we have a runaway thread for absolutely no reason, despite several people's attempts to be useful and present interesting and meaningful information.

Well there's actually a perfectly justified and well-stated reason why this discussion has turned this way: the OP was not a real question but a call for someone to write a gratis dissertation on rhythm; there was very little effort given to prompt a discussion at all, thus I'm not sure what discussion you feel exists to be stifled in the first place. Personally I find this current one as meaningful a discussion as any, and I would hope that you do not wish to stifle it yourself.

[ras.s]

First of all, thank you for the thank yous, guys. No big deal really, but nice if someone finds my earlier posts useful. Some time ago I though about starting a similar thread, I would have named it something fancy though, like Genre Aesthetics - The KVR Grimoire, and would have queried about what makes genres tick.. But then again, I'm perfectly good at killing threads, even ones I start myself, so I didn't start one.

And it's true, the subject of the original post is quite large, and individual songs or genres could probably be best handled in individual threads. But I don't understand this notion that nothing can be said 'cause nothing was asked -- I see the first post as a proposition, not a question. Why should every discussion start with a question?



As for learning music from the Internet.. And here comes a long post so beware, I might even hit the imposed 1000 word limit here. Also I'm exaggerating/generalising/polarising a lot, so don't get offended with what I have to say. (I don't know the right word, kärjistää..)


What I know about music I've learned in the past 15 years. Only thing even remotely similar to receiving education was when I was a teenager and I joined this group that played (acoustic) mbalakh, with the drummers, the singers, the dancers, the whole galore. A great experience, but nothing to do with theory - it was practically a tradition passed down orally and through experience.

In that time, I was connected to the Internet and mined all the MIDI files I could find related to my interest (was and still is primarily roots reggae music), reverse-engineered them, and tried to understand what was happening. Youtube, blogs, forums didn't exist back then, so it was basically just me doing a lot of work with little understanding of all the nuances I should pay attention to. If such things would have existed then, I would have used them to their fullness.

Well, some time back then, I grew up and started finding people who were likeminded. I've had the blessing of getting to play with a lot of different kinds of musicians, only few one really teaching me anything specifically, but I did (and still do) my best being keen in observing.


So.. I have no formal education, but I know a bunch of things, through experience, through the Internet (reading, listening, viewing, reverse-engineering), through observance - and I know how to apply my learning in reality to achieve my goals. It wasn't an easy road - and I acknowledge I would have probably learned a whole lot more and a whole lot faster, if I would have had received education on the matter. But it most certainly doesn't take formal education (in schools, classes, academies, tutor-to-student) to make music or to understand the theory and the construction blocks behind it. It takes a passionate heart and an allowing environment -- time and experience. What was that saying, 'the only learned men are the self-taught'. It may sound smug, but it contains certain truth to it.


This whole pro-academia attitude is a load of bollocks really, nothing but egowankery for the elitist. I've seen it in real life musicians too, those who have "invested" in their education and getting all cocky about it because of the so called investment. Still they can't play a note of reggae with the real heartful feel - it seems as if an education can take the joy out of both hearing and playing music, making it lethally dangerous for the artist.




Actually, I'll go even a bit further, take another point of view and claim that computer music is the global folk music of today. Not the only folk music, but an essential one - one that actually includes just about every style of music one can imagine (rap is another global folk music, too). Picking up a tablet today and connecting it to the speakers is the modern equivalent of wailing with a kantele.

Folk music, you never learned it in fancy academy (well you do nowadays) - throughout the history of music, surely a ancient thing, the people's music has always been a thing that transmitted from one musician to the other, the interested one doing their best in observing those who are doing it already and asking questions if allowed to. And that's how learning from the Internet is. The Internet is a continuation in the way of orally passing down understanding of music, from musician to musician, and if you think it's bad for someone wanting to make music, well, let me tell you, think it over again.

Now someone might make the argument that a tutor-to-student situation is the same thing, but it's not. There's no authority, no extra baggage of self-righteousness. You can study all the theory in the world and memorize it by heart, but it doesn't make you a musician, it makes you a theorist. If you try something you picked up from someone, either succeed in reproducing it, make a mess of it or invent or learn something new - yea, you're a musician alright.

Also related to this claim, I really like the japanese expression for this computer music thing, they call it desktop music, if I understand correctly. It's a really to-the-point expression: it's made on the desktop, not just with the computer but very likely with it still -- and where do you have desktop computers? At home. You don't need a rehearsal room, high end studio, fancy academic titles to do it.



And for those working in the field of education and feeling somehow wounded by what the Internet is today to music education... Try and do something about modernising the methods. Seriously. Notation and roman numbers feel incomprehensible to the uninitiated. Surely they are tested and true, but they have very little to offer to someone who launches clips from a grid of pads, or to someone who also has to deal with learning all that is making music today.




TL;DR: Internet communications today = each one teach one = a seriously considerable way to go. And no, I'm not playing down the idea of learning under guidance.

[Fox Crazy]

...Aaaand I went to type this huge reply out and Ras.s basically beat me to saying pretty much what I was going to say, but even more thoroughly. This guy is sharp as a drawer full of knives.

[stringtapper]

This whole pro-academia attitude is a load of bollocks really, nothing but egowankery for the elitist. I've seen it in real life musicians too, those who have "invested" in their education and getting all cocky about it because of the so called investment. Still they can't play a note of reggae with the real heartful feel - it seems as if an education can take the joy out of both hearing and playing music, making it lethally dangerous for the artist.

I encounter this emotion driven kind of response to this quite frequently. There's no need to use inflammatory language about the subject. It comes off as bit self-conscious actually.

Here's my perspective: as someone who has both studied formally and concurrently engaged in a strand of self-study, practice, and listening in parallel with that formal study I say neither way is "bollocks".

What this often comes down to is the difference between pop or "folk" music and what some call "high art" music. One is mostly done by ear while the other is done by both ear and mind if it's done well. That's an important point: I get the impression that people who have not studied formally believe that university music study is someone sitting with a book memorizing things. Not in my experience. Any good music teacher is going to have the student connect the theoretical aspects of music with the practical and aural aspects. That's just good pedagogy.

So your example was reggae. That tells me we're dealing with that same divide between "pop" and "art" music. I'll give you an example of how both rote listening and intensive formal study can benefit.

Outside of my teaching my two main gigs are on bass and voice. The bass gig is mostly pop music. And by "pop" I don't mean "Top 40" but rather anything that isn't in the western classical tradition or the avant-garde. I will pretty much play in any style if the money's right but I lean towards funk/R&B/soul and progressive rock if it's my own project. Recently I had a string of… yep, reggae band gigs! Made music, had fun, got paid. In that order. And I learned all the tunes by listening to the recordings. I've also been listening to different reggae musicians through most of my life and so you are correct that there is absolutely value in engraining such a sound within one's ear in order to pull off the style.

My voice gig is signing tenor at a church. It consists almost entirely of coming in and singing anthems with little to no rehearsal. If I could not sight read as well as I can I would not have this gig. My formal training is what enabled me to condition my ears, eyes, and brain to pull off such a gig.

Now the bass side was mostly cultivated through self-study (trombone is my main instrument of study). Learning the bass lines by ear off of a Jimmy Cliff record (for example) is the best way to learn the reggae bass style, IMO. That's because it's pop music, passed down through oral tradition, just like you spoke of in your post. But the voice side is all Palestrina and Duruflé (for example) and not the kind of music that is easy to learn by rote especially considering there is so much classical repertory. But I have trained to the level that I can read notation and hear what it sounds like in my head so I can essentially learn by "rote" from my own mind, on the spot. This kind of intense training is hard to do on one's own. I can't imagine trying to do ear training and sight singing all on the internet.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that classical music requires more rigorous study.

But that's just the thing: on the internet, if you say "music" people don't assume you mean "all music" but only what I call "pop music." Another cultural issue. I'm by no means saying I have the answers but I think it's an interesting and important discussion (as long as it remains respectful).

And for those working in the field of education and feeling somehow wounded by what the Internet is today to music education... Try and do something about modernising the methods. Seriously. Notation and roman numbers feel incomprehensible to the uninitiated. Surely they are tested and true, but they have very little to offer to someone who launches clips from a grid of pads, or to someone who also has to deal with learning all that is making music today.

It's an important issue you raise, especially the part about "all that is music making these days"; a subject I am actually touching upon in my dissertation regarding electroacoustic music theory. The thing is that someone launching clips in no way negates the study of harmony and melody if in fact the music they are making still uses those musical elements in some way. Roman numerals are an analytical tool; they're what you use to get to the understanding of how harmony works. And of course notation and RN will be "incomprehensible to the uninitiated", that's why they're the uninitiated. You have to start somewhere. If we all knew music fundamentals coming out of the womb there would be nothing to teach.

However, while your last part about "all that is music making these days" certainly is interesting to me and it touches on the problem of how technology has added to the process of becoming a competent musician, I think your point is dangerously close to making the excuse that one need not learn the basics when there is so much technical work to be done with DAWs and plugins and such. Just like the example of rote learning and ear training, I believe both are important and would like to see neither devalued.

[Tricky-Loops]

What this often comes down to is the difference between pop or "folk" music and what some call "high art" music. One is mostly done by ear while the other is done by both ear and mind if it's done well.

I don't see any difference between "pop" or "folk" music and "high art" music. Every kind of music is "pop" music, it's popular (even Mozart was popular), it's made for the folk. Classical music is made for the folk as well as rap music, and there is rap music with classical piano/string compositions...

While it's right that for classical music learning music theory is unavoidable, also rap music is made with ear AND mind, and making a GOOD rap is an art.

For example, I consider Eminem's lyrics "art" in its own right.

I can listen at one day to gangsta rap, and on the next day to classical music, I don't feel higher or lower...

[tanabarbier]

my dissertation regarding electroacoustic music theory

Where could we have a chance to read that? I am highly interested!

[stringtapper]

Give me a couple of years!

But seriously, I'm writing the proposal this summer.

I'm really stoked about the topic. I'm trying to figure out why music theorists seem so resistant to learning the technical concepts that go into making electroacoustic music. My belief is that technology scares them and they don't see signal processing and data manipulation as legitimate parts of "music theory" even though they are integral parts to making electronic music. It's polar opposite of the way so many electronic musicians (especially pop) seem to know the tech stuff inside out but don't know the classical theory.

The group of exceptions are the avant-garde composers in the academy. These guys are steeped in all of it.

[tanabarbier]

Are we speaking of the same electro-acoustic music? I feel that we are not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroacoustic_music

Because if we are, then I think that the problem is that there is really nothing like a theory for that music, at least to my knowledge.
It actually feels kind of contradictory, as (to me, again) it is a music based on a perception-action loop, with differed time, and it makes its own theory at each new piece (it should, anyway). Of course we allways encounter movements that are alike, etc, but I fear it never can be theorized, allthough the intent of doing so is a way to get into it in a more profound manner, and to learn it, like we do in analysis, but I fear the conclusion is the journey itself, if I explain myself clearly.

A funny thing I noticed in my studies of electroacoustic music, people coming from "classical" composition have a really hard time making electroacoustic music, and by that I mean that most of the people I know that came from there and were studying with me (or in others conservatories) where composing as if every speaker was an instrument, like if they could write a sheet music of their composition, and by doing so completely failed at writing in an electroacoustic way. They based their work on preconceived ideas more than on "écoute réduite" (don't know how to translate this one).

Anyway I am really interested in your future work!


Sorry for the off topic going offer topic.

[stringtapper]

Are we speaking of the same electro-acoustic music? I feel that we are not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroacoustic_music

We are.

Because if we are, then I think that the problem is that there is really nothing like a theory for that music, at least to my knowledge.
It actually feels kind of contradictory, as (to me, again) it is a music based on a perception-action loop, with differed time, and it makes its own theory at each new piece (it should, anyway). Of course we allways encounter movements that are alike, etc, but I fear it never can be theorized, allthough the intent of doing so is a way to get into it in a more profound manner, and to learn it, like we do in analysis, but I fear the conclusion is the journey itself, if I explain myself clearly.

From an analytical perspective you can break just about any kind of sound down into the elements of pitch/frequency, rhythm/duration, dynamics/amplitude, and timbre. In that sense most of the elements of classical music theory are still available as bases of both composition and analysis of electroacoustic music.

Timbre of course is the hardest to theorize and is the parameter that electroacoustic music has exploited more than any other before it. This is where I begin, but in investigating theories of timbral manipulation one has to engage in the techniques used to realize such works and that's where my interest lies, in discussing how the technical aspects of signal processing and data manipulation (generative, algorithmic, etc.) have become part of the "music theory" of electroacoustic music.

Anyway, I don't want to keep going too far off topic.

Just FYI, there are other theories of electroacoustic music, such as the concept of spectromorphology.

http://artesonoro.net/artesonoroglobal/ ... rticle.pdf

[tapper mike]

I find it amusing that people are coming out of the woodwork to engage in this thread. People whom... have made little to no valuable contributions to this forum otherwise. It seems this has become a "Defend the idealism" at all costs. You are part of the problem that you are blaming on others.


I'll tell you all a story. Not having to do with music or music theory.

A long time ago I became interested in this software product. The company was new and devoted so much time to development they barely had time to write help files let alone tutorials. I was a forum member here -http://board.flashkit.com/board/ and contributed as much as I could to the forums in regards to the product. I was less then pleased by the lack of tutorials information for that software product so I started writing tutorials in my free time. Which lead to more and more tutorials.

I was unhappy with the site. I built my own portal where I'd write tutorials and eventually opened a forum. The forum grew. I started to get paid work writing technical articles for cnet, wired, and a few others. The forums grew and I found some really great writers to fill the void so it wasn't all on my shoulders. Eventually a mega company offered money for my forums, which required that I step down from administrative duties.

The company for the software product that was at the center of all of this hired me. So I was getting paid to write help files, tutorials, doing screen casts and other projects.

I'm still at flashkit as a super-moderator. However I didn't let my dissatisfaction with how flashkit was run defeat me from providing useful content to the public at large. Before working for the software company my site grew in visitors and members making it a respected place to gather information.

And so I offer this. If you have worthwhile information that you feel may help someone then contributing value to this forum will allow you to gain credibility in this forum that you can extend offsite.

See this guy -
When he first started presenting youtube videos he was a GIT grad working as a security guard. Offering free lessons online lead to getting students both online and off. Even though I've already gleaned much of what he teaches and the rest of it I'm not interested I still enjoy watching his videos. And I think if someone really wanted to learn guitar after getting a few basics down I'd suggest Justin Sandercoe.

See this guy -
I don't play piano but if I wanted to learn. I'd find a local teacher to give me the basics on how to form chords and play scales then I'd buy everything Willy Myette has to offer. Why? because he's an accessible personality, not someone who walks around with a ruler ready to smack my hands if I do something incorrectly.

[Shabdahbriah]

RE: "my dissertation regarding electroacoustic music theory"

Give me a couple of years!

But seriously, I'm writing the proposal this summer.

I'm really stoked about the topic. I'm trying to figure out why music theorists seem so resistant to learning the technical concepts that go into making electroacoustic music. My belief is that technology scares them and they don't see signal processing and data manipulation as legitimate parts of "music theory" even though they are integral parts to making electronic music. It's polar opposite of the way so many electronic musicians (especially pop) seem to know the tech stuff inside out but don't know the classical theory.

The group of exceptions are the avant-garde composers in the academy. These guys are steeped in all of it.

Interesting thread, and I'm interested in your dissertation as well.

Regarding your "belief" (bolded), I've built a lot of machines for many traditional (acoustic) JAZZ, Blues, and some semi-tech-literate R&B 'artists' over the years and THEY are just as reluctant to "embrace" this medium, seemingly beyond 'just enough' to get by... omg!

And the poor guys (and gals) trying to adapt their "style" to MIDI "breath-controllers", on top of that?... whole 'nother story.

But, where there's a will.

[vurt]

the problem with a lot of theorists and musicians is they dont allow for evolution of music. i noticed it through my own uni course, very resistant to new ideas.