This is useful but sometimes whats called 'Music Theory' is actually more like 'Music Notation' or 'Music Naming Conventions' and thats what most of this site is. IMHO for historical reasons the western naming conventions we've come up with for the 12 semitones (A, A#/B♭, B, C, C#/D♭, D, D#/E♭, E, F, F#/G♭, G, G#/A♭) actually obscure the underlying relationships between the notes rather then elucidating them. The same conventions get carried across to sheet music, where the overriding concern historically seemed to be saving ink rather than clarity.
The real 'theory' boils down to why the pattern of the major and minor scales is the pattern that it is (which is the same question as 'why are the black/white keys on the piano arranged that way?'). And the related question of why are there 12 of them in the octave.
And that underlying theory is much better explained in this page that was posted to HN some years ago:
I agree regarding most 'music theory' in actuality being 'music notation', but disagree that 'real theory' is about the construction of major and minor scales and the relationship between notes.
I'd argue that one is only doing music theory if they're using the notation to analyze a piece of music.
E.g. taking apart a Bach Fugue to understand - or hypothesize - about a larger structure, uncover motivic developments, etc. Or analyzing a Bird solo to get at how he's interpreting the chord changes, how certain changes work together to form larger structures, where/how he's using enclosures, where and whether or not he's quoting other players, etc.
Music theory is the theory behind music the same way grammar is the theory behind sentence construction in natural languages. It is descriptive - it is not necessarily searching from some universal "laws of nature" and nor is it axiomatic like math. It is just studying and describing the structure of music. Some parts of theory seem to be universal, some are genre specific.
Music notation is used for communication among musicians and is optimized for clarity in expressing real-world music. Real world music is based around scales (except for 12-tone music which is a really obscure niche), so notation is based around scales. (Although different genres may use different notations, like chord notation instead of notes.)
The underlying relationships of wavelength ratios is interesting part of theory but you don't really need to know about that to play music. But you do need to know about notes and scales, so this is what the notation is based on.
Were you implying that a different kind of everyday notation exists that could be a significant improvement on the traditional system? I understand that various alternative notations can give a clearer presentation of single aspects of music, and I know of some in use for specific instruments and genres/styles, but overall, as a general purpose encoding, standard notation seems to be a well-optimized compromise arrived at by real working musicians over the centuries. Notation has to convey a lot of musical information beyond pitch specifications and relationships. Speaking as someone with good sight reading ability at the piano, and who's heard better pianists sight-reducing orchestral scores even, sheet music doesn't lack clarity, and saving just the right amount of ink also means having a readable format.
Realistically all music theory is a joke - an incredibly useful joke if you want to make music, but it's not a theory in any sense of the word: all music theory is, is a group of notations and conventions for characterising sound and how to get a certain sound.
You could regard the period and origin of a given theory as a set of axioms, e.g. African classical music has almost nothing to do with Bach, but you'd be missing the point.
20th century and Levine's books are a good introduction to applying music theory to do bizarre and twisted things when improvising.
While it can be a good idea to supplement with material like the links you provided, at the end of the day you have to understand and internalize the canonical approach to music 'theory'. Why? Because the main point of it all is that you can communicate with other musicians and it doesn't do you any good if you create your own secret language that no one else understands.
When you get into how music editing works these two things are actually very much related. I’ve built a multi platform Flutter app that basically uses the “music theory” concepts of keys and chords to automate solving the “what note names should we pick for these notes (ie, Db or C#): https://beatscratch.io
I'd like to highlight Adam Neely's video on the subject [1] (also pointed out by user guerilla), where he argues quite convincingly that 'music theory' is not the theory behind music but theory behind the particular subset of Western music.
That doesn't make it any less useful for creating this type of music, but it's in no way a universal theory, or arguably, a theory at all. More a collection of rules and conventions used in Western music.
I've got a degree in classical performance (and deeply love and respect that tradition), but more often collaborate musically with people who don't come from that background. Most will say with a little embarrassment that they wish they knew more "music theory". It's difficult to communicate to, say, and indie songwriter how I think theory might help them (to communicate, or analyze their own or others' music), and ways it's probably totally irrelevant (depending on genre, functional harmony is really not very useful).
And that's still just western music traditions. Study Indonesian music and you can see how many ideas about music are encoded even into the notation of western art music.
If there were aliens physiologically equal to us, I'd bet they'd come to a similar set of conventions and it (their copy of our western tradition) would be the most popular musical tradition in their planet: 12 intervals separated by the equivalent frequency distances, etc. They'd probably have different (saner) names for the notes, but it would be the same kind of music.
This is the least useful way to explain music theory IMO: listing a set of rules and conventions that are used in music theory. If you know nothing about music, you won't be able to make music after learning all of this.
It does not actually EXPLAIN anything. Where do these rules come from, and how to use them? Why are there white and black keys? Why does some notes have several names? What are modes for and how to use them?
When I started learning music a few years ago, stumbling upon this kind of content made me so frustrated it inspired me to start https://www.mamie-note.fr, a website to actually explain music theory.
It's in french but I'm considering releasing an english translation. Shoot me a message if you'r curious or interested.
I think it's worthwhile perhaps asking some random musicians what they think music "theory" consists of. They will probably be the first to agree that it's not the same as "theory" in the sciences or "theory" in the humanities.
I'm a jazz musician, and have learned very little theory myself beyond basic notation, scales, and chords. I can hold my own on the bandstand.
But without exception, the musicians who are capable of composing and arranging new material of any quality have all studied theory. I think it expands your creative vocabulary in ways that I can't really explain.
In my opinion, it expands your creative vocabulary via analysis and synthesis.
If you can analyze a riff or a progression, take it apart and identify its melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, and tonal components, then you can use the combos you like to synthesis new stuff later with improv and audia-tion. Theory just gives you a catalog and process for naming things.
I think many musicians learn a lot of this implicitly through their ears, never learning the names and patterns. It works, but its probably slower.
They really could have done with having someone with no knowledge read it and ask questions.
Nowhere does it explain what a flat or a sharp note is, for instance.
I've been teaching myself classical piano from scratch (with a very good human teacher and weekly lessons) throughout the pandemic and this book has been a huge help for supplemental information and just getting me in the habit of marking up staff paper.
It makes sense in the context of tonal harmony. An octave is the interval between the 1st and 8th notes of a major or minor scale. I.e. a major or minor scale repeats itself (at double the frequency) every eight notes. A major third is the interval between the first and third notes of a major scale, and so on.
Put your right hand fingers on a piano, on C-D-E-F-G, thumb on C. Now your 2nd finger is on the 2nd, 3rd is on the 3rd, 4th is on the 4th, 5th is on the 5th. I wouldn't say that makes "no sense" exactly.
[+] [-] codeulike|5 years ago|reply
The real 'theory' boils down to why the pattern of the major and minor scales is the pattern that it is (which is the same question as 'why are the black/white keys on the piano arranged that way?'). And the related question of why are there 12 of them in the octave.
And that underlying theory is much better explained in this page that was posted to HN some years ago:
'How Music Works'
https://www.lightnote.co/
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12792063 (2016)
Also see 'Music Theory for Nerds' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12528144 (2016)
[+] [-] maroonblazer|5 years ago|reply
I'd argue that one is only doing music theory if they're using the notation to analyze a piece of music.
E.g. taking apart a Bach Fugue to understand - or hypothesize - about a larger structure, uncover motivic developments, etc. Or analyzing a Bird solo to get at how he's interpreting the chord changes, how certain changes work together to form larger structures, where/how he's using enclosures, where and whether or not he's quoting other players, etc.
[+] [-] goto11|5 years ago|reply
Music notation is used for communication among musicians and is optimized for clarity in expressing real-world music. Real world music is based around scales (except for 12-tone music which is a really obscure niche), so notation is based around scales. (Although different genres may use different notations, like chord notation instead of notes.)
The underlying relationships of wavelength ratios is interesting part of theory but you don't really need to know about that to play music. But you do need to know about notes and scales, so this is what the notation is based on.
[+] [-] contingo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhh__|5 years ago|reply
You could regard the period and origin of a given theory as a set of axioms, e.g. African classical music has almost nothing to do with Bach, but you'd be missing the point.
20th century and Levine's books are a good introduction to applying music theory to do bizarre and twisted things when improvising.
[+] [-] kmmlng|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 86J8oyZv|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Pyramus|5 years ago|reply
That doesn't make it any less useful for creating this type of music, but it's in no way a universal theory, or arguably, a theory at all. More a collection of rules and conventions used in Western music.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr3quGh7pJA
[+] [-] jberryman|5 years ago|reply
I've got a degree in classical performance (and deeply love and respect that tradition), but more often collaborate musically with people who don't come from that background. Most will say with a little embarrassment that they wish they knew more "music theory". It's difficult to communicate to, say, and indie songwriter how I think theory might help them (to communicate, or analyze their own or others' music), and ways it's probably totally irrelevant (depending on genre, functional harmony is really not very useful).
And that's still just western music traditions. Study Indonesian music and you can see how many ideas about music are encoded even into the notation of western art music.
[+] [-] young_unixer|5 years ago|reply
If there were aliens physiologically equal to us, I'd bet they'd come to a similar set of conventions and it (their copy of our western tradition) would be the most popular musical tradition in their planet: 12 intervals separated by the equivalent frequency distances, etc. They'd probably have different (saner) names for the notes, but it would be the same kind of music.
[+] [-] powersnail|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thibaultj|5 years ago|reply
It does not actually EXPLAIN anything. Where do these rules come from, and how to use them? Why are there white and black keys? Why does some notes have several names? What are modes for and how to use them?
When I started learning music a few years ago, stumbling upon this kind of content made me so frustrated it inspired me to start https://www.mamie-note.fr, a website to actually explain music theory.
It's in french but I'm considering releasing an english translation. Shoot me a message if you'r curious or interested.
[+] [-] analog31|5 years ago|reply
I'm a jazz musician, and have learned very little theory myself beyond basic notation, scales, and chords. I can hold my own on the bandstand.
But without exception, the musicians who are capable of composing and arranging new material of any quality have all studied theory. I think it expands your creative vocabulary in ways that I can't really explain.
[+] [-] meowkit|5 years ago|reply
If you can analyze a riff or a progression, take it apart and identify its melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, and tonal components, then you can use the combos you like to synthesis new stuff later with improv and audia-tion. Theory just gives you a catalog and process for naming things.
I think many musicians learn a lot of this implicitly through their ears, never learning the names and patterns. It works, but its probably slower.
[+] [-] AndrewDucker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daviddaviddavid|5 years ago|reply
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0882842250
I've been teaching myself classical piano from scratch (with a very good human teacher and weekly lessons) throughout the pandemic and this book has been a huge help for supplemental information and just getting me in the habit of marking up staff paper.
[+] [-] chobobro|5 years ago|reply
Here's a very useful collection of infographics on music theory.
[+] [-] jb1991|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aardwolf|5 years ago|reply
"octave" sounds like 8, however it doubles frequency (x2) and is divided in 12 semitones.
"major third" sounds like 3, but involves 4 semitones and a ratio of 5:4
etc...
[+] [-] contingo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yesenadam|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] irscott|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gravityloss|5 years ago|reply