Rolling Music Theory Thread

Heh, think I know what you mean. In any case, I usually like this guy's approach to theory and here is something that may or may not be relevant: https://antonjazz.com/2012/01/backdoor-ii-v-progression/

This was the thing he did I first came across that I found useful: https://antonjazz.com/2012/11/dominant-scales/

Think I probably posted it here already

I guess my general observation will be that, if there is a 7th chord, this is kind of the main clue. It is probably the V7, could be a tritone sub, could be bVII7. The ii chord might be altered somehow and the I chord might never appear or be disguised in some fashion.

Probably linked to this guy before as well: http://brunojazz.com/vt-bVII7chord.htm

Totally fair, fgti.

Chinaski, most academic texts are built around using standard musical notation to take apart 18th and 19th European art music. If you play a little guitar, don't read music, and are more interested in pop/rock, this might be a good book to start with: https://www.halleonard.com/product/148390/hal-leonard-guitar-music-theory

It gets you to the core concepts a lot faster and gives a lot of familiar examples and tabs to actually play through and hear what you're learning. I'd supplement it with some ear training - start with identifying intervals.

If you actually want the more traditional method and are starting from the beginning, Sarnecki's Elementary Music Rudiments books are usually what I use; not sure of their availability in the UK - ABRSM may have some kind of equivalent. You could get the Basic/Intermediate/Advanced books or the Complete book that combines them all.

I have a song called "Perseverance.." that does the same thing as Joao does-- the song appears to be in some kind of complicated B, but then the bass enters half-way through and establishes that no, we're in E.

Just listened to this. Very cool!

Took the "Ipanema" question to Twitter.

...and? (I have been meaning to ask a friend to weigh, but haven't yet)

Which friend reposted this on FB, so I might as well be the first to post this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr3quGh7pJA

One of you appears here briefly in some sense. At around minute eighteen something appears that I was talking about with another one of you the other day.

I came across this recently too which ties in: https://ethaniverson.com/guest-posts/the-emotional-rhythm-of-sophia-rosoff-by-sarah-deming/

I didn't realize until now that the guy who gave that keynote speech that sparked all the controversy was someone I had dinner with at the 2018 SMT/AMS conference.

Anyway, I'll watch this video but I'll say upfront that there's something that doesn't completely sit right with me about the current wave of wokeness on music theory social media.

So I was prepared to hate that but it actually got really good when he got to Schenker. Getting the same guy to voice-act fgti as well as Timothy Jackson seems a bit harsh, though! Might try to put together a more thorough response later on. Despite the clickbaity title and beginning, it does go p deep, ultimately.

Incidentally, has anyone ever heard any music or musical scholarship by Ben Shapiro's father David or even heard OF his work in any context other than Ben referencing him in his stupid hip-hop video? I don't know of David being on record for anything other than writing for Breitbart under a pseudonym.

I didn't watch the video and I don't think I can? but I did message the guy yesterday (after getting two "hey you should see this" text messages at my birthday picnic) just to make sure he knew that those articles were Heavily, Heavily Steeped In Sarcasm

I also expected that to be simplistic but it wasn't -- very engaging and thorough and convincing and actually in tune with a lot of thoughts and feelings I had freshman year of music school but didn't really have a framework to express (in my case it was even more absurd because I was a jazz major and first-year music theory was about MONK CHANT).

Which actually suggests there are a couple of different interrelated points there -- one is the whole western/euro/classical-centric aspect of the way theory is taught, but another is that even within the "western" tradition, the way theory is taught is often overly narrow (in part, but not exclusively, because "western" music itself has already pulled from so many other musics at this point).

That said, when he got to the comparative examples, I felt like that would be a terrible pedagogy for beginner students, too confusing.

Like I think it actually is *ok* and even beneficial to start with a particular framework rather than a universal comparative approach, as long as you don't treat that framework as the gold standard.

Although OTOH children can learn two languages at once and can even benefit from it, so I wonder if the same can be said for two musical "languages."

is there any music pedagogy which simply reverses the frameworks, and consciously and rigorously reads "western/euro/classical-centric" from the other perspective?

I mean, I would assume that an Indian music school would or might have that approach?

MONK CHANT
For quite a while I thought you meant this, and thought "wow, that's pretty cool"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRe7UuvgSEI

The original being, of course, yet another German artist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H-fmmNmrRs

I couldn't find a theory curriculum but my understanding is that Swarnabhoomi Music Academy in Chennai does teach Carnatic music alongside Western music (mostly jazz aiui?) and music tech/audio engineering - and this was an academy set up to teach Western music. India is one place where if someone says they like or play classical music without qualifying adjectives, they definitely mean Hindustani or Carnatic.

Will have more to say later on.

Ah, good news:

changed the title to "Music Theory and White Supremacy"

— licc bass not boots (@its_adamneely) September 8, 2020

I didn't watch the video and I don't think I can? but I did message the guy yesterday (after getting two "hey you should see this" text messages at my birthday picnic) just to make sure he knew that those articles were Heavily, Heavily Steeped In Sarcasm

I couldn't find a theory curriculum but my understanding is that Swarnabhoomi Music Academy in Chennai does teach Carnatic music alongside Western music (mostly jazz aiui?) and music tech/audio engineering - and this was an academy set up to teach Western music. India is one place where if someone says they like or play classical music without qualifying adjectives, they definitely mean Hindustani or Carnatic.

I guess another thing I wonder, having completed exactly 1.5 years of conservatory roughly 20 years ago, is how universally true the video is about US music academies -- surely there are places that teach other approaches to music theory, no?

I'm guessing you know American musicians whom they hired to teach the jazz courses? Obv they would be more likely to hire Indian musicians for Indian music classes.

Prasanna does straight up Carnatic performances and recordings alongside his jazz/fusion work.xp

Yes, American. North American or Latin American. And yeah that’s what my understanding of Prasanna’s approach was, thanks for clarifying.

In Turkey they differentiate between “Turkish” and “Western” classical music. “Türk klasik müziği” is actually a relatively new term for what is traditionally known as simply “sanat müziği” (‘art music’).
No doubt a similar situation applies to the Arabic and Persian musical spheres.

To my point:
https://margswarnabhoomi.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/424162_4745938619779_855695140_n.jpg

Yeah, the similar distinction is also made in India but "classical" on its own means "Indian classical" and "Western" on its own means "anglo pop, v possibly Bryan Adams" (maybe jazz) ime. Idk if there's much of an infrastructure for the study and performance of Western classical music at all. The first orchestra was set up in 2006, apparently, and was mostly staffed by foreign musicians: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-15035703
xp

A different group but still
https://image.isu.pub/120217115022-6bb9131aef804c5282f8e6d20662d0c0/jpg/page_8.jpg

I've never taught Western music theory like some kind of universal law btw.

So I couldn’t get totally to the bottom of what goes on at Swarnabhoomi, but I did hear first hand that people can study whatever type of music the teachers teach, which is presumably a mix of Carnatic or other Indian styles along with Berklee-style Jazz education. Actually a lot of people I might know ended up going to the Aaron Copland School of Music after Berklee. ASCM does indeed have a Schenkerian analysis side, but I don’t that applies to the formerly Jimmy Heath-led jazz program.

HI DERE

as a topical case in point: i'd v much like to see/read/hear an analysis of steve reich's DRUMMING (1971) from the expert perspective of an ewe master-drummer -- what it gets "right", what it does "wrong", what an ewe master-drummer can learn from a performance of reich that s/he didn't know in advance etc

(this may well exist!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXvoWexGn0o
***SPOILER ALERT!***

Which actually suggests there are a couple of different interrelated points there -- one is the whole western/euro/classical-centric aspect of the way theory is taught, but another is that even within the "western" tradition, the way theory is taught is often overly narrow (in part, but not exclusively, because "western" music itself has already pulled from so many other musics at this point).

So I'm putting together my inchoate thoughts but, while the Schenker stuff is great, I was not completely sold on the first half. (First, even the most conservative classical theory curriculum would at least get to the harmonic language of 19th century European art music composers by the second year and probably 20th century Western art music composers in upper year courses, if not the last semester of second year. So "music theory = harmonic language of 18th century European musicians" is narrower than the most uptight conservatory or even Schenker himself - might seem like nitpicking but I do think it's relevant!)

I agree that it felt like there were at least two issues being raised, which might be in contradiction with each other. One was that the focus on the language of European art music of the 18th (and 19th) centuries is alienating, esp in American institutions, because it excludes American music itself and contemporary music that most young musicians are most likely to know, listen to, and might want to play. The other is that this focus is ethnocentric and white supremacist and excludes musical traditions that are even more foreign to most American students such as Indian classical music and West African drum/dance. Wanting a more contemporary, populist, or pragmatic theory curriculum is not the same thing as wanting a broader global perspective; it wasn't totally clear to me which Neely wants. (Maybe it's not to him either, which is fine.)

Also, while white supremacy is baked into it, it’s not the entire story, esp insofar as there is plenty of music by white people that is ALSO not covered in a standard classical theory curriculum.

That said, when he got to the comparative examples, I felt like that would be a terrible pedagogy for beginner students, too confusing.

Like I think it actually is *ok* and even beneficial to start with a particular framework rather than a universal comparative approach, as long as you don't treat that framework as the gold standard.

I certainly agree. I also don’t know what a ‘universal comparative approach’ would actually be training students to do - it doesn’t seem like it would bring them to a professional level of proficiency in any one of those traditions, which people seem to sometimes forget is generally the purpose of music education.

Some music programs really do exist to train orchestral musicians, for whom the traditional curriculum is completely appropriate. The principles of functional harmony are also broadly applicable to other Western styles - I give this to theory students who work in any idiom. Voice-leading rules are generally the least transferable ime - this is also largely what makes classical theory as difficult as it is.

I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with a curriculum that de-emphasized those and spent more time on modal harmony, for instance, and this would be very appropriate in some contexts. I do think it could be tricky to put together a theory curriculum that was directly reflective of the current pop charts, given that these are by definition constantly changing.

I guess another thing I wonder, having completed exactly 1.5 years of conservatory roughly 20 years ago, is how universally true the video is about US music academies -- surely there are places that teach other approaches to music theory, no?

My undergrad alma mater (not in the US tbf but close) requires B.Mus students to do both classical and jazz theory and does use African drumming to teach rhythmic skills. Even the classic theory prof used examples from the Beatles, Yes, and Queen along with classical examples. (I did a BA in Music back then so bypassed some of it at the time.) At my recent job in the US, I taught music tech/production courses, one of which was required for all music students and focused pretty much totally on popular styles. I have an acquaintances who teaches at a pop/commercial music-oriented institution in a non-coastal red state and absolutely teaches more pop-oriented theory.

Even when working in the most conservative contexts, I’ve always made clear that classical theory is the study of the language of 18th and 19th century European art music and far from universal. It is helpful to be reminded that that’s not how Schenker thought of it, though.

I do think most music students are capable of realizing that learning voice-leading rules in theory class doesn’t suddenly mean that the parallel fifths they’ve heard in every rock song are suddenly ‘wrong’.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOtMGVMLET8

Sorry, meant to say booming post ,Sund4r.

Booming post indeed.

Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KJj3-PI1p0

I think what frustrates me about this whole discussion-- on an abstract level, not any of the participants-- is that I see Western Music Notation and Western Music Theory (which includes jazz theory) as being a language. That is, it's a way of codifying sound and explaining what it is, how it works-- and the Western way is only ONE (general) way of doing so-- one way, with many specific branches of codification (tabs, Schenker, chord charts, score, etc.)

Music theory is a language; it is NOT a method of qualitative analysis. This is where I think my thoughts start to diverge. Yes, we're taught "what is right" when we're learning how to write Bach chorale, fugue, counterpoint, learning how to orchestrate, etc., but this is a way of learning the history of Western musical development, not learning about "what is good" and "what is bad".

I'm pretty virtuosic when it comes to Western Music Notation, and could easily recreate on paper almost any three-minute piece of music after a couple of listens-- as a creator, it's useful to know the language, and be trained in it. It's a useful skill in being able to propose explanations for why a good piece of music works, and a bad piece of music doesn't. But the idea that the language itself is a basis for qualitative analysis is pretty wack? Graded theory exercises are just a method of training, not a way of actually appreciating music.

So yeah, when I see a video that says "parallel fifths are OK!" I'm like dude you are missing the point of learning about parallel fifths, being trained to avoid them when you're writing your chorale exercises, etc. Nobody is trying to teach you that they're "bad". They're just inappropriate in a certain pedagogical context

I have always found it kind of stimulating, I gotta say, when there's some band that comes up and it's very, very apparent that the principal songwriters are "trained in Western music theory" without the content being a deliberate showcase for this knowledge. Blonde Redhead is one example-- ...Lemons could only have been written by somebody who'd taken (at least) 1st year harmony. Oddly enough, Peter Bjorn & John's Writer's Block is another-- although I'm not actually certain if there was training on the part of the songwriter, I'd bet money on it-- there are a couple of songs where the interaction between the bass/vocals/guitar could be submitted in a Fux-derived counterpoint class and get full marks. (I'm not exaggerating! "Up Against The Wall" sounds like an exercise in 5th species)

Yeah, no, that's part of what I was saying, fgti. I teach theory as like learning the vocabulary and syntax of one idiom but it's helpful to remember than Schenker didn't see it that way (although Fux and Bach might have).

Yes, I agree.

And I go further and say that None Of These Critics Are Actually Off-Base. Pedagogical institutions, in my experience, have been excessively dismissive of any work that does not ascribe to these nefarious metrics of "quality". I fought with very "cool" teachers who just entirely wrote off pop/rock genres as being "lowbrow", even as they were appreciators of those genres. It was always so shocking-- one of my comp teachers would get this smug look in her eye anytime John Cage's name was mentioned, ugh.