Music Theory 101

[Kris Troutman]

You know, it's great to know what inversions are, root, 1st position, 2nd position, but you need to ear train (be able to identify) with them or their worth nothing.

Uhh, that's not true at all. A person can be deaf and still be able to compose great music (and we all know what famous composer became mostly deaf over time). Ear training is not relevant to composing; A person can be able to compose and comprehend what they wrote, without ever taking on ear training, or even listening to their own piece at all. There are many ways to learn how to comprehend music, Mark, and I think it's about time you realized this... Don't get in that thing were you tell us it's important to have ear training on inversions..

The only thing I can see the use of ear training having any relevance, is being able to recognize what you just heard in something somebody else made, or, using it to be able to copy what somebody else made. For composing alone, it is not relevant.


Stop while you are ahead, Mark, you just make yourself look silly when you try to shine the light on yourself. From what I've read in your various posts (not just in the music area), you seem to be trying to do this, and it's causing you not to see what you are really doing, which is making yourself look rather silly.

[Chief]

Actually, Kris, I think you've got it a little backwards. Beethoven wasn't always deaf, and by the time he lost his hearing, he had such a knowledge of theory, that he could hear the pieces inside his head. If he didn't have ear training, he wouldn't have been able to compose when deaf.

It's for the hearing people that ear training isn't mandatory, but it certainly helps.

[Kris Troutman]

Actually, Kris, I think you've got it a little backwards. Beethoven wasn't always deaf, and by the time he lost his hearing, he had such a knowledge of theory, that he could hear the pieces inside his head. If he didn't have ear training, he wouldn't have been able to compose when deaf.

It's for the hearing people that ear training isn't mandatory, but it certainly helps.

I said he lost his hearing over time (that is, if you read every word I said). I will stress this again though; you do not need ear training to compose. I can only see it helping for what you heard, not what you made. I'm tired of seeing people treat ear training as if it's important, that's all, because it isn't. Yes, by itself, it is a good practice, I won't argue that. You do not need ear training to know that something you made sounds completely ugly. Ear training has little benefit in composing alone. Just like, you can know what every chord's name is, every scale's name is, and all your inversions. You just basically learned how to refer to everything, that's all, you gain little use of actual composing. So anyone who treats it as if it's important, obviously is a little full of themselves, and this is why I had a thing against Mark and how he treated ear training. Again, don't get me wrong, they are good studies, but they are not in any way mandatory for being able to compose. A person can never study any of it, and still compose great music, though a practice all of their own.



I just don't like Mark's attitude on the matter

[SimonF]

Haha I guess this should be moved to the new, and more appropriate, Music Theory forum.

[Nirvana69]

I just want to say thank you for this, though I knew most of this stuff already this was still an enjoyable lesson. Maybe if I knew more music theory my songs wouldn't suck so bad lol.

[Pugly]

Music Theory is awesome. Especially now that I know how chord progressions should flow. I initially had trouble coming up with a strong melody, but now I can just create a cool little bass line based around some chord progressions rules and usually a melody will just pop out.

And voice leading is good too, since it can really help create a good melody.

As for ear training, I have taken ear training courses because you have to if you are in music theory at my university. But I am not good at it at all, I can hear chord quality decently, and here some intervals but music dictation is killing me.

Though with all my troubles, it does really help. If you think up a melody in your head and want to find the right notes for that melody, ear training just speeds up this process. You don't have to randomly guess what note it might be, especially if you know what kind of chords you are using.

[X]

I'm surprised that I didn't notice this thread before, but I probably accidentally glossed it over because I already got extremely heavy doses of this stuff from various teachers back when I was a kid. The sticky here looks great and is a good teacher/refresher for easily missed or forgotten topics (although I don't know how you could forget something like this, I suppose it is possible ).

Since it seems there is some confusion regarding composition, I should probably point out that musical theory isn't technically necessary for musical composition, it is at the very least extremely helpful. I say this because there are a number of composers both past and present who have an inbound ability to sense where chord changes are necessary to invoke dissonance and resolution at the proper times. History also bears examples of where ear training is rendered obsolete, but such examples are in and of themselves extremely rare (especially for those souls fortunate enough to be born with a "perfect ear"). So the final verdict is that while it is not always necessary, there are a vast majority of cases where ear training is indeed a great asset and music theory is always a plus.

All said, I am surprised that you didn't mention anything about the history of the augmented fourth, also known as the tritone (a reference to the three whole-steps between notes). I personally have always found stories of its associations to be nothing short of fascinating. In short, back in medievil Europe, it was known as the Devil's Interval and assocation with the tone was forbidden as it was thought to invoke demonic powers. Of course, such superstitions are now known to be invalid, but it still makes for an interesting story.

Anyway, keep up the good work! I suppose after the Lesson 5 cleanup, you'll probably be moving into chord progressions, eh? Well...maybe not immediately, but relatively soon. Chord progression will be a most important asset to anyone here interested either original composition or arranged video game music. Although some of it will be more obvious (the human ear is generally knowledgable of "funk notes" unless you're tone deaf), it would be an especially great asset to those considering original composition. Again, keep up the great work! (^_^)

[Psyrus]

Music Theory is awesome.

This couldn't have been said any better. Damn right.

All said, I am surprised that you didn't mention anything about the history of the augmented fourth, also known as the tritone (a reference to the three whole-steps between notes). I personally have always found stories of its associations to be nothing short of fascinating. In short, back in medievil Europe, it was known as the Devil's Interval and assocation with the tone was forbidden as it was thought to invoke demonic powers. Of course, such superstitions are now known to be invalid, but it still makes for an interesting story.

...also known as the diminished fifth. In addition to the "Devil's Interval/Chord" story, I've heard that it's been banned from being played on a pipe/church organ in many churches and cathedrals, and any violation would mean immediate prosecution. There is even a famous composition entirely devoted to the tritone, but I don't remember the title nor the composer. Well, that certainly helps.

As for chord progression, it's one of my favorite things about Music Theory even though I only had two quarters worth of it...so far. It's quite interesting that many famous (and simple) pieces follow the rule of the "circle of fifths." Autumn Leaves, by Roger Williams, which is a great example, pretty much contains all 7th chords following the pattern repeatedly. Another example--a little more on the simple side--would be that one piece in D major that is commonly played in weddings. But again, I forgot the title.

[X]

All said, I am surprised that you didn't mention anything about the history of the augmented fourth, also known as the tritone (a reference to the three whole-steps between notes). I personally have always found stories of its associations to be nothing short of fascinating. In short, back in medievil Europe, it was known as the Devil's Interval and assocation with the tone was forbidden as it was thought to invoke demonic powers. Of course, such superstitions are now known to be invalid, but it still makes for an interesting story.

...also known as the diminished fifth. In addition to the "Devil's Interval/Chord" story, I've heard that it's been banned from being played on a pipe/church organ in many churches and cathedrals, and any violation would mean immediate prosecution. There is even a famous composition entirely devoted to the tritone, but I don't remember the title nor the composer. Well, that certainly helps.

That story about pipe organs, churches, and cathedrals is true. The same holds true for certain religious choirs as well. As for famous compositions, all I can remember is that there are instance(s) of the interval in work(s) of Beethoven, Wagner, Black Sabbath, Jimi Hendrix, West Side Story, and even the Simpson's theme. Can't exactly remember what songs/pieces though.

[Sonic]

Lesson 5 was the one I was looking for. But I still don't get it. Can anyone help me? I'm using 16 semiquavers per bar and it's a bit confusing since semiquavers are fast. Time sig is 4/4 and the following chords are FM7 and CM9 (part from lost woods/saria's song).

[Alex the Undead Knight]

Music Theory is awesome.

This couldn't have been said any better. Damn right.

That it is.

It's quite interesting that many famous (and simple) pieces follow the rule of the "circle of fifths." Autumn Leaves, by Roger Williams, which is a great example, pretty much contains all 7th chords following the pattern repeatedly. Another example--a little more on the simple side--would be that one piece in D major that is commonly played in weddings. But again, I forgot the title.

And Fly me to the Moon by Frank Sinatra - Am/Dm/G/C/F/Bdim/E.

Do you mean just the Wedding March?

And the theory stuff at the start is very good. Perhaps some more advanced theory could be given, like all those odd scales like the symmetric scale and stuff.

[Psyrus]

It's quite interesting that many famous (and simple) pieces follow the rule of the "circle of fifths." Autumn Leaves, by Roger Williams, which is a great example, pretty much contains all 7th chords following the pattern repeatedly. Another example--a little more on the simple side--would be that one piece in D major that is commonly played in weddings. But again, I forgot the title.

And Fly me to the Moon by Frank Sinatra - Am/Dm/G/C/F/Bdim/E.

Do you mean just the Wedding March?

Misquote corrected.

No, the Wedding March doesn't follow the circle of 5ths. What I was talking about was Pachelbel's Canon which I found out just recently.

[Archetype XE]

Good overall lesson on Music Theory. I have taken 1 semester of it at the SRJC(community college) and intend to take all 4 and continue as a music major as soon as I get my life in order(financial/emotional/blah)

One thing I would like to point out though, is that music theory is all about the classical notation of music, not so much about the actual composition. Don't get me wrong, knowing music theory in and out is EXTREMELY helpful in composing, but if you want to compose, all you need is a keyboard, some kind of sequencer(hardware or software) and some MIDI cables. Even someone with no musical talent can pick and choose notes to make a melody. Ear training and music theory is a HUGE benefit though.

So while you can argue this way and that way, it ALL helps TREMENDOUSLY. Whether you want to consider it "mandatory" or not, it's still in your best interest to study anything music related in order to become the best composer you want to become.

[Magister ZZ]

Personally, I've also experience a somewhat negative aspect to music theory. I've found that since I've started taking music theory, my pieces have become somewhat more harmonically...bland. It's sort of caused me to become more judgemental about certain aspects (such as voice leading and harmonic rhythm) which before I had rarely fretted about. I guess the good thing is that overall my compositions have improved in terms of consistency and balance, but yet at the same time, have suffered in terms of dynamicness and unpredicibility. I suspect this is more due to my only having a partial knowledge (only completed through sophmore level of aural and written theory) rather than theory being competely repressive, but still, many times I still wish for the freeful naivete that was lost...

[X]

That's why despite the effectiveness of music theory, you still have to guage how you feel about the melody, harmony, etc. You should go with your gut but use your theory experience as a check against discrepancies in the long wrong (and even then there may be some margin of leniency depending on the melodic situation).

Besides, music theory isn't all scientific. Though a great deal of it is based on melodic truth, an equal amount of emphasis comes from the opinion that it simply "feels" right. Music theory is as scientific as the gut premise that inspires it.