# Where to learn music theory and harmony and not getting bored?



## kessel (May 21, 2019)

Hi,

I started playing guitar and making music 30 years ago and as much as I love music I could never become friends with music theory.

Nevertheless I always wanted to learn some more theory, specially harmony, to improve my compositions and arrangement skills, but the main problem I've always found is that every way I've found so far feels pretty boring to me.

I'm not a friend of nomenclatures, was never good with words, so my only way to learn these would be a method that keeps mixing what you learn with instant direct practices to what you just learned, I mean in a really constant way, because otherwise I'm not going to remember anything I learned in the theory just in a question of seconds.

This is a concentration problem I've had all my life and very often I can't even read a single line of a book or magazine without forgetting the first words in a row before even reaching the last words in that same line, so I need to re-read it several times. Wait a minute, what was I writing about now? I forgot... 

Ok, to the point, what method would you recommend for someone like me who needs to practice almost every step in theory explanations to really learn them?

I've been thinking of subscribing to some online course as graphics and visuals do help me in this kind of process, but then again most of them will just put too much words and boring graphs I can't yet read.

I've tried the mDecks apps, some video tutorials on youtube, just took a look at an orchestration course at Udemy and was already bored by watching the course preview full of text and not a single real piano player to see in it... and I'm starting to think the only way might be finding a music teacher that is able to teach me the theory in front of a piano or other instrument I can directly play the notes I get explained while learning.

What do you think? Are other people like me here that might have found an amusing method to learn music theory?


----------



## wst3 (May 21, 2019)

I'm no fan of video classes, so I can't really recommend them. Ironically, I am now a fan of text books, but that was not always the case! So I can't really recommend them either.

So my intro to music theory was a self-paced study system that was being evaluated at a local university. One of my 7th grade teachers thought it would fun to let a few of us try it. He secretly hoped it would bomb, he was not a big fan of self paced study. It worked brilliantly! And it was fun, even for 12 year old boys - a tough crowd!

So I know such things exist, I just don't know exactly where one might find them - but you search can succeed. I will keep my eyes open as well.


----------



## JohnG (May 21, 2019)

kessel said:


> mixing what you learn with instant direct practices to what you just learned



this ^^ is a great way to learn theory. I think a lot of creative people struggle with concentration and for many like that, the best way to learn a new technique (writing rock piano parts, brass fanfares -- whatever) has been when it's needed RIGHT NOW!

If you've been playing 30 years, you already "know" a lot of theory but it does help to nail some things down by being able to describe as accurately as possible what you are already doing, analytically. Then you can learn to extend what you like about it and do "more of that."

Assuming you can at least write out chord changes, you could try a specific task. Maybe arrange a song for strings, some song you wrote and like?

For that you need to learn some theory, but not all of it all at once.

Does that appeal?


----------



## kessel (May 21, 2019)

JohnG said:


> this ^^ is a great way to learn theory. I think a lot of creative people struggle with concentration and for many like that, the best way to learn a new technique (writing rock piano parts, brass fanfares -- whatever) has been when it's needed RIGHT NOW!
> 
> If you've been playing 30 years, you already "know" a lot of theory but it does help to nail some things down by being able to describe as accurately as possible what you are already doing, analytically. Then you can learn to extend what you like about it and do "more of that."
> 
> ...



Sounds good, and it partly is what I want to do and even did already not long ago, I've taken a couple of songs I wrote with guitars, bass and drums and covered them myself with different instrumentations, not just doing the same thing but trying to readapt the parts to the new ones, like might be violins, cello, or even japanese koto and shamisen, the problem is that I do all this just by feel, I don't really even know which chords I am using most of the time.

But it gave me an idea that might help, and it could be when re-writing any of my guitar songs with some orchestral instrumentation I could start by finding out the chords and watching if my arrangements are even natural or possible with the new instrument.

A very important thing for me would be to find out which kind of human reactions get fired by different scales or harmonic rules. I made a short course on sound recording and I found very interesting to know why we hear middle frequencies the loudest and clearer or what kind of natural sensations we get from bass frequencies and such...

I would love to know which scales or harmony rules I can use to move people's feelings the way I intend to with my music and I think I've reached my limits as a composer without knowing those harmonic rules.


----------



## JohnG (May 21, 2019)

kessel said:


> I would love to know which scales or harmony rules I can use to move people's feelings the way I intend to and I think I've reached my limits as a composer without knowing those harmonic rules.



In that case, if you don't always know your chord changes but you do play guitar, suggest you buy one / several song books that include not just chord symbols but those graphic representations of how the chords are fingered on the guitar, like the one below:






Pick one of your favourite bands, or bands whose music you admire. It's a fast and fairly painless way to learn theory; if you already play pretty well, even faster.


----------



## kessel (May 21, 2019)

JohnG said:


> In that case, if you don't always know your chord changes but you do play guitar, suggest you buy one / several song books that include not just chord symbols but those graphic representations of how the chords are fingered on the guitar, like the one below:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice, good idea, I've started researching already, too bad my musical tastes are sometimes so rare and make everything more difficult to find, but that's a very good starting point, thanks


----------



## JohnG (May 21, 2019)

kessel said:


> that's a very good starting point,



If your taste is idiosyncratic, that makes it more of a challenge, but remember -- you don't have to get _exactly_ your number one band, given that you're trying to learn chords.

If you want "traditional," you could do worse than Beatles / Queen / Rolling Stones. The Beatles in particular used chords that are a little beyond the I IV V IV ii V I variety.

If you want to go a little toward jazz or extended chords, Nora Jones is a bit that way, and John Mayer also extends the pop song vocabulary a bit as well.

I mention all these because I'm sure they are all available with the chord symbols.

Have fun!

John


----------



## handz (May 21, 2019)

I am still looking for some on-point tutorials - focused on movie music approaches - cliches, chord progressions, modulations etc explained in a more "user-friendly" way. So far, I found very few such videos or articles. 

What I love are such articles https://ask.audio/articles/music-theory-hollywood-scales-part-2

these work for me way better than studying basic theory. Wish there would be a site with only such articles focused on the practical use of various techniques with examples.


----------



## Garry (May 21, 2019)

kessel said:


> Sounds good, and it partly is what I want to do and even did already not long ago, I've taken a couple of songs I wrote with guitars, bass and drums and covered them myself with different instrumentations, not just doing the same thing but trying to readapt the parts to the new ones, like might be violins, cello, or even japanese koto and shamisen, the problem is that I do all this just by feel, I don't really even know which chords I am using most of the time.
> 
> But it gave me an idea that might help, and it could be when re-writing any of my guitar songs with some orchestral instrumentation I could start by finding out the chords and watching if my arrangements are even natural or possible with the new instrument.
> 
> ...


I'm a big fan of YouTube courses for music theory - which ones have you watched and ruled out, so we can get an idea of what might still be of interest?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 21, 2019)

Unless it's tied to your ears, music theory is always going to be boring!

The advice here is absolutely right, for that exact reason. Music theory isn't abstract, it makes total sense when you hear it.

And the reason isn't terribly profound: theory is just an explanation of practice.


----------



## Garry (May 22, 2019)

It would be easy to recommend Rick Beato - probably the best subscribed music theoretician on YouTube, but personally, while I really like his channel and greatly support what he's doing, I often feel I need something intermediary to help me really fully appreciate the concepts. He covers a very broad range, but he doesn't work hard to help you understand - he leaves that to you! Sometimes that's good, and sometimes I'd appreciate a little more guidance.

So, the channel I would primarily recommend is Signals Music Studio: a fairly recent channel (July 2017), but already has over 220,000 subscribers. Since you're a guitarist, you'll probably like that he teaches, with guitar in hand, and always illustrating the concept both with side bar graphics and then playing what he's talking about directly on the guitar. He's a young guy, but already has a great technique in teaching: he really makes the concepts clear, understandable and instantly applicable. I'm also initially a guitarist, but tend to follow along on piano - his style of teaching is not at all specific to guitar technique, and makes it very easy to follow along with any instrument. It's watching his channel that has subsequently enabled me to get more from channels like Rick Beato and Mapping Tonal Harmony from mDecks (also recommended, but not initially). 

Then of course there are Mike Verta's masterclasses, typically for $30 each - Mike also has a relaxed style like the guy from Signals Music Studio, but I find he takes MUCH longer to get to the point, and his teaching points could easily be greatly condensed. I have bought 6 or 7 videos from Mike, but have only watched a couple of them so far, as you need to have time to sit down and dedicate a few hours going through each. It's of course very instructive when you do find the time to do so, but I think its interesting that while I've only watched a couple of the Mike Verta videos, the releases from Signals Music Studio I find I watch immediately they're released. 

Good luck, and enjoy the journey.


----------



## kessel (May 22, 2019)

Garry said:


> I'm a big fan of YouTube courses for music theory - which ones have you watched and ruled out, so we can get an idea of what might still be of interest?



Actually I haven't used youtube for that purpose yet, the videos I've used so far were from guitar and piano online courses (jamplay and music2me), but I barely used them because I always preferred the practice lessons. I watched a couple of the mDecks videos but they're usually related to their app.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> Unless it's tied to your ears, music theory is always going to be boring!
> 
> The advice here is absolutely right, for that exact reason. Music theory isn't abstract, it makes total sense when you hear it.
> 
> And the reason isn't terribly profound: theory is just an explanation of practice.



Yes, I guess what I need is just to have my guitar or keyboard in my hands while learning the theory just to apply it directly, which for me is the best way to memorize what I learn, but I also think it must make a lot sense when learned because I notice it when listening to some musicians.

Some musicians show clearly that they know theory in their works and I want to get to that point where you know the rules but are not a slave of them, which in my opinion is the highest a musician can reach in these terms.



Garry said:


> It would be easy to recommend Rick Beato ...
> 
> So, the channel I would primarily recommend is Signals Music Studio: ...
> 
> ...



Thanks for the wishes and tips, I know Rick Beato's channel and I think he is not showing everything he can there but maybe in his website, I guess the channel is also a way to get paying customers, which I totally understand, and I also guess he will show more when buying courses directly from his website, maybe worth a try some day. 

I didn't know about Signal Music Studio so I subscribed to it already and will start watching the videos tonight when I get home. Your description on Mike Verta let me think that it could be interesting as a further step when I learn at least the basics on the other channels, so I guess I'll start with Signals Music Studio channel and see how far I get.

Thanks to everyone again for the help


----------



## Garry (May 22, 2019)

kessel said:


> Actually I haven't used youtube for that purpose yet,



Ah, in that case, this post I made a few months ago might also give you some other sources you could find useful (includes, but not exclusive to music theory). YouTube can be a great resource for music learning.



kessel said:


> I know Rick Beato's channel and I think he is not showing everything he can there but maybe in his website, I guess the channel is also a way to get paying customers


His primary revenue is through selling 'The Beato Book', which I think is fair enough and it's reasonably priced; recently he's also set up 'The Beato Club' (as an alternative to Patreon), but that's pretty recent, and I don't think he restricts his content to behind this paywall - he really just promotes this as a transparent and independent way to fund the channel; he promotes this heavily during the live sessions, but not so much during the tutorials he provides. My main issue with his channel is the content can be quite dense, and he assumes a lot (he taught for over 30 years, so I think he's used to his audience already being well versed), but that's fine - he's addressing a specific niche comprising those already coming with a reasonably advanced knowledge of music theory, so my inability to keep up is more about me than him. Still, I think you'll find the other recommendation much more approachable. Let us know how you go.


----------



## kessel (May 22, 2019)

Garry said:


> Ah, in that case, this post I made a few months ago might also give you some other sources you could find useful (includes, but not exclusive to music theory). YouTube can be a great resource for music learning.
> 
> 
> His primary revenue is through selling 'The Beato Book', which I think is fair enough and it's reasonably priced; recently he's also set up 'The Beato Club' (as an alternative to Patreon), but that's pretty recent, and I don't think he restricts his content to behind this paywall - he really just promotes this as a transparent and independent way to fund the channel; he promotes this heavily during the live sessions, but not so much during the tutorials he provides. My main issue with his channel is the content can be quite dense, and he assumes a lot (he taught for over 30 years, so I think he's used to his audience already being well versed), but that's fine - he's addressing a specific niche comprising those already coming with a reasonably advanced knowledge of music theory, so my inability to keep up is more about me than him. Still, I think you'll find the other recommendation much more approachable. Let us know how you go.



Great list of youtube channels, I went it all through and already subscribed to most of them, thanks.

Yeah, that with Beato is something I really can understand, maybe I didn't put it correctly as I'm not a native English speaker, but what I meant is that I could understand him not wanting to give every piece of his knowledge just for free on youtube.

At some point it is the most reasonable thing that both parts take some profit out of it, the teacher gets paid, the learning people get additional knowledge. And Beato already shares a lot of knowledge for free actually, I really like many of his videos.


----------



## sndmarks (May 22, 2019)

You might consider checking out www.scoringarts.com


----------



## MartinH. (May 22, 2019)

Garry said:


> It would be easy to recommend Rick Beato - probably the best subscribed music theoretician on YouTube, but personally, while I really like his channel and greatly support what he's doing, I often feel I need something intermediary to help me really fully appreciate the concepts. He covers a very broad range, but he doesn't work hard to help you understand - he leaves that to you! Sometimes that's good, and sometimes I'd appreciate a little more guidance.
> 
> So, the channel I would primarily recommend is Signals Music Studio: a fairly recent channel (July 2017), but already has over 220,000 subscribers. Since you're a guitarist, you'll probably like that he teaches, with guitar in hand, and always illustrating the concept both with side bar graphics and then playing what he's talking about directly on the guitar. He's a young guy, but already has a great technique in teaching: he really makes the concepts clear, understandable and instantly applicable. I'm also initially a guitarist, but tend to follow along on piano - his style of teaching is not at all specific to guitar technique, and makes it very easy to follow along with any instrument. It's watching his channel that has subsequently enabled me to get more from channels like Rick Beato and Mapping Tonal Harmony from mDecks (also recommended, but not initially).
> 
> ...



Thanks for the recommendation! I watched two videos from signals music studio and liked them a lot. Very condensed and helpful! I also really like the Mike Verta Masterclasses that I've watched. So far I have seen zero overlap between the two, they might complement each other well.
Rick Beato's videos never quite worked for me, I'm probably not in the skillgroup they're aimed at.


----------



## GtrString (May 22, 2019)

www.truefire.com


----------



## Leon Willett (May 22, 2019)

The only music theory that will not seem boring to you is music theory that directly impacts your ability to make your music sound the way you want. 

If something bores you, it's a sign that either a) it doesn't help you make your music sound the way you want, or b) it does, but you don't realise it. 

Boredom happens when you hold the opinion that "this isn't worth it".


----------



## Paul Grymaud (May 22, 2019)

Yep, buddies
This course about music theory is really fascinating


----------



## ed buller (May 22, 2019)

Have some lessons with leon !...you can't go wrong and he won't let you get bored


www.leonwillett.com


best

ed


----------



## kessel (May 23, 2019)

Leon Willett said:


> The only music theory that will not seem boring to you is music theory that directly impacts your ability to make your music sound the way you want.
> 
> If something bores you, it's a sign that either a) it doesn't help you make your music sound the way you want, or b) it does, but you don't realise it.
> 
> Boredom happens when you hold the opinion that "this isn't worth it".



That's right, I mean, I don't think it isn't worth it, I actually know it is, but I think one of the things that stops me from learning music theory is that I often see the same names in the lessons and a lot of classic artists among these.

I like to listen to classic compositors every now and then, but are very rarely my references and at the same time I feel learning their pieces is like trying to build a house starting with the roof.

Maybe I should start by looking for songs I really like and would like to learn how they're written, then every time I see names like Mozart, The Beatles, Beethoven... I loose interest almost instantly.


----------



## MartinH. (May 23, 2019)

kessel said:


> That's right, I mean, I don't think it isn't worth it, I actually know it is, but I think one of the things that stops me from learning music theory is that I often see the same names in the lessons and a lot of classic artists among these.
> 
> I like to listen to classic compositors every now and then, but are very rarely my references and at the same time I feel learning their pieces is like trying to build a house starting with the roof.
> 
> Maybe I should start by looking for songs I really like and would like to learn how they're written, then every time I see names like Mozart, The Beatles, Beethoven... I loose interest almost instantly.



Have you tried transcribing songs that you like yourself?


----------



## kessel (May 23, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> Have you tried transcribing songs that you like yourself?



No, JohnG recommended this to me too at the start of this thread and I actually think it can be a great idea, I hope I can try that this weekend and see how it works. Thanks, I think that could help


----------



## MartinH. (May 23, 2019)

kessel said:


> No, JohnG recommended this to me too at the start of this thread and I actually think it can be a great idea, I hope I can try that this weekend and see how it works. Thanks, I think that could help



Mike Verta's approach pretty much is transcribing (daily) the things that sound like things you'd want to write yourself, learn how they did it and expand your toolset, make the devices your own, learn about the right contexts to use them etc., and then much later "learning theory" is just "putting names to all the things you already use and understand". "Theory is derived from great music, not the other way around".


----------



## kessel (May 23, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> "Theory is derived from great music, not the other way around".



Nice sentence, very true. Yes, I'll try this way, I think hat could work


----------



## SchnookyPants (May 23, 2019)

Nudist colony?


----------



## Jerry Growl (May 23, 2019)

For harmony theory: best place is at the piano/keyboard. Why? Because it's laid out right before your eyes. On a guitar everything shifts with the strings.
Play with triads moving only one voice at a time (any 1/3 notes changes with every next chord, 2/3 stay on the same note), try to find out every new chord's harmonic place (each chord has a several functional possibilities which usually depend on the chords played before). When you arrive at dissonance, try to solve it to a consonant chord.
Try finding and playing progressions in all keys (minor first, then major). Go through the whole circle of fifths in II-V-I variations, etc
Try jazz harmony theory too (it's actually less complicated to read and learn because it's not so drastically historically cluttered as classical harmony theory).


----------



## ed buller (May 23, 2019)

"Pick one of your favourite bands, or bands whose music you admire. It's a fast and fairly painless way to learn theory; if you already play pretty well, even faster."


John is spot on !

your motivation should stem from hearing a piece of music and saying " Wish I could have written that"...that's why most people study...to find out how it works. If you don't like a lot of classical music fair enough...avoid studying that. I suspect that if you made a list of ten pieces of music you absolutely love and would like to find out how they are made, that would help. If you have a DAW just import them as audio files and learn them all....off by heart. So you can play them in any key. Ingest them !!!....so the fabric of the music becomes a muscle memory ( either on guitar or piano ). As you do this slowly try and figure out whats going on. look for key, Harmonic movement ( how quickly things change ) use of melody...etc. Your goal here is to find out the DNA of these pieces so you can write music like them. Almost certainly you will spot patterns. You prefer maj to min keys. You don't like perfect cadences. You like drones and pedal points...etc. What you are doing is learning the process by taking stuff apart..if it's stuff you love..............you'll never get bored. And then armed with these little nuggets try writing your own music using what you have learned . I get asked to copy stuff all the time. "we can't get clearance for this...can you write something like it ?"......by the time I've finished I have learned heaps !


best

ed


----------



## kessel (May 23, 2019)

Jerry Growl said:


> For harmony theory: best place is at the piano/keyboard. Why? Because it's laid out right before your eyes. On a guitar everything shifts with the strings.
> Play with triads moving only one voice at a time (any 1/3 notes changes with every next chord, 2/3 stay on the same note), try to find out every new chord's harmonic place (each chord has a several functional possibilities which usually depend on the chords played before). When you arrive at dissonance, try to solve it to a consonant chord.
> Try finding and playing progressions in all keys (minor first, then major). Go through the whole circle of fifths in II-V-I variations, etc
> Try jazz harmony theory too (it's actually less complicated to read and learn because it's not so drastically historically cluttered as classical harmony theory).





ed buller said:


> "Pick one of your favourite bands, or bands whose music you admire. It's a fast and fairly painless way to learn theory; if you already play pretty well, even faster."
> 
> 
> John is spot on !
> ...



Very nice recommendations, had to copy/paste them into my personal notes to not forget them for the next months, looks like I have some good starting points, thanks a lot


----------



## Garry (May 24, 2019)

Not sure if Rick Beato reads this forum, but


kessel said:


> Actually I haven't used youtube for that purpose yet, the videos I've used so far were from guitar and piano online courses (jamplay and music2me), but I barely used them because I always preferred the practice lessons. I watched a couple of the mDecks videos but they're usually related to their app.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not sure if Rick Beato reads this forum, but he just uploaded a video today here to address those that complain that his videos are too complicated! He gives a nice run down of the essentials that you need to know, in order to get value from his other more in depth videos. I found it helpful and it made me think of this thread.


----------



## MartinH. (May 24, 2019)

Garry said:


> Not sure if Rick Beato reads this forum, but
> 
> Not sure if Rick Beato reads this forum, but he just uploaded a video today here to address those that complain that his videos are too complicated! He gives a nice run down of the essentials that you need to know, in order to get value from his other more in depth videos. I found it helpful and it made me think of this thread.



He holds up a phonebook sized printout of his e-book and says "It's 461 pages, but it has all the theory that you need for this channel"...


----------



## Garry (May 24, 2019)

Yeah, his channel is hundreds of videos though, so that doesn't seem incongruous to me.


----------



## ism (May 24, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> "Theory is derived from great music, not the other way around".




That's not entirely true. There exists underlying mechanisms of cognition and perception, which are much better understood in recent decades, as well underlying mathematical structures and principles. So while there's certainly a sense in which theory is abstracted from great music, this isn't quite the same as saying that music theory is purely an epiphenomenal gloss.


----------



## MartinH. (May 24, 2019)

Garry said:


> Not sure if Rick Beato reads this forum, but he just uploaded a video today here to address those that complain that his videos are too complicated! He gives a nice run down of the essentials that you need to know, in order to get value from his other more in depth videos. I found it helpful and it made me think of this thread.



I watched the rest of the video now, thanks for sharing it here! He says he doesn't want to get bogged down by repeating basics over and over again in his videos and I can understand that. There's always less material for intermediates because beginners are the biggest market everywhere, so it's great that he takes the risk to just cater to intermediates. And the top comment under the video says "If you can't learn from Rick it's hopeless. What a great teacher.", so his style clearly works very well for some people. Not for me though. And I want to stress that I'm not "complaining" and I think he's a cool dude for sharing so much free educational material with the world! But his style couldn't be a worse match for the way I would need the knowledge explained to me to get anything out of it. I could follow along as long as he was talking about stuff that I already knew (though I can 100% guarantuee I wouldn't have understood any of it if I hadn't had that prerequisite knowledge), but as soon as he started on the circle thing I was completely lost. Is that the "circle of fifths" (headline says something different)? In case it is, that's the thing I already didn't understand back in school. In fact he very much reminds me of the teachers that I didn't understand a thing from in those days, including my music teacher.
But you can't please everyone and I seem to have found a teacher that works well for me with "signals music studio". His way of giving context to the thing he's about to teach before throwing the first notes at me works sooo much better for me: 






ism said:


> That's not entirely true. There exists underlying mechanisms of cognition and perception, which are much better understood in recent decades


So what you're saying is "there was good music before the theory was fully understood yet"?



ism said:


> as well underlying mathematical structures and principles.


The only theorybook that I tried to read (and gave up on) was by Hindemith and in the beginning he talked a lot about mathematical relationships between notes that are certain intervals apart, and natural overtones within the sounds of instruments, and that - even if I only understood parts of it - I found to be a useful way of looking at it, because when things can be explained in a granular down-to-the-numbers way, then I often understand them better. E.g. much in computer graphics and programming I understand better because I can follow it down to bits and bytes and there's no more fundamental understanding to be had for certain things. It's a fair bit more complex in music though imho. At least for me it's harder to grasp. 



ism said:


> So while there's certainly a sense in which theory is abstracted from great music, this isn't quite the same as saying that music theory is purely an epiphenomenal gloss.


I apologize, but I don't understand what you mean.


----------



## kessel (May 24, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> I seem to have found a teacher that works well for me with "signals music studio". His way of giving context to the thing he's about to teach before throwing the first notes at me works sooo much better for me



That's one I think I also share with you. For me just talking about music theory doesn't help much, I need to see it, and I mean see it on an instrument not in a graphic.

I'm putting a couple of things together that might work for me and I want to share them here in case somebody whose mind works like mine when it comes to musical theory might want to try it out, not sure if it works as I'm just starting with it.

Based on the recommendations I have received in this same thread I'm going to start by analyzing songs I like from other artists as well as my own songs to find out what I'm doing and how can I get better to my musical objectives.

What I've done so far is getting a couple of plugins that can help me find out the notes of the songs I want to study. I have scaler for midi sources and I just bought Mixed in Key Studio today to do the same with audio sources in case I start analyzing a song by some artist as a help to transpose those notes into midi.

One of the reasons I want to translate the songs into midi is to sync my DAW with an external tool that helps me transcribe the MIDI into musical notation. I've downloaded MuseScore for free for that matter. There are alternative software options to any of these three programs for midi, audio and notation respectively.

So my next step is going to be taking a song I like and start "deconstructing" it with these tools and parallel have some digital books on harmony and music theory where to look for more information when needed, like harmony rules, chord functions, notation rules... and of course my keyboard and maybe one of my guitars on the side just to play and test what I'm learning if needed.

I think this way I could really have fun learning the theory and if it doesn't work for me I hope it works for someone else who may read this. I'll keep telling you how it works for me and sharing my experience with this great community that hat given me so good ideas about where to start from. Thanks again and I hope I can tell you some good things about my progress soon


----------



## Garry (May 24, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> I watched the rest of the video now, thanks for sharing it here! He says he doesn't want to get bogged down by repeating basics over and over again in his videos and I can understand that. There's always less material for intermediates because beginners are the biggest market everywhere, so it's great that he takes the risk to just cater to intermediates. And the top comment under the video says "If you can't learn from Rick it's hopeless. What a great teacher.", so his style clearly works very well for some people. Not for me though. And I want to stress that I'm not "complaining" and I think he's a cool dude for sharing so much free educational material with the world! But his style couldn't be a worse match for the way I would need the knowledge explained to me to get anything out of it. I could follow along as long as he was talking about stuff that I already knew (though I can 100% guarantuee I wouldn't have understood any of it if I hadn't had that prerequisite knowledge), but as soon as he started on the circle thing I was completely lost. Is that the "circle of fifths" (headline says something different)? In case it is, that's the thing I already didn't understand back in school. In fact he very much reminds me of the teachers that I didn't understand a thing from in those days, including my music teacher.
> But you can't please everyone and I seem to have found a teacher that works well for me with "signals music studio". His way of giving context to the thing he's about to teach before throwing the first notes at me works sooo much better for me:
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, signals music studio was the site I originally recommended to the OP at the beginning of the thread, he’s awesome. 

For me, no one source will give you everything, but a combination of some of the suggestions on this thread will go a long way.


----------



## MartinH. (May 25, 2019)

Alexandre said:


> Can't thank you and MartinH enough (and everyone really !) for this great great thread!!! Can't wait to get some more feedback on your new process and how it works for you!



I didn't even know "signals music studio" before reading this thread, and everything else I said has been said before by Garry, JohnG, and the others, so it's indeed "everyone else" you should be thanking, but I'm glad it's helping you too!




Garry said:


> Yes, signals music studio was the site I originally recommended to the OP at the beginning of the thread, he’s awesome.


Yeah, his channel is truly youtube gold and his videos are short and entertaining enough that I should be able to get through them all. Thanks again for this recommendation! If you know or find any similar channels (fine too if they're aimed at guitar/metal composition), please let us know!


Youtube has a bad habbit of boxing you in into always recommending the same kind of stuff, instead of actively broadening your horizon. I discovered a bit about how the recommendation algorithm works by deleting all my youtube cookies (I don't use an account on youtube or google) to get a "clean slate" a couple of times. When you open a youtube link in a private browsing window, it's like youtube knows nothing about you anymore and recommends you stuff based on the first video you opened in that window. So if it's a music theory video, all recommendations under "related videos" are for music theory youtube channels. Thought this might be usefull if people want to do some exploring. Works for getting music recommendations as well.




kessel said:


> Thanks again and I hope I can tell you some good things about my progress soon


Sounds good, let us know how it goes! 
To cite Mike Verta once more, he strongly recommends transcribing things that you can get the score for, but using that only to "check if you got it right". Meaning transcribe the first few bars by ear first, then look at the score and cover the parts you haven't transcribed yet with a sheet of paper, see how close you got and make mental notes of all the things that surprised you.
But I understand if you're mainly interested in stuff where you can't get the sheet music for (same for me). My favourite transcription trick is when I think I got the right note, I try how it sounds with the ones above or below in sync with the original, and if both sound very dissonant, I probably got the right one. I started doing that after I noted that I often was off by a fifth, even when using a frequency analyzer tool like the free voxengo SPAN to look for peaks in the frequency spectrum that can give me hints to what plays, because the frequency of a note one fifth higher often is part of the overtone frequencies, and in the spectrum of a full song it's really hard to see what's a note frequency and what's just an overtone.
Try not to get too reliant on tools long term, but they can be a good way to get you started and will likely teach you things too.


----------



## Vik (May 25, 2019)

ism said:


> That's not entirely true.


 That statement ("Theory is derived from great music, not the other way around") is still extremely important IMO. The first ever written books and theories about harmony and music theory wasn't of course written by someone who had read other books. The initial observations was based on what works (according to what feels right when we hear it). So experimenting, by finding harmonic solutions based on what sounds right (teach of us) is IMO a very useful way to get to know harmony, and if one is working with songs one really like, it certainly isn't boring. One of one of my teachers' first lessons was about creating a set of variations of C minor based on what I felt sounded good. It was a very useful and helpful advice, which probably also should work well in your situation, @kessel.

That, and - if possible - starting to take private lessons from a teacher who adjusts his lessons to his students more than he expect the students to adjust their way of learning to the teachers's routines would probably also be very helpful.
Besides, if someone has trouble learning how most people play and deal with harmonies - why not just play/deal with them in other ways?


----------



## dzilizzi (May 25, 2019)

Another thing I've found helpful is things like the Chord Track in Cubase. You can select any chords in the first option. But what is really helpful in learning theory is the modified Circle of Fifths option, where you pick a key and it basically gives you the chords that work with it. (Toontrack also has this but with more options for extended chords like 7ths and sustaineds). And even more interesting is the third tab where it suggests chord progressions partially based on the chords you've used but mostly on various music theory styles. A lot of the suggestions I would never have thought to use. 

Mostly I find the actual circle of fifths to be only useful if you are trying to remember how many sharps or flats are in a key. And if you just memorize the keys, which you can do using something like www.musictheory.net it isn't really that useful anymore. I could be missing another use for it.


----------



## Leon Willett (May 25, 2019)

kessel said:


> every time I see names like Mozart, The Beatles, Beethoven... I loose interest almost instantly.



You loose interest... as you should! 

Because you are not interested in that, and therefore shouldn't spend time on it. 

What you are interested in is making the music you want. 

If your music already sounds how you want, you don't need to learn any theory, or to get bored reading about the theory of how to write like Mozart. 

If you feel your music still isn't coming out the way you want, then you need to learn the RIGHT KIND of theory, in order to fix that. 

People are recommending transcribing stuff you love, which can offer some insights. 

But it's hard to derive the hidden rules that are making the piece sound the way that it does, even when you transcribe it, or even have the score itself in your hands. 

Reading a novel -- seeing all the words in front of you, in plain sight -- does not teach you how to write a great novel. Because there are hidden things going on, like character development, plot design, all kinds of stuff... Hence storytelling theory to the rescue. 

Music is the same, there are many things going on that a beginner is unlikely to spot, even when looking at the score itself. 

If you are capable of deriving all the "rules" of the music you love from transcribing it or looking at the score, then awesome! 

Most people (myself included, when I first started looking at scores... wasted many years deriving mistaken assumptions from scores), need help with that. That help is: the right kind of theory.


----------



## Leon Willett (May 26, 2019)

Alexandre said:


> And any suggestions or ideas on how to find the right kind of theory if I may ask?
> 
> Thanks!



I have hesitated to answer this question before on this forum, but here goes.

A composition course (a *theory* of how one should approach composing music) must have the following goal 2 goals:


To take you, the composer, to the point that your music sounds exactly the way you want -- that you are your own favourite composer.
That your composing process is easy and reliable. That you can sit down and good stuff happens, every time.

That is a successful course. A successful theory of composition.




Before we continue, can we first agree on this? Please pause and think about this. A successful composition course is about you and your music, and has nothing to do with Mozart, Beethoven, or the Pharaoh of Egypt either.

So how can a course get you to that point of quality and comfort?

Well, firstly please understand that there are 9 things that are going on in your music that make you either like it or dislike it.

In order to become your own favourite composer you need to be *masterfully*, *comfortably*, *happily* in control of those 9 things.

It is the job of theory to give you, firstly, a *deep understanding* of what those 9 things are... and then a *framework* within which you can practice and master them. Again: a good piece of music -- a piece of music that fully satisfies you, the composer -- is doing all those 9 things at once.




Let's look at what those 9 things are. You will need to keep an open mind, as I have had to make up some terms, since traditional theory conflates some things (has the same term for two different ideas) and misses other things entirely, which need a new term.

*1) HARMONIC JOURNEY*

Every bunch of pitches your piece uses (every "chord" -- but it doesn't have to be a traditional one), feels a certain way compared to the one before, and the one before that, and so on. Some feel like "home", others feel very "far" from home, some feel in between... yet others point towards a new "home"...

The way this works is not obvious, and near impossible to derive from looking at a score, in my opinion. We are talking about how your piece feels, emotionally, over the entire harmonic journey it creates. The story of chords.

Every composer needs to be masterfully and comfortably in control of this aspect, and needs to understand how to craft a satisfying journey -- in any style.

*2) INTERVAL BEAUTY *

Every time two instruments play a different note you get a certain flavour, depending on the distance between the two notes. The musical interval. There are bitter ones, sweet ones, cold ones, etc. And when _many_ instruments play at the same time, you get a "soup" of many different interval flavours, all at once.

Every composer needs to be masterfully and comfortably in control of this soup of flavours, and how it is *evolving* over time. It's one of the 9 things you like, or dislike, about your music. Beginners make slightly random interval flavours and are numb to the effect it is having on their music, or just don't know how to fix it.

Every style of music (thriller, magical, classical, trailer this, trailer that, whatever you want) has a preference for certain interval flavour "soups".

But it goes deeper than that: control over interval flavours happens by being aware of the type of harmonic motion that is happening between the instruments (parallel, contrary, oblique, etc...). Classical music theory gets this one so radically wrong that it's shocking.

In any case, mastery over the beauty of the intervals in your music is a non-negotiable aspect of your understanding of music.

*3) CONTOUR BEAUTY *

This one is a simple one. You can think of contour beauty as melodic beauty, but it is more than that: the rhythmic and pitch "shapes" of all your orchestral elements, including things you think of as "accompaniment" are also included in this.

It is the management of the shape (rhythm and pitch) each individual orchestral element in your piece.

*4) COMBINED CONTOURS *

Here we are not talking about any individual contour happening in your piece, but the combination of all contours. The "dance" of elements if you will. This includes not only the way the contours play off each other, but also the beauty of the way the elements begin (beauty of entry) and stop (beauty of exit).

Traditionally this is learned in counterpoint, but all counterpoint courses I have seen completely miss the point, including all famous books on the subject (including Fux). It is about controlling the "dance" of various elements, and how that "dance" is hitting the listener. The combined contours in your piece.

...and every composer should be masterfully and comfortably in control of this "dance" of elements. It is one of the 9 things you either like or dislike about your music.

*5) POETIC CHARACTER *

Poetic character is the reason to chose one instrument (or combination) instead of another. This includes also the *specific range* on the instrument(s) (or synth -- whatever).

A melody in could be played by anyone in the orchestra. Play it on a solo french horn, in the middle range, and now it has a noble, proud quality. Play it on 3 trumpets, loudly, in the low range, and now it snarls nastily. Play it softly in celli and basses and now it is brooding and stern.

You must be happily and comfortably in control not only of the poetic character of each element in your piece -- but also the combination of all poetic characters that are active in each moment of music.

Noble + soaring + lyrical. Shimmering + mysterious + brooding.

Combined poetics. Get it?

Incidentally, beginners look to this aspect of music for deep emotional impact, where they should be looking at number 1 on this list, first. They bring in the loud percussion and brass, but have not travelled harmonically. Like shouting and screaming about a story that has already been told.

*6) ORCHESTRAL "EQ" *

The point of octave doublings. Totally missed by all orchestration books I have ever read, including Rimsky, Adler and Piston. When you double something at the octave, you are making it brighter, or warmer, or deeper, or more present (mid range). It is the orchestration equivalent of an EQ plugin.

At every moment of your music, there is a certain distribution of pitches going on, provoking a certain EQ signature.

You either like that signature, or you don't.

You need to be masterfully, happily, and comfortably in control of this aspect of your music. Typical mistakes here include muddiness where it wasn't intended, or brittleness (brightness without warmth) that wasn't intended.

*7) BALANCE *

The more instruments that play a particular pitch, the fatter it gets. Some instruments are fatter than others. One of the things you, the composer, cares about is how fat or thin each pitch in your piece is. This is one of the points of unison doublings (the other point is combining poetic characters -- number 5 in this list).

You need to be comfortably and masterfully in control of the fatness of each pitch in your piece. Too thin, or too fat, will both not please you.

*8) BLEND AND SEPARATION *

The elements of your piece should sound blended, or separate from each other, according to what you want.

With bad blend and separation, you will have things disappearing (that you want to be heard), and things sticking out (that you didn't intend).

Good blend and separation is achieved by managing the combined *timbres* of the instruments (or synths -- whatever) playing at a given time, their combined *contours*, and the *EQ* of the different elements. For example if an element has the same timbre as another, but the contours are very (rhythmically) separate, you will still achieve separation. If the timbres are different, but the contours are identical, you will still achieve blend in most cases. If the timbres and contours are the same, but the EQ is radically different (one is deep, and the other bright, for example), they will still sound separate.

Getting into the technical part here a little too much perhaps, but the point is, again, that you need to be happily and comfortably in control of this aspect of your music, or you will not be satisfied.

*9) SUBJECTS*

A subject is a musical idea that, if it came back later, the listener would recognise.

It is the musical equivalent of a character in a movie.

Usually, subjects are melodic themes, but they needn't be. Again that definition: *a musical idea that, if it came back later, the listener would recognise*.

They can evolve over time, stretching, fragmenting, simplifying, complicating themselves... But not too much, because if they are unrecognisable, then the point was lost.

Beginners have no subjects, or too many subjects, or don't develop them enough, or develop them too much (unrecognisably)...

Like main characters in a movie, the subjects of your piece are very important to you -- whether you understand the dynamics of how it happens or not -- and you should be masterfully, comfortably and happily in control of this, as you make a piece of music.



...continued below


----------



## Leon Willett (May 26, 2019)

...continued





Ok now...

*BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER *

Once the 9 aspects of music have been truly, deeply understood (whether you can see it right now or not, music truly is: a dance of these 9 aspects -- there is no 10th aspect you can find), you need to bring it all together into a composing method that is comfortable and reliable.

A good composing method keeps those 9 things working perfectly, and is not hard to do, in day to day composing.

A successful course would cover not only the theory, but also include the final piece of the puzzle: how to face the empty page, and how to face the half-finished piece, and finish it.







So, to answer your question: I can say with my hand on my heart that I have never found a course that properly covers these 9 things, which is why I developed my course, which I give over Skype.

I am not advertising my course -- I am just trying to answer your question honestly.

As ridiculous as it sounds -- and this is why I have hesitated to answer this question before, here on this forum -- I believe music education needs some kind of revolution, and believe the courses and books that are available today to be shockingly bad at teaching people how to compose music that is true to their heart, including university degrees (I know -- I have one from a British university, totally useless honestly), and famous courses out there (I know because I have taught students with degrees from those places, and they were as bad as I was when I finished University).

The only point is: you need to get good at the 9 things I have laid out here. Everyone does. They are the 9 aspects of musical beauty, which are absolutes. They will never change, no matter how many centuries go by, or whether you make electronic music, or pop or are composing an orchestral symphony.


----------



## Dave Connor (May 26, 2019)

Garry said:


> So, the channel I would primarily recommend is Signals Music Studio: a fairly recent channel (July 2017).


 In his opening sentence he talks about the Beatles song _Something_ released in 1969 on the White Album. That’s like teaching rocket science and starting off with the first Moon Landing in 1972.


----------



## borisb2 (May 26, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Unless it's tied to your ears, music theory is always going to be boring!



A masterpiece in entertaining theory (chromatisicm/ambiguity) by Leonard Bernstein:


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 27, 2019)

Dave Connor said:


> In his opening sentence he talks about the Beatles song _Something_ released in 1969 on the White Album. That’s like teaching rocket science and starting off with the first Moon Landing in 1972.



... 'Something' was on the Abbey Road album...


----------



## jamwerks (May 27, 2019)

kessel said:


> That's right, I mean, I don't think it isn't worth it, I actually know it is, but I think one of the things that stops me from learning music theory is that I often see the same names in the lessons and a lot of classic artists among these.
> 
> I like to listen to classic compositors every now and then, but are very rarely my references and at the same time I feel learning their pieces is like trying to build a house starting with the roof.
> 
> Maybe I should start by looking for songs I really like and would like to learn how they're written, then every time I see names like Mozart, The Beatles, Beethoven... I loose interest almost instantly.


After 2 minutes of Beethoven, or (pick your great composer), you don't have goosebumps and recognize those are the same chord progressions you hear elsewhere and want to know, then I can't help but think that you've probably chosen the wrong profession?...


----------



## kessel (May 27, 2019)

jamwerks said:


> After 2 minutes of Beethoven, or (pick your great composer), you don't have goosebumps and recognize those are the same chord progressions you hear elsewhere and want to know, then I can't help but think that you've probably chosen the wrong profession?...



Yes, I have indeed chosen the wrong profession as I'm not a musician but a software developer, unfortunately not everyone can choose the thing he/she most like in life as a profession, but that's another subject... if you like music as passionate as I do you'll come to a point that you'll pick up your favorite artists by far more things than just using the "same" chord progression as Beethoven or Mozart, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense to make more music at all, let's just listen to the good old classics and get rid of everything that came after 1900?



Leon Willett said:


> You loose interest... as you should!
> 
> Because you are not interested in that, and therefore shouldn't spend time on it.
> 
> ...



That's exactly the point. I feel like I'm very near to become my own favorite composer but still not completely there and as you said, I think there are some theory and harmonic rules that should be the right ones for me to learn.

By doing what you recommend I could actually save a lot of time and I really thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience here and for your two elaborated posts on that, I'm going to read them carefully now to really understand what you describe because it sounds a lot like the information I need and the point I aim to reach to improve my musical writing skills. Thanks a lot for your words and the effort of sharing your knowledge with us and putting it into words


----------



## Dave Connor (May 27, 2019)

mikeh-375 said:


> ... 'Something' was on the Abbey Road album...


Yes that was my point - wrong album - wrong year. (i.e. _Wrong.) _Not a good start from a _teacher_.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 27, 2019)

borisb2 said:


> A masterpiece in entertaining theory (chromatisicm/ambiguity) by Leonard Bernstein:




Thanks, will watch when I get a chance.


----------



## MartinH. (May 27, 2019)

@Leon Willett: Thanks so much for that AAA+++ post! Saved, bookmarked, and I know I'll need to come back to it a couple of times to remind myself!
I'll use these 9 aspects to analyze the music that I like and will try to think about them more consciously when I compose something.


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 27, 2019)

Dave Connor said:


> Yes that was my point - wrong album - wrong year. (i.e. _Wrong.) _Not a good start from a _teacher_.



Ahhh sorry Dave...you know I thought that too, but as I hadn't read or heard whatever was being talked about, I thought I'd better stay shtum. I missed your irony..nice one.


----------



## Dave Connor (May 27, 2019)

mikeh-375 said:


> Ahhh sorry Dave...you know I thought that too, but as I hadn't read or heard whatever was being talked about, I thought I'd better stay shtum. I missed your irony


On no worries at all Mike. Let this be the biggest issue either you or I have to deal with for the next year! It’s all good.


----------



## Leon Willett (May 27, 2019)

kessel said:


> I'm going to read them carefully now to really understand what you describe because it sounds a lot like the information I need and the point I aim to reach to improve my musical writing skills.



Please do man! Those 9 aspects are not rules -- they are things that any listener needs to be going well before they can enjoy the music they are hearing (and that includes the composer making the music too, of course!). 

If any one of the 9 pillars is not going well, you won't like the music -- at least not fully. 

I wrote my long post in the hopes of raising awareness about those 9 aspects (some of them are not obvious!). My post describes them, but can't really fully describe the consequences of each one, or how to master them (I'd have to type out my whole course!). In any case, you are aware of them now -- please think about the implications of each one!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 28, 2019)

Try what I did...enrol in formal piano lessons. With the right teacher, you will not only learn to play piano (properly), but learn a s##tload about theory in the process. This has taken my writing to a whole new level, the inspiration is amazing. And if you go that route, search for the perfect teacher for your style, and have them hold you accountable.


----------



## Garry (May 28, 2019)

Rick Beato has definitely got the message! After comments here (not sure he's reading them!) about how sometimes his presentations are impenetrable to those who don't already have advanced music theory knowledge, in the last couple of weeks he's released TWO videos on basic theory - the first one I'd mentioned earlier in the thread, and is here, and in the last hour he's just released a 2nd on chord construction here. It's basic stuff, very unusual for Rick Beato, but may be helpful for those new to the topics.


----------



## kessel (May 29, 2019)

Garry said:


> Rick Beato has definitely got the message! After comments here (not sure he's reading them!) about how sometimes his presentations are impenetrable to those who don't already have advanced music theory knowledge, in the last couple of weeks he's released TWO videos on basic theory - the first one I'd mentioned earlier in the thread, and is here, and in the last hour he's just released a 2nd on chord construction here. It's basic stuff, very unusual for Rick Beato, but may be helpful for those new to the topics.



Nice to see that, he says something about being teaching on a conference Italy in the second video so I guess that's the reason why he's doing videos about theory basics now but anyways very welcome, I really like his channel and it's definitely a good point for me to start watching these videos and see I can get to other ones in his channel after watching them. Thanks for sharing the links


----------



## benatural (May 29, 2019)

In my experience, learning theory and harmony can be slow and boring at times, especially at first. Memorizing key signatures, the circle of fifths, scales, sight singing, figured bass, voice leading, etc can feel and rigid and restrictive, and disconnected from actual music making initially.

You have to push through and go through the motions. Trust the process and go with it. Memorize those fundenentals, and know it'll likely be 4-5 years before you start to feel like you know how to apply all that knowledge. It gets better over time though! Soon it starts to feel like puzzle solving which can be fun in and of itself, and eventually you learn to use the tools you've obtained in ways that suit your own creative needs. In my opinion, it's totally worth it.

If you're able to, consider taking college courses. A guided approach works well for some, and can make the process feel less daunting.


----------



## robgb (May 29, 2019)

As a novelist, I often tell aspiring writers that the very best way they can learn to write fiction is to read, read, read a lot of fiction—both great fiction and bad fiction, because it's all instructive. I would say the best way to learn theory and harmony, etc., is to listen, listen, listen—to both great music and bad music. If you want to learn the math involved, that's a different story.


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 29, 2019)

I wouldn't like to try and write a fugue after just listening to Bach. Nor would I be able to write like Williams after just listening. All depends on what you want out of music and how you want to step to the music you hear I suppose.


----------



## ism (May 29, 2019)

robgb said:


> As a novelist, I often tell aspiring writers that the very best way they can learn to write fiction is to read, read, read a lot of fiction—both great fiction and bad fiction, because it's all instructive. I would say the best way to learn theory and harmony, etc., is to listen, listen, listen—to both great music and bad music. If you want to learn the math involved, that's a different story.



What about a book like this:



(Which is not exactly cutting edge literary theory, but highly readable)


----------



## robgb (May 29, 2019)

ism said:


> (Which is not exactly cutting edge literary theory, but highly readable)


I don't see a link, so have no idea what book you're talking about, but I believe that art is largely subjective. There is, however, a certain standard of competency and creativity needed to write a good book.


----------



## Vik (May 29, 2019)

kessel said:


> I started playing guitar and making music 30 years ago and as much as I love music I could never become friends with music theory.
> 
> Nevertheless I always wanted to learn some more theory, specially harmony, to improve my compositions and arrangement skills, but the main problem I've always found is that every way I've found so far feels pretty boring to me.


You can learn about harmony without studying music theory as such. Since you are particularly interested in harmony, maybe the best way to learn more about it to copy how kids often learn stuff: they imitate. For instance, they learn language without being anyone explaining anything to them about language (they wouldn't have understood it anyway): they listen and imitate, and gradually figure out which words to use when. If you find some of your favourite musical pieces, and figure out (either by listening or by finding sheet music) - and keep doing that, you'll learn more about harmony, on your own premises. Doesn't matter if it's jazz or neo-classical or americana or something else, your repertoire of chords (and, important: voicing) will grow. If you learn new music regularly, the harmonic knowledge you pick in this process will gradually turn into something you will be able to use in your own music making.

Of course, if you want to figure out complex stuff, it will be helpful with a teacher, or YT-videos, or notated music. But te important parts are finding pieces that you find harmonically interesting – and that they are in a suitable level of complexity.
(@robgb: the book he linked to is 'How fiction works).


----------



## ism (May 29, 2019)

robgb said:


> I don't see a link, so have no idea what book you're talking about, but I believe that art is largely subjective. There is, however, a certain standard of competency and creativity needed to write a good book.



The link shows up fine for me, it’s James Woods “How fiction works”.


----------



## MartinH. (May 29, 2019)

robgb said:


> I don't see a link, so have no idea what book you're talking about, but I believe that art is largely subjective. There is, however, a certain standard of competency and creativity needed to write a good book.


That's because of your adblocker (I have the same issue). You can quote such posts and will see a number there, that you can paste in the searchfield or a product URL on amazon (or whatever site it's for).


----------



## robgb (May 29, 2019)

ism said:


> The link shows up fine for me, it’s James Woods “How fiction works”.


Well, James Woods would sure know, wouldn't he.


----------



## ism (May 29, 2019)

robgb said:


> Well, James Woods would sure know, wouldn't he.


Its a pretty good book. I’d certainly read it if I was aspiring to write novels.


----------



## robgb (May 30, 2019)

ism said:


> Its a pretty good book. I’d certainly read it if I was aspiring to write novels.


I also wrote a book on writing fiction...


----------



## ism (May 30, 2019)

robgb said:


> I also wrote a book on writing fiction...


What’s it called?


----------



## robgb (May 31, 2019)

ism said:


> What’s it called?


Casting the Bones: An Author's Guide to the Craft of Fiction.


----------



## Garry (Jun 8, 2019)

Just watched this video, and it reminded me of this thread. Oliver from Spitfire describes his process in producing a cue in which he tries to write in the style of Haydn. Really fun to watch, and explained very well.


----------



## Uncle Peter (Jun 8, 2019)

Go and bum about on some beaches in Thailand for a couple of months and drink lots of vodka redbull in buckets. Then when you have time in the day sit down and do the exercises in this book. Worked ok for me


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 26, 2019)

Garry said:


> It would be easy to recommend Rick Beato - probably the best subscribed music theoretician on YouTube, but personally, while I really like his channel and greatly support what he's doing, I often feel I need something intermediary to help me really fully appreciate the concepts.



I just saw this. He's not at all what I'd call a music theoretician, he's a guy who calls attention to elements in songs that helped make them stand out.


----------



## ed buller (Jan 2, 2020)

Start with these:

Scoring the Screen : Andy Hill

Twentieth-Century Harmony : Vincent Persichetti

A Geometry of Music : Tymoczko

Music and Twentieth-Century Tonality : Paolo Susanni and Elliott Antokoletz

Audacious Euphony : Richard Cohn

Techniques of Twentieth Century Composition : Leon Dallin

The Evolution of 20th Century Harmony : Wilfrid Dunwell

Creative Harmony : George Frederick Mckay

Modern Harmony : A Eaglefield Hall


and when you've done those :

Harmonic Function in Chromatic Music : Daniel Harrison

Tonal Harmony in Concept and Practice : Allen Forte

Understanding The Leitmotif : Matthew Bribitzer-Stull

The Craft of Musical Composition : Paul Hindemith 


Also these are free and fantastic : http://www.brianmorrell.co.uk/filmbooks.html


Hope this helps


best ed


----------



## ism (Jan 2, 2020)

ed buller said:


> Start with these:
> 
> Scoring the Screen : Andy Hill
> 
> ...


How are you getting on with “A Geometry of Music”?


----------



## ed buller (Jan 2, 2020)

ism said:


> How are you getting on with “A Geometry of Music”?


love it !!!

e


----------



## ism (Jan 2, 2020)

ed buller said:


> love it !!!
> 
> e



Is it useful in actual composition?

I find it an immensely compelling theory (and the first time i’ve encountered orbinfolds outside of quantum field theory). 

If feels like it should be something that can inform day to day composition, but i suppose i haven’t got far enough into the analysis sections to really see it working. (Though it does provide a fascinating analogy of key and the formalism of Einstein’s space-time metrics, which is a new way to think about modulation).


----------



## ed buller (Jan 2, 2020)

well it allows you NOT to worry. But to be honest the big breakthrough for me was the connectivity of hexatonic poles and the use of the augmented chords. When you see that outside of conventional key structures and circle of fifths hierarchy you can navigate successfully through a tonal universe that can be understood by any listener it's very liberating 

best

e


----------



## Maximvs (Jan 3, 2020)

To my experience, finding an excellent private composition teacher is the key... Over the years I have read numerous composition, harmony, counterpoint, music form, etc. books and watched many videos on the subject of music theory, composition and the like, but having the guidance of a masterful composer that can explain things and help you develop the craft is for me the way to go. A very similar approach to the apprenticeship method that all the great artist around the world followed and that now a days it seems like a lost concept.

Kind regards,

Max T.


----------



## JT (Jan 3, 2020)

ed buller said:


> well it allows you NOT to worry. But to be honest the big breakthrough for me was the connectivity of hexatonic poles and the use of the augmented chords. When you see that outside of conventional key structures and circle of fifths hierarchy you can navigate successfully through a tonal universe that can be understood by any listener it's very liberating
> 
> best
> 
> e


Ed,

You posted this link to Chromatic Mediants a while back. I found it to be invaluable. Thank you.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/musa.12106


----------

