Music theory

To answer your question, Melville:

Should I go out and get some basic theory books? Where should I start?

Most composers of my generation began in their early years by learning a few important areas:

Melodic dictation. That is, learning to write the melodies you hear. You say you've been playing piano for 10 years, and know basic note values. That's great. I would suggest writing from simple folk melodies, or Bach Chorale melodies. You can play sections of melody over and over until you get it all. Then check against the written music. Pick any key. Of course you would need sound recordings and printed music to check your work. Try writing out "Happy Birthday" (but don't play it in public).

And conversely... learn to sight-sing.. a very important skill!

You can also compose simple melodies and write them, using the knowledge you have acquired from your piano studies. The learning process does not mean composing your dream compositions and notating them. Learning includes a healthy dose of exercises, just to familiarize yourself with the language... like playing scales on the piano to prepare for playing "real music".

Simple keyboard harmony. That is, learning standard chord progressions and the functions certain chords have in the harmonic scheme.

We then went on to study species counterpoint, and harmonic analysis (beginning with Bach Chorales and progressing from there), including inversions and non-chord tones, etc. etc. Anything after these studies can be considered college level.

However, I definitely would say that a real live teacher is worth more than 1000 books!!

Most concise and best advice.. Research music schools in your area and get a teacher! Books alone are not a good way to begin.

Good luck!

In music, knowing the "grammar" and "vocabulary" doesn't reveal the "meaning" of a piece, which is the fundamental difference to an acual language.

We might say that music is the language of our musical sensibilities. It is the specific mix of vibrations that elicits a brain response, which is the true "meaning" of the music, just as words elicit their intended image-response.

We could also agree that music notation is certainly a language, the meaning of which is the music it represents.

SSC:

1. Stop taking things out of context. It's obvious that when I said that Bach, Wagner, and Chopin weren't "just making sounds" that I meant that, unlike your implication that they just wrote what sounded good without rhyme or reason, they knew what they were doing. Their music is methodical, built on decades of evolving music theory. They were innovators, but all their music was based on prior tradition. So yes, failing to acknowledge this fact shows a lack of familiarity with music history.

2. How can you say that the Tristan chord has nothing to do with the piece? It comletely represents the character Tristan. It's something akin to a leit motif or an idee fixee.

3. Art communicates both the emotion of the composer, but the thing that makes art so interesting and worth studying is the analysis of its message. That is why we study all forms of art. Music, painting, novels, that is why music is worth studying. So to answer your question, it conveys the emotions of both the artist and audience.

4. Art does not exist in a vacuum. If it did, your argument would hold some water. However, we are (or should be) experienced in the language of Western music which means that we as composers and listeners have to bring something to the table when listening. That is the only way to truly communicate with the music and composer.

1. Apparently, if your knowledge of music history is so tremendously fantastic, you'd do well to remember that music theory as we know it right now is a fairly new thing. Bach wrote how he wrote because he had the influences of his family of musicians, plus other composers at the time which he copied and imitated until he developed his own style.

He didn't sit down and read a book on music theory. And as far as "he knew what he was doing" is concerned, he did what was within his reach and what was going on at the time. He followed trends and what was popular then, until it was not popular anymore and he ended up being old fashioned and forgotten.

I also don't think it's wise to talk about "reason" in music without establishing a context. You mean LOGICAL reason? That's a whole other can of worms, if you're going to start saying cadences are logical and such other junk. Or is it "reason for composing"? I guess you don't even need a reason to compose at all, that's not a real factor in how the music sounds.

Oh, another thing, "evolving music theory", because it has "evolved" into, what, Ligeti? Penderecki? Messiaen? Schnittke? A lot of people are looking back at ancient music for inspiration, and finding some of it sounds surprisingly "Modern." Music history is just whichever trends were popular, what survived and people who were popular along with it. To say it has anything to do with "evolution" is pretty ignorant of what "evolution" means.

2. The character Tristan is represented by a chord which shows up in tons of Wagner pieces? In fact, the whole chord demonstrates a phenomenon known as "Tristan harmony" which is not exclusive in any way to just that piece. But well, I don't even like Wagner so I'm not going to argue any further, call it what you will.

3. Music is like a tree you can only see but not touch. You can only react to it, because by itself it just stands there for you to appreciate. You can interpret it in a million ways, they're all correct and valid. Pretty simple, really. And I don't know, my reasons for writing music is because I need to get stuff out of my head and into my ears somehow. Not very poetic, but practical. As for other arts, there's a lot of reasons, and that's not the point.

4. I don't understand what you said. But art can exist in a vacuum just fine, you just have to put it there. I don't know what you mean with bringing stuff to the table.

We might say that music is the language of our musical sensibilities. It is the specific mix of vibrations that elicits a brain response' date=' which is the true "meaning" of the music, just as words elicit their intended image-response.

We could also agree that music notation is certainly a language, the meaning of which is the music it represents.[/quote']

I'm not sure I understood the first part correctly. Are you saying the true meaning is the specific brain response it elicts in the listener, or the intended response by the composer?

I can see how, on a very person level, music can become something like a language: In the consciousness of an individual listener (or composer) music gets charged with what you call "brain response", i.e. emotions, ideas, connections. Thus it receives an additional "symbolic" meaning, similar to a language. A fairly autistic language, of course, that only "communicates" within one person.

I certainly agree that musical notation is a language.

Are you saying the true meaning is the specific brain response it elicts in the listener, or the intended response by the composer?

I can see how, on a very person level, music can become something like a language: In the consciousness of an individual listener (or composer) music gets charged with what you call "brain response", i.e. emotions, ideas, connections. Thus it receives an additional "symbolic" meaning, similar to a language. A fairly autistic language, of course, that only "communicates" within one person.

Well, Gardener, when a composer writes a piece, he has a "meaning" that he wishes to communicate. He wants to share this with the listener.. that is, the "emotions, ideas, connections" you mentioned in your post. He wants to elicit specific responses no more or less than an author working with words. Remember, there are two sides to any language, to any communication. Ideally, composer and listener should have the same general meaning in mind, as with the "communicator and communicatee" in any language, be it a language of symbols or language of feeling (art). Of course, beautiful writing (poetry, literature) can be both.

Some listeners do not understand the composer's language; their brains do not operate at his frequency, and they will dislike his music. I think this, like personality, or any taste really, results from a combination of "nature and nurture".

As for the "autistic" element you mention, is there a more intimate experience than listening to music in the privacy of our individual brains? Isn't that what music is supposed to do... to reach into our deepest parts? Is it not similar to reading a book, where the reader creates the intended images in his own mind, and in his own way?

But music, pure music, by definition, is not generally concerned with anything but itself, so we do not receive a message based on mundane human experience. We receive pure emotion... the musical message... and we receive it in our own way. I don't think two people can hear a single piece of music in exactly the same way. So, as you suggest, the precise message is formed at the listening stage, whatever the intentions of the composer. After a point, the composer is really just another listener! This may be a distinguishing feature of Art in general... the personalization of the message, as opposed to utilitarian verbal language. "Meet me at the train station at 3 pm" can mean only one thing. I'm not sure I could say that about any given piece of absolute music... or even any poem! But that does not make it any less a language.

As for the "autistic" element you mention, is there a more intimate experience than listening to music in the privacy of our individual brains? Isn't that what music is supposed to do... to reach into our deepest parts? Is it not similar to reading a book, where the reader creates the intended images in his own mind, and in his own way?

When I said "autistic" I didn't mean it judgmental. I entirely agree that this inner processing of music into something of our own, the personal experience, is what can make music a magnificent experience.

I agree with your last paragraph too, just that I still think of music and language as two distinctly different things. I just don't agree that a composer always wants to tell the listener something. The desire to elicit a specific response is very often not there. There is such a thing as a musical thought, not just extramusical thoughts "translated" into music. Of course you could say that even if music represents itself it represents something. That doesn't make it a language though.

A Schubert song may be intended to elicit a more or less specific response, but is a serial piece, or a Bach fugue? And some composers who had an idea in mind when composing, do not attempt to conserve this idea in music, but let the music take over and become the thing itself, not a representation (as in the Var

I agree with your last paragraph too, just that I still think of music and language as two distinctly different things. I just don't agree that a composer always wants to tell the listener something.

At issue is the phrase "tell the listener something." How about "make the listener feel something"? I don't see how a composer can write a piece and not have in mind the effect he wishes to elicit in his hearers. Certainly most composers have in mind the effect their music produces in themselves, in their creative heads. Of course, responses will be subtly personal. With time, this idea becomes more free. In aleatoric music, obviously the performer becomes a composer, and alters the specific message drastically. But the overall effect is determined by the composer. Even John Cage, in 4'33", had an overall expectation for his audience (though the first performance must have been the "greatest", as the secret has long been out, and the realization of the piece has evolved).

There is such a thing as a musical thought, not just extramusical thoughts "translated" into music. Of course you could say that even if music represents itself it represents something. That doesn't make it a language though.

I find myself comparing music to food. Is gastronomy a language? Don't tastes produce in the brain subtle effects which are a direct result of the glops in our mouths, as music produces subtle effects far removed from the vibrations themselves (which are "physical" rather than "emotional")? The question is ultimately, "What is language"? Now I do see the following as a possibility (in my unwieldy Webster's New International of 1926):

"2. Any means of communicating feeling or thought. In the usual sense, language means a system of conventionalized signs; that is, words or gestures having fixed meaning. But not all intelligible expressions are fixed, nor are all used for communication, since language plays a large role in our thinking processes. Hence, language may mean (1) expression that conveys ideas. Bodily expression, writing, etc, are its chief forms, but any systematic symbolism, in a more or less transferred sense, is called language, as, the language of art."

I believe the key words here are conventionalized and systematic. Which may lead to your next comment:

A Schubert song may be intended to elicit a more or less specific response, but is a serial piece, or a Bach fugue?

When you say "specific" and apply it to a Schubert song, do you mean like "this makes the listener visualize an Erlking chasing a child on horseback"? You are actually speaking of "program music", right?

I would have to agree. But I am suggesting that yes, a Bach Fugue or serial piece (which have a lot in common!) are also intended to produce non-literary specific responses, that is... the "brain activity" we feel as emotion. When the dictionary says "the language of art", what does that mean? Does it refer to representative art? Possibly.

But absolute music is conventionalized only so far. We can describe some as "lovely", or "strong", or "delicate", even "triumphant" or "tragic". Is that enough to make it a language? Maybe not. As I mentioned, we can describe the taste of foods in general terms, and we can safely call gastronomy an art. But it somehow seems like a stretch to call it a language. Is music then merely a sort of "cooking with sound?". I don't doubt that composers as well as cooks seek to reproduce in others the sensations they experience as a result of concocting their recipes, be they made up of ingredients or vibrations. But perhaps there is insufficient conventionalized symbolism to make it a language.

It all seems like a bit of a grey area, and is ultimately a question of semantics (obviously!).

The sound of music is not an acoustic representation of music, it -is- the music. The visual appearance of a painting is not a visual representation, it -is- the painting. They do not require language as literature does, as they can be directly received as physical phenomenons.

Yes, quite so. Literature is the art of language, symbols, while music is the art of sound, which may not be symbols at all, but merely catalysts. I may end up deferring to you here. Oh my... I've got to run!

Since I have Walter Piston's "Harmony" (which, as I can see, is already recommended in this thread) as one of the books I used to learn harmony, I could say it is really a very nice book. I don't have Kostka's book, but from what I have read about it, I guess it is even better. Persichetti's "20th Century Harmony" seems to be great and important book, too, which I am going to buy soon... The counterpoint books by J. J. Fux and Kent Kennan are great, too. You might also consider Barrie Nettles' "The Chord-Scale Theory and Jazz Harmony" and/or Andy Jaffe's "Jazz Harmony", if you'd like to know about this approach, too. Overall, I think it is good to read, to know and to understand as much as you can and I believe you won't find this boring or very difficult, since if you have true, deep love for music, you would probably want to know more about it and this would be your driving force.

I really cannot understand why people who deny music theory cannot understand the simple fact that understanding something and knowing how its elements work is not a creativity killer. Furthermore, this could give you additional insights and viewpoints to experiment with and to fulfil your intentions.

At the beginning, I knew nothing about theory. Absolutely nothing. I was unable to read notes on the staff. This was ... 6 years ago. I was slowly creating simple things by ear, as far as my ears allowed me. Later, when I decided to educate myself, I found this to be of great importance and that it is actually very interesting, too! It's like building a house with tools VS. building it with bare hands only. My desire for explanations and knowledge how things work lead me logically to music theory and also to acoustics, because while I read and learn, I always think over things and ask myself: "let's see, why is this rule" or "why this works the way it does". You can only benefit from this, knowledge and understanding cannot kill creativity and feelings, they are in separate brain regions (left and right brain, respectively). Time proves it. So, it's something like "right brain only" vs "left and right brain together". But people have also shown their creativity in finding justifications for their lazyness.