This is probably rather off topic, but I'm always surprised and confused by these kinds of music theory lessons, giving tools for composing. I'm not very into music theory at all, but have found it interesting as a way to analyse why a piece (and to some extent, music in general) "works", but I would no more approach composing something by thinking of what are essentially mathematical formulae to apply than I would paint a picture by starting from some theory of colour or geometry. I know that I'm lucky to have a good musical ear, and my composition process is one of merely absorbing musical examples, singing things I love, improvising things like the things I love, and sometimes then pushing myself out of my comfort zone or breaking the habits I find I've got into. Bizarrely, however, I know that one of my favourite composers, Bach, was a master theorist, and knew how to construct simple musical forms, and almost any complexity of musical forms, with endless breaking of habits and surprises. But what I puzzle over is whether he really needed that, whether anyone with even more moderate musical talent needs all this maths, and, if they can't make up a good tune and harmonize it without a single number or scale degree entering their heads, they might be better doing something else. AI is going to write all the algorithmic music from here on in (and that's all these music rules are, heuristics abstracted from particular styles of music). Humans need to hear new stuff in their heads (and find a way to record it).
Very insightful, and good that you’re asking all these questions!! I think it is beneficial to understand certain things from a technical perspective because it gives your intuition and creativity fuel to explore and experiment, but should never be rules that must be adhered to. As you said, Bach broke many of the so-called “rules,” because he was a composer and sometimes the music calls for new solutions to new problems
Aren't these mathematical formulae just someone giving names for what you absorb as musical examples and things you sing and improvise? It's a great skill to find something in a piece of music you like and absorb it so you can use it intuitively but it's a mistake to think Bach wasn't learning and practising these things in such a way that they would come out spontaneously. This maths might not be necessary but can allow you to be more precise with what it actually is in musical examples that you love that makes them tick. Knowing this could possibly allow you to be more free to experiment. Also strengthening your connection with musical ideas that you learn through analysis and codification might allow you to increase the capacity of the library of musical ideas you can remember. “Anyone who works as hard as I do will succeed as I do.” -Bach
@@mathewarrellin Thanks, these are interesting replies. I think I'm constantly surprised by how different people are in the way they think, and in their natural talents too. Part of the reason I find music analysis of little interest is that I have a poor memory for information that just has to be learned, repeated to keep the memory alive or fix it, which a lot of music stuff is. So these scale degree pairs, or the circle of fifths, even the notes on the grand staff, I struggle to internalize. On the other hand, I can hear a piece of music and work it out on the piano, or if it's simple enough, virtually play it straight off. I remember early on (as a teen - I'm in my 60s now) realising that when I tried to write my compositions, I hit the question of whether a chromatic ("black note") ought to be a sharp or a flat, and I had no idea. It's the theoretical understanding, the harmonic progressions and function that dictates that, I learned a lot later. Now I see that's everywhere and pitches will even change their notated form - along with the double sharps and flats, etc.. To me, it's all pretty irritating trying to read, and impossible to compose in traditional notation. I'm just interested in which of the 12 tones it is, not its functional relationship to some earlier key or home key.
@@lettersquash yes, notation and theory can be very cumbersome! I often avoid notation until the very end of the compositional process because it is a translation of the musical idea, and it's not always a completely faithful translation. It's more like a bridge for the performer to cross so they can get to where you were when you created the idea, and hopefully, they'll ask questions to support their interpretation of it. But I hear you! there's a lot that's very technical and you have to decide for yourself what's useful for your actual compositions
This is probably rather off topic, but I'm always surprised and confused by these kinds of music theory lessons, giving tools for composing. I'm not very into music theory at all, but have found it interesting as a way to analyse why a piece (and to some extent, music in general) "works", but I would no more approach composing something by thinking of what are essentially mathematical formulae to apply than I would paint a picture by starting from some theory of colour or geometry. I know that I'm lucky to have a good musical ear, and my composition process is one of merely absorbing musical examples, singing things I love, improvising things like the things I love, and sometimes then pushing myself out of my comfort zone or breaking the habits I find I've got into.
Bizarrely, however, I know that one of my favourite composers, Bach, was a master theorist, and knew how to construct simple musical forms, and almost any complexity of musical forms, with endless breaking of habits and surprises. But what I puzzle over is whether he really needed that, whether anyone with even more moderate musical talent needs all this maths, and, if they can't make up a good tune and harmonize it without a single number or scale degree entering their heads, they might be better doing something else. AI is going to write all the algorithmic music from here on in (and that's all these music rules are, heuristics abstracted from particular styles of music). Humans need to hear new stuff in their heads (and find a way to record it).
Very insightful, and good that you’re asking all these questions!! I think it is beneficial to understand certain things from a technical perspective because it gives your intuition and creativity fuel to explore and experiment, but should never be rules that must be adhered to. As you said, Bach broke many of the so-called “rules,” because he was a composer and sometimes the music calls for new solutions to new problems
Aren't these mathematical formulae just someone giving names for what you absorb as musical examples and things you sing and improvise? It's a great skill to find something in a piece of music you like and absorb it so you can use it intuitively but it's a mistake to think Bach wasn't learning and practising these things in such a way that they would come out spontaneously.
This maths might not be necessary but can allow you to be more precise with what it actually is in musical examples that you love that makes them tick. Knowing this could possibly allow you to be more free to experiment. Also strengthening your connection with musical ideas that you learn through analysis and codification might allow you to increase the capacity of the library of musical ideas you can remember.
“Anyone who works as hard as I do will succeed as I do.” -Bach
@@RobinJWheeler 100% agree with you! creativity expands to the limits of your technique, as they say
@@mathewarrellin Thanks, these are interesting replies. I think I'm constantly surprised by how different people are in the way they think, and in their natural talents too. Part of the reason I find music analysis of little interest is that I have a poor memory for information that just has to be learned, repeated to keep the memory alive or fix it, which a lot of music stuff is. So these scale degree pairs, or the circle of fifths, even the notes on the grand staff, I struggle to internalize. On the other hand, I can hear a piece of music and work it out on the piano, or if it's simple enough, virtually play it straight off. I remember early on (as a teen - I'm in my 60s now) realising that when I tried to write my compositions, I hit the question of whether a chromatic ("black note") ought to be a sharp or a flat, and I had no idea. It's the theoretical understanding, the harmonic progressions and function that dictates that, I learned a lot later. Now I see that's everywhere and pitches will even change their notated form - along with the double sharps and flats, etc.. To me, it's all pretty irritating trying to read, and impossible to compose in traditional notation. I'm just interested in which of the 12 tones it is, not its functional relationship to some earlier key or home key.
@@lettersquash yes, notation and theory can be very cumbersome! I often avoid notation until the very end of the compositional process because it is a translation of the musical idea, and it's not always a completely faithful translation. It's more like a bridge for the performer to cross so they can get to where you were when you created the idea, and hopefully, they'll ask questions to support their interpretation of it.
But I hear you! there's a lot that's very technical and you have to decide for yourself what's useful for your actual compositions