|
Tips for some harmony tutorials
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Looney4Clooney |
I don't want to do the same old from the beginning that goes nowhere. I also don't have time to explain everything.
But i think there is a need for some sort of practical explanation.
What do you think would work best ?
Taking actual tracks, breaking them down ? Or a bunch of tracks, and showing what is different , what isn't ?
Video style ? with speech, maybe notes and piano roll at the same time ?
This is really for cryosonic tehlord and others that know the topic. WHat do you think is the most effective way to teach a little.
My main motivation is to use my new 87. Well old but new. But ya, I think showing say a track, taking that track, and making it better , and showing what i'm doing, so that it isn't really theory as in strict theory, the chords are there if you care but also educational for those that can't read music.
One thing i want to really approach is how people need to really stop thnking in terms of chords but rather moving melodies that make chords. I think there is this awful approach of distancing melody with chords when they are invariably linked. |
|
|
| tehlord |
| All the theory I learned left me ages ago and it's all instinct these days, but one thing that I still use all the time is the scale of the chord i'm working in. I don't necessarily sit there and think of what notes i'm using, but perhaps an illustration of why certain notes sound right in relation to the chords that are backing the melody. Perhaps a little bit on resolving dissonances as well (which I use all the time) as I don't think they'd naturally occur if you were just following scales. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
I think the one thing i want to really voice is that dance music, unlike so many other types of music doesn't work well with theory.
Often, 2 notes, with all the overtones, is enough. I guess maybe dispel some of this beginner theory that i think causes more harm than good. And giving examples of it in action.
I think a track by track episode rather than something that builds on the last one would be better. And i think you are right, nobody is going to understand the numerology. Which is fine. I mean i think my goal is to make it about a system of representation that is realistic for dance rather than classical music.
it is something people feel they should know about, but tutorials never work because well, if you are going to explain harmony properly, well that is a course. And i don't have time for that. |
|
|
| tehlord |
Maybe keep it simple to start with, something like 'why a minor third and a fifth is all you need'
You can of course elaborate on that further later on. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| there is the sort of house side funky stuff i would like to touch on. That seems to be a mystery to most. |
|
|
| Excess |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
there is the sort of house side funky stuff i would like to touch on. That seems to be a mystery to most. |
this would be very intriguing to me, and that sound in specific is one reason why i think i need to learn some music theory.
i just dont ing GET IT
|
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
This is really for cryosonic.
|
Isn't that a crappy software company?
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
Taking actual tracks, breaking them down ? Or a bunch of tracks, and showing what is different , what isn't ? |
Most of my theory courses used the former approach, but in this case, the latter approach may be better. The first approach could easily be equated with, or misinterpreted as, a "how do I make this song" sorta mentality that runs rampant in EDM. For that reason, I think that maybe showing some common harmonic uses in EDM could be better illustrated by comparison/contrast of different songs and styles.
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
One thing i want to really approach is how people need to really stop thnking in terms of chords but rather moving melodies that make chords. I think there is this awful approach of distancing melody with chords when they are invariably linked. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
I mean i think my goal is to make it about a system of representation that is realistic for dance rather than classical music. |
I think that's the right approach. I agree that traditional theory is pretty far removed from EDM.
One thing that I really think needs to be discussed is how to make effective use of extended chords (7ths, 9ths, etc.) and suspensions since they are very prominent in EDM. I tried to explain some of it in a thread a while ago, but I think I did a pretty poor job of conveying how to best incorporate them. |
|
|
| tehlord |
| quote: | Originally posted by cryophonik
The first approach could easily be equated with, or misinterpreted as, a "how do I make this song" sorta mentality that runs rampant in EDM.
|
I could not agree more.
Thinking on further, perhaps finding some common uses of harmonies and structures between two apparently different styles of music, and then defining why they work in each setting could be a useful lightbulb moment as it'll show that you can use the same tool to perform two jobs, and that the theory doesn't have to be a huge impenetrable fortress of effort. |
|
|
| Kysora |
If you want to focus on thinking in terms of separate melodic lines instead of just chords, I'd come up with a typical trance melody and show what it sounds like with just block triad chords underneath them -- then take it and change the voicing to make it a bit more musical, explain what you're doing, and then A/B the two to show what a huge difference it can make.
Just an idea.
I'd also try explaining non-chord tones and using pivot chords between scales, since it seems like any sort of chromaticism is instantly seen as weird or too difficult by most producers without a theory background. I mean maybe they're right, I dunno, but you've explained it to me before a while back and you did a great job of it. |
|
|
| ambient_chris |
| Any help with applying harmony to my tracks would be great. Three quarters of the way through "Music theory for computer musicians" and whilst its good, its still hard to apply the theory to typical dance and electronic tracks. |
|
|
| J.L. |
I think teaching music theory is about as useful as teaching watercolour to a graphic design artist. Not that nothing you learn in watercolour is useful in graphic design, but it is not a good use of your time and energy.
Music theory can help, but it really shouldn't be attempted to be learned unless you are going to take it to a very advanced level.
The key to composing using knowledge of music theory is that you understand how to break it.
Baroque/Classical (1700s/1800s) music is all about following music theory. Romantic era (late 1800s) music is all about breaking certain norms in music for dramatic effect. Fast forward to modernism (1900s) which is all about being abstract, making no sense and following none of the conventions.
I find most EDM tracks that try too hard to be melodic fail at any originality all follow music theory elements to a tee. EDM is simply about the groove of something. Play something on your keyboard, and if it sounds good, use it. Don't sit around with a bunch of chords analyzing it because it will likely do you no good. Most of the great EDM tracks are very simple and are all very basic in terms of its melodic and harmonic content.
The best way to simply understand music theory for untrained musicians is to simply learn how to jam with the keyboard or guitar and use your ears to tell you if something sounds good. Learn to develop a good sense of listening, and learn how to jam with a keyboard to tracks that you like. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
well i would disagree just in terms of accuracy.
There was no music theory as we know it today ie tonal theory and western tradition really until the late 19th century.
So baroque and classical were not following anything. They were taking what was done before, and doing it just a bit different.
The romantic era is probably the genre in which you better know your as it is the most technical in terms of harmony and such. So if you were to make any genre , romantic era would require the most prowess in terms of theory.
But ,
theory has never preceded music. It always comes after. I mean in terms of chord progressions and harmony from a tonal setting, the first textbook was released in like 1940 by Piston. Sure there was material before although they were called treatises, they were not really in any way official and they were not available or as widespread as you might think. Many teachers had their own stuff ie Rimsky, Schoenberg or Tchaikovsky but if you were not a student, you didn't have access. If you didn't speak german, you didn't have access to pretty much anything until the second half of the 20th century. Theory is not so old. There are some forms that are centuries old, but theory as we know it, ya its really not that old.
reminds me of like production and mixing, Before like 2000, ya everything you learned, either by yourself or from someone else. There was no manual. It really was only in the last 7 years or so that the topic has been really accessible. |
|
|
|
|
