|
On April 04 2013 06:27 wo1fwood wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 04:49 JieXian wrote:+ Show Spoiler +My worry/critique is that it might be too detailed that it would scare beginners, whom I assume is your main target audience, away with an article as concise (edit:complete and detailed) as this, depends on your intention though I also suggest putting up some examples or youtube links when you talk about this that are harder to grasp or imagine like the Georgian 2+2+3+2+2 rhythms to us hear some music :D I have one example of a 3+3+2+2+2 one :D + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFlBBGKyNjc
they're not pros like the other one but just look at that atmostphere! It's fucking hard because they syncopate the hell out of it but it's fucking goooooooooood so just listen and have fun :D It certainly walks a line so to speak. Hopefully I've been concise enough and not too obtuse that subsequent readings can reveal more for those who are pretty new to this stuff. That being said, I sort of had to at least touch upon some things now if I ever want to try to approach some of the more advanced topics (like microtonality and tuning systems, or serialism), which is something that I feel is incredibly important to talk about, and not often touched on.
Fair enough, I guess your intention is to provide people with a complete education, including the different and lesser known parts, and it definitely does.
(Btw I used the wrong word, it should be "complete and detailed" instead of concise)
When you've the time please do add video/audio examples. It'll definitely be a more interesting learning experience for me to hear it instead of just reading about it. That's the only thing that's lacking imo.
When I was in primary school my teacher lost me when she started telling us that there's a C here and another C a few lines below and another C a few lines above. I was like "wtf is this shit can't they pick a C and stick with it?" hahahaha. Of course I wasn't really paying attention back then :D
|
This is fucking amazing (and I haven't got a single musical note in me). Good stuff.
|
Wow, I always wanted to learn this! Thank you so much! :D
Can't wait for part II.
|
too bad i dont understand music
|
I'm pretty fit with music theory but this is amazingly written. I hope it helps beginners.
|
awesome! thanks man 
|
I must admit, I came here and expected a rather poor guide. Sorry for that, it seems well structured and filled with knowledge.
However, I can't imagine anyone being able to learn music theory like this, especially if they can't read a single note yet. If you first try to learn relationships between scales and the cycle of fifths, after you have just learned how to read notes and probably have forgotten all the intervals and what they are called and which intervals belong in a scale... I just think turning here as a novice won't help you. Or maybe I don't remember if learning music theory the slow way wasn't any better.
Great effort nonetheless, it is obvious you have put a lot of thought into it.
|
A+ writing and effort
thats some dedication to wo1wood!
|
Amazing. Thank you so much!
|
I agree with everyone's assessment regarding the excellence of this guide. As someone who studied music, it's superbly concise and filled with a breadth of information. That being said, I think it reaches a decent amount higher than what a beginner or even novice person in music might completely absorb.
I also have to second the notion someone brought up earlier regarding not having audible examples. Learning straight theory is one thing, but utilizing audible examples for certain techniques and other musical notation would prove incredibly valuable. Perhaps this is something that can be added to the piece over time to better illustrate the theory.
|
On April 07 2013 06:58 divito wrote:
I agree with everyone's assessment regarding the excellence of this guide. As someone who studied music, it's superbly concise and filled with a breadth of information. That being said, I think it reaches a decent amount higher than what a beginner or even novice person in music might completely absorb.
I also have to second the notion someone brought up earlier regarding not having audible examples. Learning straight theory is one thing, but utilizing audible examples for certain techniques and other musical notation would prove incredibly valuable. Perhaps this is something that can be added to the piece over time to better illustrate the theory.
Audio examples do help, but you really need to perform the actions of creating music to internalize a lot of the basics. The so-called ABCs of music don't need much intellectualization, practice is the key. Perhaps tailoring the guide to someone with either a keyboard or guitar would help matters. As I said before though, this guide is very well written for beginners who simply want to understand the basic elements of music theory.
|
On April 07 2013 06:58 divito wrote:
I agree with everyone's assessment regarding the excellence of this guide. As someone who studied music, it's superbly concise and filled with a breadth of information. That being said, I think it reaches a decent amount higher than what a beginner or even novice person in music might completely absorb.
I also have to second the notion someone brought up earlier regarding not having audible examples. Learning straight theory is one thing, but utilizing audible examples for certain techniques and other musical notation would prove incredibly valuable. Perhaps this is something that can be added to the piece over time to better illustrate the theory.
While you are right, the current article probably took already quite some effort. Making good audio examples would require even more labor. I once wrote a tool which can play modal scales through Windows Midi, which I planned to use in a Youtube series (however that would be in German) but I found it surprisingly hard to make clear what the listener should hear.
For my blog series (which wo1fwood thankfully commented on and corrected some mistakes) I chose a different approach. I am still not sure what is better: To explain staff and clef, or to explain acoustic phenomena?
I am very thankful for wo1fwood's effort because it took me almost two years to understand the concept of scales. With articles like his (that one here is only the primer) finally a good explanation is out there to show others. I noticed that an understanding of the theory behind music greatly amplifies the pleasure when I listen to music.
|
On April 05 2013 00:17 Chrono000 wrote:
too bad i dont understand music
If string theory is right, many concepts of music apply to the core of the universe itself. There would be overtones and other things. The entire cosmos would be one giant concert. And you have a ticket!
|
Adding in audio examples to this write-up was something I definitely considered and even am considering adding after the fact for Part I as it is an important portion of learning what music is (not just theoretically but aurally as well). This does however, require a lot more time to set up and do effectively. I might try to at least demonstrate what I've talked about in this Part (pitch, rhythm, intervals) and add them in later, but I'm sort of split on this at the moment.
The main issue that I keep dancing around is that adding in audio examples would make this write-up much better, but its really an issue of how much time I have to spend at the moment on it (and also the complexity of the topics), as well as the trajectory of the overall piece. As [F_]aths said, if I wanted to create all the content myself, this becomes quite the undertaking (especially for the more advanced concepts).
Also, it's definitely something worth noting, but audio examples should never be used as a crutch for the explanation. If you need an audio example to explain the theoretical concept, you simply haven't explained it well enough. They should enhance, or clarify what you've seen and read (or put into practice) so that they further reinforce the concepts you just learned. This kind of dances around the differences between formalized learning and wrote learning, but as this is geared towards tonal harmony the wrote method is kind of sub-optimal and for a number of reasons (that and the medium is somewhat limiting for the latter).
I should also note that I had been originally playing around with the idea of beginning the audio examples in part II and sort of unraveling and explaining things in part I as we went along. But this is/was still in a conceptual phase right now. Additionally, I had also originally planned on this being a single article, but due to my real life commitments and my overall nature I felt that I needed to prioritize and break this up at least in getting out what I had already started, rather than let it sit for months on end until it was fully fleshed out.
|
This is pretty awesome... Great formatting, TONS of useful information! Definitely going to give this a second read-through when I start teaching myself guitar...
Also, lol at 128th notes.. (I'm a drummer who's a big fan of DCI and all dem fancy drum corps n what not) ... that's pretty funny. 
|
On April 07 2013 10:34 wo1fwood wrote:
Also, it's definitely something worth noting, but audio examples should never be used as a crutch for the explanation. If you need an audio example to explain the theoretical concept, you simply haven't explained it well enough. They should enhance, or clarify what you've seen and read (or put into practice) so that they further reinforce the concepts you just learned. This kind of dances around the differences between formalized learning and wrote learning, but as this is geared towards tonal harmony the wrote method is kind of sub-optimal and for a number of reasons (that and the medium is somewhat limiting for the latter).
I would disagree very strongly in this regard. When teaching the very simplest of concepts in music, connecting the learner to a tangible product can really help. It also takes in to account the many ways that people learn. Further down the line, say if you are discussing dominant substitutions or the like (simple harmonic ideas), then I agree you should not use examples as a crutch constantly. But to help the uninitiated really "get" the basics of rhythm and pitch, you need to have a level of physical engagement. It is far easier to move tangible ideas into abstract concepts than vice-versa.
|
On April 07 2013 15:28 sharkeyanti wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2013 10:34 wo1fwood wrote:
Also, it's definitely something worth noting, but audio examples should never be used as a crutch for the explanation. If you need an audio example to explain the theoretical concept, you simply haven't explained it well enough. They should enhance, or clarify what you've seen and read (or put into practice) so that they further reinforce the concepts you just learned. This kind of dances around the differences between formalized learning and wrote learning, but as this is geared towards tonal harmony the wrote method is kind of sub-optimal and for a number of reasons (that and the medium is somewhat limiting for the latter).
I would disagree very strongly in this. When teaching the very simplest of concepts in music, connecting the learner to a tangible product can really help. It also takes in to account the many ways that people learn. Further down the line, say if you are discussing dominant substitutions or the like (simple harmonic ideas), then I agree you should not use examples as a crutch constantly. But to help the uninitiated really "get" the basics of rhythm and pitch, you need to have a level of physical engagement. It is far easier to move tangible ideas into abstract concepts than vice-versa. I'm not sure we're actually in disagreement here. You are talking about the practical application of theory as a necessity to understanding music as it functions in the real world, and I wouldn't really disagree with this. Without hearing how music and sound in general behaves acoustically, theoretical concepts can remain somewhat nebulous and disconnected from the actual product. That being said however, it is not necessary to include this practical application in order to understand the underlying theory itself. It's a very subtle difference when dealing with instruction and understanding (a purely theoretical understanding, and theoretical understanding from the practical application standpoint).
You do touch on the possible learning implications of the current piece and it's definitely something worth noting, and perhaps changing (e.g. what is the point and end goal).
|
On April 08 2013 00:45 wo1fwood wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2013 15:28 sharkeyanti wrote:On April 07 2013 10:34 wo1fwood wrote:
Also, it's definitely something worth noting, but audio examples should never be used as a crutch for the explanation. If you need an audio example to explain the theoretical concept, you simply haven't explained it well enough. They should enhance, or clarify what you've seen and read (or put into practice) so that they further reinforce the concepts you just learned. This kind of dances around the differences between formalized learning and wrote learning, but as this is geared towards tonal harmony the wrote method is kind of sub-optimal and for a number of reasons (that and the medium is somewhat limiting for the latter).
I would disagree very strongly in this. When teaching the very simplest of concepts in music, connecting the learner to a tangible product can really help. It also takes in to account the many ways that people learn. Further down the line, say if you are discussing dominant substitutions or the like (simple harmonic ideas), then I agree you should not use examples as a crutch constantly. But to help the uninitiated really "get" the basics of rhythm and pitch, you need to have a level of physical engagement. It is far easier to move tangible ideas into abstract concepts than vice-versa. I'm not sure we're actually in disagreement here. You are talking about the practical application of theory as a necessity to understanding music as it functions in the real world, and I wouldn't really disagree with this. Without hearing how music and sound in general behaves acoustically, theoretical concepts can remain somewhat nebulous and disconnected from the actual product. That being said however, it is not necessary to include this practical application in order to understand the underlying theory itself. It's a very subtle difference when dealing with instruction and understanding (a purely theoretical understanding, and theoretical understanding from the practical application standpoint). You do touch on the possible learning implications of the current piece and it's definitely something worth noting, and perhaps changing (e.g. what is the point and end goal).
Fair points, I would just encourage people to use this more as reference than text. Also, minor quibble, you've been using the word "wrote" when your intention is for the word "rote." Unless this is some spelling from a subset of English I am not aware of (which could certainly be the case, then my bad).
|
On April 06 2013 02:05 nimbim wrote:
I must admit, I came here and expected a rather poor guide. Sorry for that, it seems well structured and filled with knowledge.
However, I can't imagine anyone being able to learn music theory like this, especially if they can't read a single note yet. If you first try to learn relationships between scales and the cycle of fifths, after you have just learned how to read notes and probably have forgotten all the intervals and what they are called and which intervals belong in a scale... I just think turning here as a novice won't help you. Or maybe I don't remember if learning music theory the slow way wasn't any better.
Great effort nonetheless, it is obvious you have put a lot of thought into it.
As someone who just started trying to learn piano I would agree with this. There is a lot of information in this guide that looks fantastic and I'm sure you put a lot of work into, but it's a little bit too advanced for someone like me with very limited music experience.
|
On April 08 2013 02:35 Epishade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 02:05 nimbim wrote:
I must admit, I came here and expected a rather poor guide. Sorry for that, it seems well structured and filled with knowledge.
However, I can't imagine anyone being able to learn music theory like this, especially if they can't read a single note yet. If you first try to learn relationships between scales and the cycle of fifths, after you have just learned how to read notes and probably have forgotten all the intervals and what they are called and which intervals belong in a scale... I just think turning here as a novice won't help you. Or maybe I don't remember if learning music theory the slow way wasn't any better.
Great effort nonetheless, it is obvious you have put a lot of thought into it. As someone who just started trying to learn piano I would agree with this. There is a lot of information in this guide that looks fantastic and I'm sure you put a lot of work into, but it's a little bit too advanced for someone like me with very limited music experience.
You have to accept to do some work to get an understanding of music. Playing notes from the sheet is (more or less) easy. To understand what one is playing, is much harder. But it helps me to memorize a piece or to accompany it with chords.
The piano has the advantage that the keyboard layout is close to the notation on the sheet. If you see example notes which explain a context (for example the concept of a cadence regarding tonality and modulation) and then play them, you get an understanding deeper than if you just read words or look at sheets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
