Search the Community

I've really struggled to get my head around music theory - the way it's currently presented - since I started composing last summer. So, I've been giving some thought as to alternative ways of presenting it that might make it more accessible to new untrained composers, especially those who use DAWs and samples rather than manuscript. This video is meant as an exploration only - not suggesting better or worse approaches, or taking a position - only considering alternatives that could work for some people. Hope it's helpful. https://youtu.be/O_SSqvaVKDA?si=QXuksfXovuawS3Tf

Hello! I thought I’d share a link to my new book, in case you’re interested in this topic. "Designing Music for Emotion: A Practical Guide for Film and Media Composers and Music Enthusiasts" The book is a practical guide on how to write music that elicits different emotions such as happiness, sadness, love, anxiety, triumph, wonder, fear and many more. It's packed with dozens of techniques, over 60+ music reductions (and audio) and research-backed insights to help you create music that truly moves your audience. Foreword by Jay Chattaway (EMI award winning Hollywood composer, "Maniac", "Star Trek TV Series") 308 pages, 98 figures, 45 tables https://amzn.eu/d/aV9GRj5 One of the full orchestral scores discussed within the book with score reductions, "Sintel", is free today Best Regards

I am interested in how different composers choose the keys for their works. Do you do it based on the instruments (some keys are easier than others)? Or do you try to write in a variety of keys, just to mix things up? Or do you believe in the debated 'Key Psychology', where different keys conjure up different moods? Some examples of this are E-flat major, often regarded as having a noble sound, and F Minor being an extremely sad key. Do you really think there are differences between keys, or do you think that so long as they use the same basic scale or mode that they are the same? I'm looking forward to your views on this! (If you don't have time to write a full response, you can just fill in the poll!)

Hello everybody! The overtone serie... : I think is essential for any kind of composition, to know and master the overtones serie. It's important to compose knowing how the sounds behave. You can experiment this on the piano or, more clearly on a guitar. Do you have the overtones in mind when you compose? Here a very nice explanation and helpful article about the overtone series. Hope you find it helpful too! https://www.piano-composer-teacher-london.co.uk/post/overtone-series-harmonicity-and-anharmonicity-as-the-foundation-of-harmony

My teacher and I analysed different examples of Deceptive Cadences and how they are used structurally. I thought that I already knew a lot about it, but apparenlty there is much more to it. I find that very useful, so if you do too have a look here. https://www.piano-composer-teacher-london.co.uk/post/deceptive-cadence We are using terms from Caplin's Analyzing Classical Form: an Approach for the Classroom. P.S. I hope this is the correct forum to post it.

Academic Music A server for analyzing and sharing compositions of others or your own, discussing music theory or instrument/voice technique, and asking questions about classical music. We provide a hub of ideas and discussion with the hopes of providing sophisticated feedback to make skillful and confident musicians. Please share this server to any fellow musicians you know! Features -A community of over 1400 musically inclined people and professional musicians -Free classroom-style lectures on topics in music theory -Channels for each instrument category, and vocalists -Channels for posting your or others' pieces for analysis and feedback -Active music theory education and experimentation -Discussion about the history and cultural context of classical music from the Middle Ages to now https://discord.gg/sjpwcjv

Instructor: @Monarcheon Students: max. 10 Expectations: Composers will learn about music from the contemporary/modern period, analyze it deeply, and will write music in this style. This should span over about a month and composition assignments will be used. Week 1: Bartok - form Week 2: Webern - interval set/vectors Week 3: Messiaen - rhythms/time Week 4: Cage - intro to musical philosophy AKA "real theory" Special Notes: This is our first test long-form masterclass... structured to be more like an actual class. It's a test because I don't know how many people will be interested/care. Let me know if you're interested in the comments.

So I am, hopefully, in my final year of my doctorate degree. Aside from my dissertation, I have to take a qualifying exam that covers almost everything I have learned in college from my Freshmen year to now. One of the best methods for me to refresh and study for such an exam is to actually teach the material, so heres my offer comes in: I would like to teach a free course in either Music Theory to a class of my fellow composers that are wanting to learn about one of these topics. The course will start with the very basics and move up to at least counter point and roman numeral analysis, possibly even form. The format, though I am still working on, will be a mix of video lectures, one-on-one Q&As, group discussions in some format, and homework assignments that can be done or submitted online. I will provide all materials for the course. The ideal student for this would be someone who has little to know music theory knowledge but would like to learn. The class for the most part will be a short class with a slight work at your own pace feel. As I said, the class will be free, I only ask for feedback on how well I taught the course, if you learned anything, or what I could improve upon. Let me know if you are interested here in this thread. I would ideally like to have at least 5 students if possible. If I get that many, I will go ahead and begin creating the course. Let me know what you think.

FREE Mapping Tonal Harmony Pro 4.1 giveaway http://mdecks.com/mapharmony.html

Hi guys, I think you will be interested in this piece of software I designed to study tonal harmony. This is the from new version 4.0

Hi, Mapping Tonal Harmony Pro for iPad will soon be available at the iTunes App Store. We are looking for teachers and musicians interested in reviewing the app and give us some feedback (we only get 50 redeems codes for this purpose). http://mdecks.com/mapharmony.html Here are three tutorials so you can see how the app works. Tutorial I Tutorial II Tutorial III It is going to be part of a seven workbook collection. The volumes in the Mapping Tonal Harmony collection have been envisioned as auxiliary material in the study of Tonal Harmony. The main objective of these books is to provide the student, teachers, composers and/or songwriters with a tool that will aid them in hearing, analyzing, foreseeing and composing harmonic progressions without struggle, in all keys alike. Since I know all you guys are interested in topics like this, I thought was a good idea to share this new concept and see what you might think. If you'd like to be part of the reviewer's list please let us know. Thanks.

Fair warning: this post might get a bit technical. I really like thinking about music theory, but I don't know very many people I can discuss it with. Some time back, I came across the following website, which really changed the way I think about harmony and its relation to musical structure (we're talking mostly tonal CPP music). I'm wondering whether anyone else has seen this before, or is interested in taking a look at it. The site is www.harmony.org.uk by Tom Sutcliffe. It outlines a thesis he has developed (and a corresponding unfinished ebook, Syntactic Structures in Music) which loosely compares musical phrases to linguistic phrases, and shows how they are built up from two distinct types of harmony, which he calls static and dynamic harmony. It's based on a root progression analysis, and also incorporates some ideas from Schenker. At the very least, it's worth reading the Preface and Chapters 1 and 2 in the book to get the basic gist of the theory. You could also read through the outline thesis to see a sample analysis, and how the idea was developed. Here's my attempt to summarize his theory: First, the harmonic analysis proceeds in a fairly standard manner: - Reduce the music to it's harmonic outline by stripping out non-chord tones (which arise from voice leading effects), and chords which are produced from non-chord tones (non-functional chords). For example, cadential 6-4 chords are formed from appoggiaturas, so they would be non-functional. He attempts to be very specific about what is non-functional. - Categorize the motion of the roots of the resulting chords in terms rising and falling diatonic intervals (e.g. rising fourth, falling third). Because chord progressions are chiefly a diatonic phenomenon, the quality of the interval is not considered (e.g. major vs minor third). This means there are only a total of 6 possible progressions. - The quality of the chord (major, minor, diminished, 7ths, 9ths, etc...) is also ignored. Only the root progression is analyzed. Several observations were made from this analysis: - Sometimes root progressions come in "pairs" of opposite types (e.g. a falling fourth followed by a rising fourth), while other progressions are unpaired. - These two types of progressions (paired and unpaired) have a strong tendency to "cluster" with others of the same type. That is, paired progressions are often adjacent to other paired progressions, and unpaired progressions are almost always adjacent to other unpaired progressions. This clustering allows us to segment the music, and suggests that music is built out of two distinct types of harmony: - "Static Harmony" - sections consisting of paired progressions which oscillate around a central chord (usually the tonic, though dominant could also be used). - "Dynamic Harmony" - sections consisting of unpaired progressions which have a stronger sense of forward harmonic motion. A few additional observations can be made: - Statistically, the progressions used in Dynamic Harmony have become polarized, such that they consist almost entirely of the following three progressions, which he names after greek letters: - "Alpha" (α) - A rising 4th. By far the most common (e.g. ii-V and V-I). - "Beta" (β) - A falling 3rd (e.g. I-vi). - "Gamma" (γ) - A rising 2nd (e.g. IV-V). - The remaining 3 progressions are much rarer, and are named after their inverse, followed by a prime symbol (e.g. a rising third would be a beta-prime (β') progression). - Musical phrases (sections delimited by cadences) tend, in general, to follow some variation of the following pattern: begin with static harmony, followed by dynamic harmony, and ending in a cadence. He then compares musical phrases to linguistic phrases, and postulates that static and dynamic harmony, and cadences are the syntactic "building blocks" of musical phrases, much like subject and predicate are the building blocks of linguistic phrases. Of course, the book goes into greater detail.

Hi, I tried to search first, using the... well, search function and it seems as the function has an error of some sort. I just wanted to ask about theory textbooks. I'm talking about music theory textbooks, obviously, and I would like to know some of the best ones available that covers rudimentary to atonality in depth with suggestive music and examples. It would be a PLUS if it also had jazz theory as well. Also, it would be awesome if it was no more than $200, and widely available. I did my time in a university as a composition major. It's kind of embarrassing, actually, to ask the names of descent textbooks. :S, lol. Thanks in advance, -CB

Hi all, Here there are a number of good books on counterpoint. http://cantati.com/resources/index.html