Ableton Forum

stringtapper wrote:That's Do Re Mi Fa Sol La Ti Do (at least if you're talking about the major scale).

sorry dude but it is do re mi fa sol la SI do ...forgive but i come from italy i couldn't resist...

definitely 'Ti'

As in the song:

'Ti' a drink with jam and bread...

Sphinx wrote:You might want to learn the difference between notation and theory.

Riiiight


Notation and terminology such as such mentioned is very much part of theory, it was just chords and scales you could learn everything about theory in a matter of hours.

NPC wrote:

stringtapper wrote:That's Do Re Mi Fa Sol La Ti Do (at least if you're talking about the major scale).

sorry dude but it is do re mi fa sol la SI do ...forgive but i come from italy i couldn't resist...

Haha, touché!

Sage wrote:...it was just chords and scales you could learn everything about theory in a matter of hours.

Yeah, right pal..."if it was just chords and scales you could learn it all in a matter of hours...."

Get yourself a copy of Piston's "Harmony" (which is just the FIRST stepin the study of classical theory), work it "in a matter of hours" (never mind that it's usually spread out over TWO SEMESTERS in college-level courses) - then maybe, just maybe, you might be ready to move to the SECOND of a multitude of more steps before you even GET to Orchestration (where you can THEN learn the fine art of dynamics/tempo notation that you cavalierly refer to as "theory".

Sphinx wrote:

Sage wrote:...it was just chords and scales you could learn everything about theory in a matter of hours.

Yeah, right pal..."if it was just chords and scales you could learn it all in a matter of hours...."

Get yourself a copy of Piston's "Harmony" (which is just the FIRST stepin the study of classical theory), work it "in a matter of hours" (never mind that it's usually spread out over TWO SEMESTERS in college-level courses) - then maybe, just maybe, you might be ready to move to the SECOND of a multitude of more steps before you even GET to Orchestration (where you can THEN learn the fine art of dynamics/tempo notation that you cavalierly refer to as "theory".

Eh, I wouldn't get too wrapped up in such semantics. Notation certainly falls within the broader scope of music theoretical study.

Stringtapper - you're entirely correct - the thread devolved into semantics, and I'm merely aggravating the situation. The only reason I even responded was because of the two ludicrous positions of:

- "If you're not learning an instrument, theory is pointless" If you are a composer, you can NEVER know too much about music - particularly theory. I've run across sooo many people who thought that studying (and continuing to study) music was pointless...and you know what? Their music sucked, because they were limited in their understanding - they couldn't write in different genres, they couldn't be eclectic, and all of their music ended up sounding the same.

- "Theory (even just "chords and scales") is something that can be learned in a few hours...utter bullshit. That's like saying you could learn architecture in a week. You could spend YEARS just studying Western "classical" music, and still be a total noob - then there's the musical theory of the REST of the world to study!

My point was simply - don't EVER under-estimate the power of advancing your musical knowledge...even if you do it yourself - Zappa did, and he became one of the greatest musical minds in 20th century music.

goddamn you're dramatical...

I clarified my post about not learning an instrument FFS.

the post about learning theory in an hour isn't worth acknowledging. obviously he hasn't been exposed to much theory if any and/or he's a troll.

Sphinx wrote:Stringtapper - you're entirely correct - the thread devolved into semantics, and I'm merely aggravating the situation. The only reason I even responded was because of the two ludicrous positions of:

- "If you're not learning an instrument, theory is pointless" If you are a composer, you can NEVER know too much about music - particularly theory. I've run across sooo many people who thought that studying (and continuing to study) music was pointless...and you know what? Their music sucked, because they were limited in their understanding - they couldn't write in different genres, they couldn't be eclectic, and all of their music ended up sounding the same.

- "Theory (even just "chords and scales") is something that can be learned in a few hours...utter bullshit. That's like saying you could learn architecture in a week. You could spend YEARS just studying Western "classical" music, and still be a total noob - then there's the musical theory of the REST of the world to study!

My point was simply - don't EVER under-estimate the power of advancing your musical knowledge...even if you do it yourself - Zappa did, and he became one of the greatest musical minds in 20th century music.

.... and you did it again.

I applaud the OP for wanting to learn more.

Some online resources:

http://smu.edu/totw/
http://www.musictheory.net/


When we say we're "learning theory" what we mean is that we are studying the structure of music, the building blocks. So really "theory" is indispensable, if you know anything about the structure of music at all, you know some theory. That's why it always makes me laugh when people say "I hate theory! I just wanna play! I just feeeeeeeeeeel the muuuuuusic!" Yeah well that "feeling" is your brain going on autopilot because you've already internalized some music theory and don't have to think about it.

A very personal, purely anecdotal suggestion...

As a classically-trained musician who makes EDM for fun, I would suggest learning only the most basic theory: scales, modes, time signatures, and leave it at that.

My "pop" sensibility and natural language as a composer was ruined after about 2 years of conservatory. It was all good when I was learning about basic scales and such, but by the time I got into things like sonata form, French 6th chords, serialism, and chance music, my whole approach to making tunes was destroyed. I've been rebuilding it since, but having an idea of damned near anything that can be done with melody, rhythm, and harmony can be a hindrance, and makes it difficult to find a process/point of departure. It's the equivalent of a novice EDM producer walking into a studio full of modular synths, a pro tools rig, and every plugin imaginable, then trying to make a track. He/she probably would get more done with a simple groovebox.

dm_hawk wrote:A very personal, purely anecdotal suggestion...

As a classically-trained musician who makes EDM for fun, I would suggest learning only the most basic theory: scales, modes, time signatures, and leave it at that.

My "pop" sensibility and natural language as a composer was ruined after about 2 years of conservatory. It was all good when I was learning about basic scales and such, but by the time I got into things like sonata form, French 6th chords, serialism, and chance music, my whole approach to making tunes was destroyed. I've been rebuilding it since, but having an idea of damned near anything that can be done with melody, rhythm, and harmony can be a hindrance, and makes it difficult to find a process/point of departure. It's the equivalent of a novice EDM producer walking into a studio full of modular synths, a pro tools rig, and every plugin imaginable, then trying to make a track. He/she probably would get more done with a simple groovebox.

I had the same experience with electric bass. I taught myself from high school on and played in a math rock band where I was writing some very creative and complex bass parts. Then I started studying it seriously in college and it seems that once I began playing with "proper" technique my creativity seemed to change. It's like I was less apt to take risks or something, and I have had to retrain myself to step outside the lines when I can.

So I see some validity to your point of view. However, being classically trained in brass instruments since even before I taught myself bass, I can say that it has all accumulated to add to my musical growth and I don't regret having gone beyond the basics (far beyond, as I'm now working on a PhD in music theory).

Tarekith wrote:Best beginner theory intro I've seen, free too:

http://www.worldofbryan.com/rsg2mt.pdf

As far as learning piano goes, I found the Hanon scales book great for learning your fingering and the basic technique, the rest is up to you and your ideas.

Tarekith, first just let me say thank you for all the free resources you bring to this community - just awesome stuff.

Now, I'm reading the "book"/pdf file and I came across a paragraph I'm struggling with a little bit on page 4 : "In this document, capitalised Roman numerals will refer to chords by their root note. VI in the above example is not representative of the note D but the chord D. This needs to be made clear early on for the sake of establishing convention. Lowercase Roman numerals will refer to individual notes."

So how is the chord D referred to? VI D? and that is made up of i-C and vi-D? What's the correct verbiage there?

keeping it in they key of C, starting from my fixed post in the T&T forum

Tone Deft wrote:ugh, take two for redemption. this stuff really isn't all that difficult. DO ANY PLAYERS HAVE TIPS FOR THE RIGHT HAND VS LEFT HAND PLAYING?


only look at the white notes.

take them three at a time, separated by one note, like
C E G = C
D F A = Dm
E G B = Em
F A C = F
G B D = G
A C E = Am
B D F = Bdim

very simple. those are all the 3 note chords in C.

the 4 note chords (the 7th chords) are the same with another note tacked on

C E G A = C7
D F A B = Dm7
E G B C = Em7
F A C D = F7
G B D E = Gdom7
A C E F = Am7
B D F G = Bm7b5

you could tell someone you're playing a I - V - VI -IV in C* and they know all they need to know to play along with you.
I in C = C E G = i iii v in the C major scale = C major chord
II in C = D F A = i biii v in the D major scale (D E F# G A B C#) = D minor chord
III in C = E G B = i biii v in the E major scale (E F# G# A B C# D#) = E chord
IV in C = F A C = i iii v in the F major scale (F G A Bb C D E) = F major chord
V in C = G B D = i iii v in the G major scale (G A B C D E F#) = G major chord
VI in C = A C E = i biii v in the A major scale (A B C# D E F# G#) = A minor chord
VII in C = B D F = i in the B major scale (B C# D# E F# G# A#) = B diminished chord (diminished chords are characterised by a flat 5th aka bv or b5. FWIW I tend to use numbers instead of lower case roman numerals, I believe both are accepted as standard notation.)

(notice how each chord is still every other note from its major scale? it's the same technique applied over and over again, 'stacking' every other note. as giggedy pointed out in the T&T thread, it's 'stacking thirds.' check his web site for info on that or ask here.)

chords and scales are basically the same thing. chords are notes played at once, scales (and keys) and groups of notes to choose from. with both, notes are in lower case, chords are upper case.

a major chord is ALWAYS the i iii v of the major scale.
a minor chord is ALWAYS the i biii v of a major scale.
major scales are ALWAYS i ii iii iv v vi vii
minor scales always have a biii in them (there are a few flavors of minor scales.)

giggedy pointed to his web site where this is laid out further.
http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php?p=893589#p893589
hth, I'll keep it short so others can fill in or you can ask more questions, it's real easy to go overboard with this stuff very quickly.

*that's the chord progression to the "4 chords, 30 songs" video that went around. good lessons to be learned there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHBVnMf2t7w
all those songs use I VI V IV they just change keys. so, by now I should be able to tell you to play I VI V IV in F# and you'll know which chords to play, which order to play them in and which notes are in those chords. it will also tell you how you can solo over the song.

this is REALLY easy for guitar players, a little more difficult to piano players.