Re: ::sigh:: A little help with this measure?
- From: "Steve Latham" <llatham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:40:59 GMT
"John Salerno" <johnjsal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47993bce$0$11535$607ed4bc@xxxxxxxxx
I saw that book too and it seems to actually have some good reviews on
Amazon. But I'm always a little hesitant to purchase a book like that. I
can't quite take it seriously when it's part of series with a name like
that.
I looked at it John and I have to say, the content is no different than all
of the theory texts I've taught from. The problem is, you really can't
simplify it any more - the only thing you can do is take it slower.
I'll say at this point, there's something you should know about "music
theory"- first, as you've discovered, it's not like other "theory" things
where you're proving things and there's factual evidence and proofs. Really,
music theory is more about making observations and comparing music. I see
theory as having three main parts:
1. The Terminology - these are the "basics" taught in Music Theory
introductory courses - these are the things we learn so we can all speak
roughly the same language - so when Joey says D7, I know he's talking about
the same D7 I know, and when someone says "Dominant", we all know what we're
talking about. The difficulty is, there's a core set of basics kind of
common to all styles (like this is the note C), and some things that are
more style specific - for example, Final is used in early music, Tonic in
later music. Tritone Sub is used in Jazz, but makes little sense in Bach. So
there's crossover in some things, and not in others - and that's largely
what our disagreements here involve.
2. The Practical - this it the theory knowledge you use to apply to things
such as performing, improvising, composing, etc. For example, when
improvising, it's helpful to understand that a D7 chord is constructed of D
F# A and C, and you can then use that "theory" knowledge in a practical
manner. If you know that Neapolitan chords are rather special occurrences in
some music, as a performer you might wish to bring that chord out in some
way, etc.
3. The Analytical - this is really the big part of theory for academics
(rock musicians and jazz players use a lot more of the practical, though
analysis is blooming in those other styles). Here we talk about broader
concepts such as tonality or large scale form, etc., and discuss pieces on a
comparative level - like why does Telemann and Bach sound similar to each
other, and what makes CPE Bach sound different from his dad and more like
Mozart, etc.
This is also typically the way you learn things. Learning to "play music" is
a little different in that it focuses in the first two above, but, obviously
there's the technical aspect of playing the instrument, learning to read
music etc. so that would be like #0 for instrumental instruction.
Luckily, the knowledge is all applicable in multiple ways and what you know
in one area helps in another, so you're not wasting anything by learning
anything in any one area. The only issue is it's hard to discuss the
differences and similarities between a Neapolitan, Ger+6/I and a Tritone Sub
if you don't know the terminology and what styles these are specific to.
Best,
Steve
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ::sigh:: A little help with this measure?
- From: John Salerno
- Re: ::sigh:: A little help with this measure?
- References:
- ::sigh:: A little help with this measure?
- From: John Salerno
- Re: ::sigh:: A little help with this measure?
- From: Joey Goldstein
- Re: ::sigh:: A little help with this measure?
- From: John Salerno
- Re: ::sigh:: A little help with this measure?
- From: Steve Latham
- Re: ::sigh:: A little help with this measure?
- From: John Salerno
- ::sigh:: A little help with this measure?
- Prev by Date: Re: Question about time signatures
- Next by Date: Re: Question about time signatures
- Previous by thread: Re: ::sigh:: A little help with this measure?
- Next by thread: Re: ::sigh:: A little help with this measure?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|