|
Hawkperson posted:Yeah. I have no doubt the not-free chapters are excellent, it just leaves a weird taste in my mouth when someone is super into science explaining everything but not showing a very good understanding of science. I’d voraciously read a book called “Our Best Understanding of How Music Really Works” but I suppose that’s not quite so engaging of a title. Chapter 1 goes into the evolutionary psychology of music, and as I was reading it critically (like I promised), I didn't see any citations. So I breezed thru like "sure whatever you say, Jared Diamond". I agree that the claims should be "this is how it is thought to work according to so-and-so" instead of just "this is how it works". I guess that wouldn't serve the colloquial writing style as well. But I was wrong: it turns out there are lots and lots of citations and references at the end of the book, which are also available for free. https://www.howmusicreallyworks.com/Pages_Notes_References_Index_TOC/Notes01.htm https://www.howmusicreallyworks.com/Pages_Notes_References_Index_TOC/References01.htm Can you help me find some references that dispute some of these claims? The latest reference is from 2005, and I have no doubt that our understanding has changed since then, but I don't have the background in music history and ethnomusicology to really evaluate this stuff on my own.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Hm, those are not written super usefully, understandable though since it's an older book. Modern citation standards typically include links so it's a little faster. Going through all the references even in the first chapter would take hours, but here's an example of a paper from 2006 that suggests that music perception in humans is less a specific evolutionary adaptation and more of a side effect of other evolutionary adaptations like hearing and language: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027705002222 The introduction/lit review within also does a nice job reviewing the various ways scholars propose categorizing music evolutionarily, including the How Music Really Works guy's perspective. In any case, "grain of salt" doesn't mean "this guy's claims are bogus," it just means it's not proven. That's what I mean about the author not having a good handle on how scientific research works. None of this is certain and for all I know the paper I linked has been thoroughly ripped to shreds in a later peer-reviewed article tackling the question from another perspective/data point/etc. That's why I don't like the idea of a book saying "this is how music developed and how humans experience it, and that's it, that's the facts," because it's not. It's a framework he's constructed from which he can draw some creative, interesting, and useful conclusions. And I don't mean that in an insulting or demeaning way at all. That's how math works too, and basically everything else we study. It's good that he's constructed a framework that communicates useful information. The part I don't like is where it's like "this is THE musical framework that humans operate on" which I don't think any of the articles he cited will support. edit: Most of the articles and book chapters I had to read for my psychology of music course basically amounted to "wow we really do not know anything about the brain, do we" lol. I was especially mad about the chapter on timbre, because I was very curious to know how we perceive and process timbre anyway and then it turned out the chapter author was like "bro me too, we have close to no loving idea"
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
I hadn't really heard of him, but I saw a few Beato videos and impulse bought his book bundle. I've already asked for a refund, it's outrageously in-depth by like, page 4. That's the first page with text on it! It instantly ramps into him peeling out through various music concepts like modal interchange by page 13. Stuff like augmented/diminished chords get about one line a piece, with no context for what that means or how it sounds. I'm not down for 500+ pages of this mess. I'd expected it to be complicated, but I don't think it's reasonable for a music theory book - for learners - to smash straight to stuff like Enharmonic Intervals on page 6. As far as I can tell, he just wrote all his notes up and some videos for various parts. It's not really interactive, it's just got media players in it. I didn't look at the guitar course or the ear training thing. Strong, serious recommend do not purchase the Beato Book. I like the idea of the videos + examples, but the implementation is terrible despite Rick being a pretty cool seeming dude. Fielding recommendations for alternatives that ramp up a bit slower and don't assume as much background knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 05:43
|
|
|
beato is an awful educator, and it stinks that yt has made him like synonymous with music theory for a lot of people. i had a roommate with a 1st edition beato book, the handwritten one. seemed like beato made it at his local kinko's, misaligned bad photocopies. well why not posted:Fielding recommendations for alternatives that ramp up a bit slower and don't assume as much background knowledge. berklee harmony book
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 14:09
|
|
|
yeah, his book sounds a lot more like advancing guitarist - "here's a lot of materials, it's up to you to practice them how you want." not great for a beginner, at all!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
Just for the record, that one theory book someone recommended last page called "How Music Really Works" or something like that seemed pretty legit. I've only poked my nose into it 2 times so far, and while it's absolutely huge, it's not confusing at all. But I also haven't really gotten into any of the complicated stuff yet fwiw. The ebook version was reasonably cheap too iirc. I actually have a bit of a chip on my shoulder because imo, most of the time people are absolutely terrible at explaining theory(they almost always assume you already know the context you need to know) and this book hasn't made me mad at all yet which is a good sign. e, here it is https://www.howmusicreallyworks.com/ Drunk Driver Dad fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Oct 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
creamcorn posted:beato is an awful educator, and it stinks that yt has made him like synonymous with music theory for a lot of people. this the one? https://www.amazon.com/Berklee-Book-Jazz-Harmony/dp/0876391420
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
yep!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
getting back on the ear training wagon. it definitely works if you just practice like 15 minutes a day. hearing the intervals is becoming more like color recognition, almost instant, instead of having to hum it and really hear the reference song. a reminder to keep at it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
a.p. dent posted:getting back on the ear training wagon. it definitely works if you just practice like 15 minutes a day. hearing the intervals is becoming more like color recognition, almost instant, instead of having to hum it and really hear the reference song. a reminder to keep at it! Any app you like in particular? Mine has certainly never gotten that fast but I may try again
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
Chromatics posted:Any app you like in particular? Mine has certainly never gotten that fast but I may try again im using the beato app cause i paid for it, i wouldn’t do that though. here are the good exercises: all intervals, melodic, ascending and descending - you pick the interval after hearing it all intervals, harmonic - same deal you work up to this by doing exercises with just a couple: P5/P4, M3/m3, M6/m6, M2/m2, Tritone / M7 / m7, then combine them as you gain skill. it’s really really hard at first i have this app Earpeggio on my phone that seems flexible enough to do all this. only thing is that it starts off too easy like “which interval is bigger?” you probably need to start doing custom exercises right off the bat one tip that i neglected early on is treating ascending / descending separate. they have very different “feelings” and required different reference songs, for me anyway. like m3 asc = brahms lullaby, m3 desc = hey jude. mostly you gotta work at it until you find what works for you
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 12:37
|
|
|
Hawkperson posted:I think you mean Pythagorean tuning, not equal temperament, if you’re thinking of the one that has the nice mathematical ratios between intervals. Yes you are right I did mean Pythagorean tuning. However apparently I guess 12 tone equal temperament was invented by a Chinese person in china like a super long time ago so there’s that I guess. Got that from a book I started that maybe was recommended here? Called “Cool Math for Hot Music”. Just a few chapters in and it’s certainly more accessible than the two volumes of “Musimathics”. I think it’s a fun read. Drunk driver dad, glad you are enjoying that book. I think it stays pretty accessible and a fun and easy read (despite any valid theoretical framework misgivings mentioned). It got a little tough for me when he gets into his way of doing analysis. I don’t know if he invented that style of doing it or someone else did but that was my least favorite part and really just do Roman numerals on a staff transcription that I find or make, which after some practice actually started coming together pretty quick using a piano. He sort of points out benefits of his way but didn’t seem real attractive to me at the time and never tried it again. I’m not a Beato fan and agree while maybe he’s okayish instrumentalist and maybe a storied engineer or producer it’s not translating to his version of music pedagogy. Kinda like Pensado. Fine enough guy, I’m sure great at what he does in the studio but not a great teacher. I wouldn’t recommend anyone buy the beato stuff because it’s purpose is to make Rick money that isn’t coming in because of industry shifts or something else but it’s not for a deep love of teaching music and helping people learn. The good news is that it seems like new people are coming up with channels that are extremely good and do a much better job if you like YouTube as a learning platform. I feel like even from a year ago there are exponentially more music education channels. One is very good but I can’t find it right now. Very thin bald man maybe in his 30s or 40s, pianist, and has really put in a lot of work both in his YouTube content and some apps he’s developed that are pretty interesting and a fraction of the price that do a good job of walking you through basically all things chord sub, modal mixture, key changes, all that stuff in a graphical way that helped deepen the little bit I know. I’ll post it when I find it. But yeah, there’s no reason anymore to go to Beatos page unless you just like it. So much more content now so long as YouTube decides to let you see it (which imo right now is the biggest barrier to finding them)
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 07:05
|
|
|
Does it sometimes take several days(or more) before certain intervals click? The first part of my app had unisons, major and minor seconds. I could basically see/hear myself getting better in real time, and with a bit of concentration was able to get at least 90% on the questions within a day or so easy. The next one is major and minor 3rds and those give me absolute hell. I've taken a break for a few days because I got frustrated, but I don't think I was getting any better at it like I did with the 2nds. Maybe the 2nds one was only easy because Jaws is so ingrained into my brain. Does anyone have any good song references to think about for both 3rds? e: I usually start ascending, but I tried doing harmonic 3rds and I was able to reliable get 80%+ on that. So I guess I'll do that one for a couple of days and go back to melodic intervals. Drunk Driver Dad fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Oct 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 01:08
|
|
|
Ascending minor third is Brahm's lullaby ("lullaby, and good night..."). Descending major third is the repeated "follow" from one of my favorite old musical songs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3iEoZdImpY My descending minor third and ascending major are probably not as helpful lol (ascending major 3rd is just ingrained in me from practicing thirds exercises on the major scale for 20+ years, descending minor I just pull from singing a major triad since the space between the third and fifth is a minor third) Basic Poster posted:Got that from a book I started that maybe was recommended here? Called “Cool Math for Hot Music”. Just a few chapters in and it’s certainly more accessible than the two volumes of “Musimathics”. I think it’s a fun read. Speaking of neat math/music books I have one called "Math and Music: Harmonious Connections" that was a whole $8 on Amazon. I wouldn't call it a theory book or a math book, but I struggle to describe it. I guess it like points out the things you know about math and how they neatly dovetail with music and vice versa. I bought it because one of the chapters offers some interesting thoughts on developing a melodic idea in composition by playing with geometric shapes on a graph, and because it offers some neat cross-curricular content for my students seeing as most of the math in the book is roughly middle school-level. I definitely wouldn't recommend it as a beginner theory book. It very much assumes you can read Western classical notation fairly fluently. but if one is particularly comfortable with math and/or music then I think it could give you some cool lightbulb-type realizations about the other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 05:28
|
|
|
my interval references are asc maj 3: When the Saints Go Marching In desc maj 3: Summertime or Swing Low Sweet Chariot asc min 3: Brahms lullaby desc min 3: Hey Jude (by far the strongest of the four for me) this site can help you find references that work for you https://www.earmaster.com/products/free-tools/interval-song-chart-generator.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 11:51
|
|
|
Just took my Music Theory I midterm this morning... overall think I did okay, had to rush it a bit with identifying chords in relation to their keys (what is this chord in the key of x major/minor, etc) but honestly being able to write out the circle of fifths was insanely helpful in remembering which keys have what. Anyways! Hoping for the best. Identifying non-harmonic tones really freaked me out at first but they're... a lot easier than I initially thought? It was mostly me psyching mysellf out haha. barclayed fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Oct 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
barclayed posted:Just took my Music Theory I midterm this morning... overall think I did okay, had to rush it a bit with identifying chords in relation to their keys (what is this chord in the key of x major/minor, etc) but honestly being able to write out the circle of fifths was insanely helpful in remembering which keys have what. Anyways! Hoping for the best. its cool that the Circle of Fifths helped you out in school! and oops, i dont think i ever answered your first post... barclayed posted:hey y'all o7 i'm a sophomore in college taking my first proper music theory class. i've had experience in band since elementary but i've never been made to memorize scales and key signatures before (and it's confusing for me because i play clarinet, so i'm always having to transpose whatever i learn) and yeah. we're supposed to memorize the scale patterns for the twelve major and natural, harmonic, and melodic minor scales and i'm seriously struggling. do y'all have any tips that might help for studying? stuff like 'beadgcf to remember the flat order' and such. i played clarinet as my first instrument too, but picking up guitar has been huge for helping me understand music theory. piano would probably be even better! are you working on learning to play polyphonic instruments like these? And does anyone know why we transpose the notes on instruments like clarinets? If the idea is to "make it easier," let me tell you first-hand, I think its counterproductive! And it's not like all the songs we played in band were in the same key, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 02:25
|
|
|
The reasons I have heard are 1) so that the fingerings you memorized on one size of the instrument match all other sizes (so you could learn Bb clarinet and then pick up an Eb clarinet with little trouble) and 2) so that the most common pitches you have to read stay roughly within the staff with a minimum of leger lines. For something like bass clarinet it’s also nice not to have to learn bass clef I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
Helianthus Annuus posted:And does anyone know why we transpose the notes on instruments like clarinets? If the idea is to "make it easier," let me tell you first-hand, I think its counterproductive! And it's not like all the songs we played in band were in the same key, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
*thinking really hard* its so that hal leonard can sell more versions of the real book
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
In school I heard a reference to different concert pitches (415 vs 432 vs 440, for example) and ease of playing woodwinds as the reasons. Woodwinds makes sense to me from a pedagogical perspective (especially before instruments were as categorized), the "Cmaj" scale (Bb/Eb) is basically the same on saxophone, recorder (confusingly, these are pitched in concert C, right?), and I think clarinet. Wiki says that brass instruments are pitched at the fundamental from which overtones that make up its sounds are derived (often Bb). Which sure? (blind spot for me) There's also something about transposing for an orchestra from band and ensemble instruments, which I sort of but don't quite get (my dad has become a chamber music head as he ages and at one point half explained why it's not to concert c but I forgot lol - maybe something about just intonation w/ a string quartet?). I guess this comes up in Bach a lot and he's still pretty hot poo poo in the composer world, and thats as good a reason as any. I sort of remember reading something about 'well-tempered' as in the clavier not meaning equal temperament... I guess my question is how we ended up with so many standards we needed to reconcile? This is probably historic as much as anything. Also this has always bothered me - why isn't C A? Like why is the default scale that you learn first the C scale? And/or why isn't the major scale with no accidentals the A scale, and everything modified from that? I feel like it's probably a related answer
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
Hawkperson posted:The reasons I have heard are 1) so that the fingerings you memorized on one size of the instrument match all other sizes (so you could learn Bb clarinet and then pick up an Eb clarinet with little trouble) and 2) so that the most common pitches you have to read stay roughly within the staff with a minimum of leger lines. For something like bass clarinet it’s also nice not to have to learn bass clef I suppose. for getting the clarinet music to fit in the staff, could it have worked to just use a different clef? just seems so inelegant to do mental math to figure out what note i'm really playing! DOPE FIEND KILLA G posted:*thinking really hard* its so that hal leonard can sell more versions of the real book lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2022 04:53
|
|
|
JamesKPolk posted:In school I heard a reference to different concert pitches (415 vs 432 vs 440, for example) and ease of playing woodwinds as the reasons. Woodwinds makes sense to me from a pedagogical perspective (especially before instruments were as categorized), the "Cmaj" scale (Bb/Eb) is basically the same on saxophone, recorder (confusingly, these are pitched in concert C, right?), and I think clarinet. I read somewhere that early church music was usually in a minor key. So in the earliest days of written music, the "default key" was thought to be A minor, which is why it doesn't have any sharps or flats. It happens to be a mode of C major, so that's why C is the "default key" for playing in major. I hope someone with more of a background in music history can back me up on this one, I couldn't find a good citation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2022 04:57
|
|
|
Helianthus Annuus posted:I read somewhere that early church music was usually in a minor key. So in the earliest days of written music, the "default key" was thought to be A minor, which is why it doesn't have any sharps or flats. It happens to be a mode of C major, so that's why C is the "default key" for playing in major. ....maybe. i stopped reading that quora post like a couple paragraph in
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2022 05:38
|
|
|
guess its called the Guidonian Hand and was a mnemonic device for sight-singing in the 12th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidonian_hand
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2022 05:39
|
|
|
Helianthus Annuus posted:for getting the clarinet music to fit in the staff, could it have worked to just use a different clef? it's interesting you say that, because alto clef is roughly that and I find it aggravating to read because the spaces and lines are flipped and it throws me off real bad. I've never really understood why clarinet and the other Bb transpositions exist honestly. the range/staff issue makes sense with something like Eb instruments or the octave displacement issue with piccolos, tenor voices, etc. But is moving a whole step up really helping someone read? I doubt it. I genuinely think the main reason we stick with it nowadays is grumpy old "back in my day we ate poo poo and we LIKED IT" bullshit. Not that I want to relearn my written music fluency either lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2022 06:03
|
|
|
Back in the mid-early internet days there was a website advocating for the revolutionization of Western standard notation by getting rid of transpositions, sharps and flats, etc. Had lots of pictures of modified staves and explanations of how theory would be a lot more understandable and clean without all the extra markings. I wish I could find it again because it was both well-reasoned and never, ever going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2022 06:07
|
|
|
I'm gonna triple-post one more weird nerd thing and then go to bed/leave the thread alone. In a couple of European countries, they don't use letters at all for pitches, instead using fixed do. I learned this when a kiddo who played saxophone moved to my middle school from France and was deeply confused at all the alphabet letters going on. Also in Germany there's an H for some reason (our B, their B is our Bb) and as a culture we Americans are missing out on an awful lot of musical in-jokes where Bach wrote his name into his fugues
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2022 06:14
|
|
|
Hawkperson posted:I'm gonna triple-post one more weird nerd thing and then go to bed/leave the thread alone. In a couple of European countries, they don't use letters at all for pitches, instead using fixed do. I learned this when a kiddo who played saxophone moved to my middle school from France and was deeply confused at all the alphabet letters going on. Also in Germany there's an H for some reason (our B, their B is our Bb) and as a culture we Americans are missing out on an awful lot of musical in-jokes where Bach wrote his name into his fugues Hah my old mans a huge Bach fan hes def gonna get a kick outta this
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2022 06:37
|
|
|
Hawkperson posted:The reasons I have heard are 1) so that the fingerings you memorized on one size of the instrument match all other sizes (so you could learn Bb clarinet and then pick up an Eb clarinet with little trouble) This is what I've heard as well. Hawkperson posted:Back in the mid-early internet days there was a website advocating for the revolutionization of Western standard notation by getting rid of transpositions, sharps and flats, etc. Had lots of pictures of modified staves and explanations of how theory would be a lot more understandable and clean without all the extra markings. I wish I could find it again because it was both well-reasoned and never, ever going to happen. Was it this one? https://clairnote.org My impression is it's from someone new to music who doesn't really understand what keys are for. Accidentals aren't just a clumsy way to communicate specific notes to be played, they convey useful information like you're leaving the key and may want to emphasize that passage or set up a secondary dominant or something. Extremely useful information for sight reading and improvising. That kind of info is way more important than the physical distance between note heads on the page. That's what the staff lines are there for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2022 13:36
|
|
|
Yes, that was it!! Ah, memories
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
So I'm watching random music theory videos and all that and I have a random question that I'm not sure how to articulate. When people describe things just like chords and chord progressions and stuff, they talk and refer to parts of the song or progression as if they've basically memorized what notes are in every chord, what notes are in every scale, what chords are in every scale, etc etc. Maybe not literally every scale or whatever, but I'm sure you get my point. Do people do that? How? It seems like it would be a lot of work and I feel like you could gently caress it up and waste a lot of time going about it wrong way. e: Like is most of this rote memorization or do people use mental tricks to help, like memorizing their instrument and imagining scale patterns over the top to get the notes? Drunk Driver Dad fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Oct 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
Drunk Driver Dad posted:So I'm watching random music theory videos and all that and I have a random question that I'm not sure how to articulate. When people describe things just like chords and chord progressions and stuff, they talk and refer to parts of the song or progression as if they've basically memorized what notes are in every chord, what notes are in every scale, what chords are in every scale, etc etc. Maybe not literally every scale or whatever, but I'm sure you get my point. Do people do that? How? It seems like it would be a lot of work and I feel like you could gently caress it up and waste a lot of time going about it wrong way. yep, they memorize. though there is a framework underneath called diatonic harmony that makes it easier to memorize when you think of things in scale degrees relative to the tonic or root note. it also depends on what instrument you play how much memorization is required. you can play scales and chord progressions in any key on guitar without knowing the names of the notes, on piano that is much more difficult
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 04:55
|
|
|
I feel too stupid for this tbh. Should I just memorize the fretboard notes first? Is that always the wise first thing to do? Also what about if I play in a lot of different tunings? Should I just think about things as if they are in standard tuning and just know it's really X amount of steps away if I'm on a non standard guitar?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 15:15
|
|
|
Drunk Driver Dad posted:I feel too stupid for this tbh. Should I just memorize the fretboard notes first? Is that always the wise first thing to do? Also what about if I play in a lot of different tunings? Should I just think about things as if they are in standard tuning and just know it's really X amount of steps away if I'm on a non standard guitar? fretboard seems daunting at first but for standard tuning start with this: fret 5, fret 12, fret 17 (4 and 16 on g string). you should know these ones instantly as long as you know your open strings. then you can start to infer where the rest of the notes are from those. same principle works for alternate tunings, assuming you're just up or downtuning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
Drunk Driver Dad posted:I feel too stupid for this tbh. Should I just memorize the fretboard notes first? Is that always the wise first thing to do? Also what about if I play in a lot of different tunings? Should I just think about things as if they are in standard tuning and just know it's really X amount of steps away if I'm on a non standard guitar? This is practical advice if you're learning, not good theory advice. But my band and I play in C standard, and we just call out songs/chords as if we were playing in E. For example, if I say "okay next chord is an E" and I play a 12th fret power chord, I'm actually playing a C power chord but we just call it E because we're all used to standard tuning/progressions. This is a metal band though I imagine it'd be much harder with rock/other genres.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
Drunk Driver Dad posted:So I'm watching random music theory videos and all that and I have a random question that I'm not sure how to articulate. When people describe things just like chords and chord progressions and stuff, they talk and refer to parts of the song or progression as if they've basically memorized what notes are in every chord, what notes are in every scale, what chords are in every scale, etc etc. Maybe not literally every scale or whatever, but I'm sure you get my point. Do people do that? How? It seems like it would be a lot of work and I feel like you could gently caress it up and waste a lot of time going about it wrong way. scale / key knowledge builds on itself over time. it's really daunting at first because it all seems so arbitrary. once the circle of 5ths starts to click and you understand scale structure, you see patterns and things fit into place. one thing you will likely need to memorize is the order of sharps and flats in key signatures. since each key is just adding one more, if you know the structure, you can build on what you've already learned. i don't know off the top of my head which flats are in Ab, for example - i just know that it has 4 flats, and that the order goes Bb, Eb, Ab, Db, so by the time i start to think of it i've got it. and, learning the order of sharps and flats actually teaches you the circle of 5ths implicitly. the order of sharps: F# C# G# D# A# E# - each one is a 5th above the previous. flats go by 4ths: Bb Eb Ab Db Gb Cb. the more you know, the less arbitrary it seems. re: what notes are in every chord. eventually if you study triads a lot you'll memorize stacked 3rds from each letter. this is good to do even without the accidentals... it's just drilled into my head now. CEG DFA EGB FAC GBD ACE BDF again, if you know your 5ths, you're already halfway there... Drunk Driver Dad posted:e: Like is most of this rote memorization or do people use mental tricks to help, like memorizing their instrument and imagining scale patterns over the top to get the notes? imo, guitar is an awful instrument for learning music theory. i've spent years trying to undo the habit of picturing a scale pattern on guitar because it's not helpful. the patterns don't map meaningfully to a lot of theory concepts as i typed this out it does seem like a lot to memorize! it's taken me years to get to this point. but, that is how people do it
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
I wonder if I could pay a music theory person to write me out a sort of syllabus of where to start and what direction to take. I work like 60-70 hours a week on top of having mental health issues which in turn makes me get frustrated very easily so I'm more than happy to pay some money to someone make learning a bit easier, IIRC there's a thread for that here somewhere. Should probably find a therapist to pay as well. Like what you just said mostly makes sense, but I'm still a bit confused. I see your order of sharps and flats but I'm not sure what I would do with them once I memorize that, as well as not understanding what you did in your Ab example. As for my current knowledge, I know the basics of how a lot of it works, for instance I play a lot of metal and really like stuff like Phrygian and know the pattern to play it on guitar as well as understanding the scale degrees, but I still could never name the notes off the top of my head without slowly going through it, like doing a somewhat complicated math problem in my head. I know the basics of building chords from scales, but again it's the same thing. e: Here is an example of how this is frustrating, I googled the Flats and Sharps order and clicked on this https://musictheory.pugetsound.edu/...%20of%20sharps. edited, I think I might understand. The sharps/flats order is to tell you which notes in a key are sharp? so C major has no sharps, G major has an F sharp, D major has F and C sharped? and so on. Drunk Driver Dad fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Oct 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
Drunk Driver Dad posted:e: Here is an example of how this is frustrating, I googled the Flats and Sharps order and clicked on this yup! that's all it is. since each key adds 1 more sharp or flat, you don't actually need to memorize each individual key with all its accidentals - it's enough to know the order of sharps / flats and how many there are. e.g. i don't really have the notes of A major memorized "A B C# D E F# G#", but i know A major has 3 sharps and can count up the list: F# C# G#. (as i was writing this, i wrote that A major has 4 sharps, so clearly i'm not THAT good at this, even after all these years) there are little tricks that you learn as you practice, for example, in sharp keys, the last added sharp is the leading tone of the scale. (in flat keys, the last flat is the 4th). another one is that if you add up the sharps and flats for a given note, you always get 7. example: E major (4 sharps), Eb major (3 flats) = 7. there are lots of little patterns and relationships like this, which can help you remember stuff if you forget. victor wooten talks about some of them in this cool video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3vYVGMgZYY Drunk Driver Dad posted:As for my current knowledge, I know the basics of how a lot of it works, for instance I play a lot of metal and really like stuff like Phrygian and know the pattern to play it on guitar as well as understanding the scale degrees, but I still could never name the notes off the top of my head without slowly going through it, like doing a somewhat complicated math problem in my head. I know the basics of building chords from scales, but again it's the same thing. i don't think i'm qualified to give a comprehensive answer, but you're basically there with this! you could start playing VERY slowly, slow enough to name the notes as you play them. i learned the keys by practicing scale exercises (since i'm reading notation it's hard not to know what notes i'm playing, but you can do it out loud / mentally too). added bonus is you get technique practice as you learn them too
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Drunk Driver Dad posted:
Exactly For a plan to learn, have you considered taking lessons? Even taking like one lesson even two or three weeks would be a great way to have someone give you a plan of things to learn and check in on your progress. I think you'll want to do some combination of learning a few major fretboard landmarks as mentioned above, then focus on learning the C scale in open position and maybe further up the neck. Once you are comfortable with the C scale, you can try the G scale and F scale and expand from there. This is how most instructional books work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2022 18:05
|
|