Reddit mentions: The best music appreciation books

Since some time has now passed and there haven't been too many answers, I want to add something that I think is the most important answer: you can make up your own chorale preludes by getting better at improvising.

An easy way to start improvising is by playing just the harmonization in your hymn book, but rather than playing the top three voices at the same time, you can play them in an arpeggiated way. Some notes will have to be added or taken away in some situations, such as when two voices merge onto the same note. Here is a very quick recording that I made to demonstrate this principle.

Over time, you'll want to add basic harmonic ideas to your musical vocabulary. A few things I'd note:

• It's OK to change the notes of the hymn tune slightly to accommodate the harmonies you want. But it's important to keep the rhythm of important motives the same, especially if you're changing the notes
  
• It's useful to learn the hymn you're improvising on in multiple keys so that you can switch keys in your improvisation
  
• Steal textures from written-out preludes/meditations/etc. on hymns. One texture you can use is the triplet texture I mentioned above.
  
  If you keep working on this, you'll get better and better. My favourite improviser who lives in my area sounds like this (the recording is terrible, but good enough that you can get the idea). A feature of his improvisations that I really like is modulations to far-away keys; when I hear him play, it feels like I'm being thrown into something vast and mysterious.
  
  A resource I recommend for liturgical musicians' improvisation is this book by Gerre Hancock. It's intended for organists, but is still extremely useful for pianists. I also find Improv Planet on Patreon very useful. It's run by a piano professor who specializes in improvisation in the style of Bach and Handel.
  
  If you haven't already studied harmony, I also highly, highly recommend it (I'd call study of harmony a prerequisite for Improv Planet). Good resources for self-study of harmony include the textbooks by Laitz and by Clendinning & Marvin.

I took theory classes 15 years ago, and don't remember what text I used, but it was pretty generic as I recall. I'm thinking of any sort of classical music theory introductory text intended for use in a university course, since they will all probably begin with the same sort of progression of things which logically arises when describing how diatonic music works.


I did a quick search, and this is the sort of text I have in mind:


https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393930815/


That one looks very good, and, looking at the table of contents, I'd say the Part I: Elements of Music is the essential part to familiarize with for the basics and then Part II: Diatonic Harmony and Tonicization would expand those ideas in the first part to show how those basics are applied in diatonic music harmonization (basically how to create nice-sounding chord progressions based on diatonic scales).


I would avoid books that are targeted to a specific instrument, or a more modern type of music - like guitar theory, jazz theory, blues piano theory, etc. Not that these books aren't good too, but I've seen plenty of guitar theory books that describe the basics in wacky ways, or in ways that are not really universally applied to all music. Classical theory books will mostly all be the same, and be a solid introduction to these very basics. If you see one that is 20 years old for two bucks at a yard sale it would likely be fine.


In my opinion starting to learn theory from this standpoint of classical music is a great way to start. There are a million ways to learn theory, and this might not be the preferred route for everyone, but it's so good in my opinion because Classical, Baroque, etc. - these early music forms were all about consonance, about how to make harmonic progressions and melodies, and so on, that were pleasing to the ear. They developed these stringent rules to describe methods for arranging sounds to make very pleasing compositions, rules which are very effective at what they are intended for. Once you learn these rules, it makes everything else so much clearer as to why other types of music that break every one of these rules are so effective.


It's maybe like learning to draw a face - you would probably start with learning to draw a face you are looking at, and making your drawing copy it as closely as you can. It's not easy to draw a realistic-looking face, and takes some practice to get it right, to make it look pleasing to people who spend their lives looking at faces and learning their intricacies. If you jump right into trying to do a stylized, artsy rendering of a face, it probably won't be very convincing, since you never learned how to draw a pleasing face to begin with! It would look like a child's drawing, certainly not realistic, but also not very interesting because it's not very sophisticated in how it goes about presenting that face.

If I may, I'll throw in my somewhat-learned 2 cents. I have read a fair number of books on the subject and am currently studying music at the undergrad level--I'm by no means an expert.

If you're interested in the neurological understanding of music, I would recommend the book Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy. Pretty good read that goes into some detail without requiring an MD to understand. Basically, we respond to tension and resolution because of tendencies in our brain to seek out new and variant stimuli.

You mentioned major sounding happy and minor sounding sad. It would be interesting for you to know that this was not always the case. If you're playing in an orchestra or wind ensemble, chances are most of the music you're being exposed to in that setting is from the Classical and Romantic periods of the so-called Western Music Tradition: Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Haydn. Maybe some more modern music as well, but probably nothing too "out there". Also bear in mind, most of the music you hear on the radio, pretty much since the 1970s is very closely related harmonically to classical music from the Classical and Romantic periods.

All this is to say that if you look at Baroque music and earlier, or more modern Western music, as well as music from any other cultural tradition, you'll find very different understandings of harmony, melody, and rhythm. There are few universally enjoyable traits in music across various cultures and types of listener. /u/Bears_in_Blue_Houses has some good points: repetition is usually favored, and people usually like music they can understand and relate to. Beyond that, it really depends on 1. why you're listening to music and 2. what music you're used to. Some people desire intellectual stimulation, and find more complex harmonies, rhythms, structures, and sounds to be enjoyable; others look for simple beats to dance or relax to. Most people look for different things at different times.

Yeah... I really don't condone self-teaching for many reasons, but obviously you don't want to hear that right now, so this is just a bit of a disclaimer.

Personally, I think if you're going to study on your own, it's really worth it to get a good background in the "bookwork" elements of singing, like vocal anatomy and pedagogy, as well as language work.

On that end, I would recommend books like Doscher's The Functional Unity of the Singing Voice, McKinney's The Diagnosis and Correction of Vocal Faults, Miller's The Structure of Singing, and McCoy's Your Voice: An Inside View. These are really not easy reads, per se, but they should give you a really good foundation in understanding what's going on physically, and being aware of potential problems in vocal health and hygiene, which is arguably the biggest reason to study with a teacher. (In other words, a good understanding of the physical vocal structure can help prevent unknowingly contorting it in an unhealthy way).

I would also strongly recommend some study in language, diction, and text. Even for non-classical singers, it's worth it to know about how diction and articulation works. Diction for Singers, A Handbook of Diction for Singers, and International Phonetic Alphabet for Singers would be a good start. (And in general, a working understanding of IPA is crucial).

You can also work on text analysis - I'm not really a poetry/text specialist so I can't recommend any specific books, but I'm sure there are many out there.

Marchesi's Bel Canto: A Theoretical and Practical Vocal Method is another resource to look into, as it contains many exercises designed for technical practice - I liken it to the Hanon exercises commonly found in piano curricula. However, I will definitely warn that these exercises can be easily done incorrectly and can lead to the development of very bad habits, so please proceed with caution and be aware that there are many ways to execute the exercises, some of which are not healthy.

In addition, I would recommend a broad study in music theory, music history, and ear training. [Musictheory.net](http://www.musictheory.net] and Teoria.com are well-respected websites that offer lessons and exercises to learn beginner to intermediate level music theory concepts. Good-ear.com is another website I often recommend that focuses more on ear training. I would also recommend checking out the sidebar and FAQs over at /r/musictheory for more details.

In addition to these websites, some books worth mentioning include Berkowitz's A New Approach to Sight Singing, Music for Analysis, Caplin's Classical Form, Taruskin's Oxford History of Western Music, Grout's A History of Western Music, and Schoenberg's Structural Functions of Harmony. While of course you don't need to have a doctorate in music theory to begin singing, I think it can only be helpful to have a really broad basis of understanding in various parts of music, as they directly affect your ability to read, understand, and interpret music.

Anyway, that should give you a pretty decent start. Please feel free to post if you have any additional questions.

I'm mostly a guitarist, but I always loved noodling on piano but wasn't really happy with any of it so decided to learn a little - what helped me the most personally was 1) learning the main scales, just major and minor, until you can play them easily (the formula is really basic and shouldn't take too long to get down really), and 2) learning a bunch of basic chords, which can be done pretty quickly by getting a beginners piano book (something like this https://www.amazon.com/Adult-All-one-Course-Technic/dp/B002N002R6/). Plus plenty of noodling using what you've learned. Those two things alone took my playing to a level where I can just sit down and have a lot of fun. I find piano way easier to come up with interesting stuff than guitar, due to how its laid out. There's lots of other great advice in this thread already so I'm sure you're covered but I wanted to throw in my 2c just in case. Good luck!

If you tell them pretty much everything you wrote above, that's probably enough for them to go on.

Maybe try to find a teacher who has a good amount of experience teaching people who aren't starting from scratch, who is happy to focus on technique and filling in the gaps in your music knowledge (e.g. scales, chord theory, etc.). Someone who is willing to point out your bad habits every time and give you tips on focused practice to help break them.

The teaching won't be the challenging part, though. What's going to be hard is forcing yourself to break the physical and mental bad habits you've developed over years of playing without guidance. Practising scales, finger exercises, sight reading etc. is boring but will help a lot in deepening your understanding of technique and simple music theory.

You've probably passively picked up quite a lot about chord theory and stuff like that just from playing music, but don't yet have the basis in music theory to convert what you've learned into concrete knowledge.

I'd really recommend studying music theory in your spare time to help round out your knowledge - maybe consider getting a hold of something like this - you'll know a lot of the basic stuff already but it'll help fill in the gaps and explain in technical terms what you may only know as abstract ideas right now.

Best of luck!

It's a complicated question and required lots of math and music and auditory perception to fully understand.

To say that music is just math is pretty much wrong. How we hear things is not predicated by current mathematics but by how our hearing apperatus has evolved. We can try to describe our hearing mathematically but that's how we describe pretty much anything that we try to formalize.

Music on a higher level too is a kind of formalism. There is lots here, tuning systems, intervals, harmony. But there is a very trickly interplay with cultural developments and perception. It's not clear that all of what has developed say in western european music is pure cognition. Some of it may be habits or cultural preferences. So again to say that it is just math becries this complexity.

That said mathematics is our best formal structure theory out there, so it's not surprising that we can use it to model structures!

Incidentally there is a debate within the musicology community of research practicioners just how much math really means for the field. This has appeared in 2012 in a special issue of the Journal of Mathematics and Music. Discussants are Guerino Mazzola, famous for bringing heavy mathematical machinery to musicology (see his book, or should I say solid brick "Topos of Music"), Gerant Wiggins (a computer scientist, who will defend a more cognitive perspective), and Alan Marsden (who will defend space for non-mathematical musicology). If you want to learn how some practitioners in the intersection of math and musicology think, this is a place to learn about it.

There is more. Sound itself can be generated mathematically. Lots of digital signal processing (linear algebra, complex analysis, ODEs and theory of oscillators, physical simulations and PDEs etc) here. A good starting point for that stuff are Julius Smith's web books. And sound needs to be analyized (lots of autoregression, functional transforms (fourier, wavelets, etc), machine learning here). Check out the ISMIR professional society for pathways into that particular type of research and mathematical work. A good source at the interface of music, computation, and cognition is Perry Cook's book Music, Cognition, and Computerized Sound, which will give you a good view of the math of musical cognition involved (cognition of musical scales etc).

So lots and lots of stuff here. Academic programs related to this tend to be called something like Music Technology but it's not uniform.

That's a huge field. Neo-Riemannian theory is certainly applicable to some of it (and I would point you to Richard Cohn's work), but that's hardly all there is to Romantic harmony.

The role of form in this music can't be understated. These books are the core of modern Formenlehre:

Caplin - Classical Form

Hepokoski/Darcy - Elements of Sonata Theory

Schmalfeldt - In the Process of Becoming

Caplin/Hepokoski/Webster - Musical Forms, Form and Formenlehre

Check out Caplin's response to a Schmalfeldt analysis here.

Kofi Agawu - Music as Discourse provides some semiotic perspectives on the analysis of Romantic music.

In terms of older sources, Ernst Kurth wrote on "the crisis of Romantic harmony" in the music of Wagner but little of his work has been translated from the original German. Here's a collection of Kurth's selected writings in English. Arnold Schoenberg has his own take in Structural Functions of Harmony and Style and Idea.

Wagner's Tristan und Isolde is a touchstone for the study of late 19th century harmony. In addition to the neo-Riemannian literature, Robert Bailey has an essay on the double-tonic complex that you should read. Benjamin Boretz's analysis is also influential. In terms of Neo-Riemannian theory, Laura Felicity Mason's Master's thesis is a good introduction to the most basic operations, and Mohanty helps cut through to the good stuff (even if that's not the point of the article).

Here's some other stuff for people interested:

Joe Straus' Introduction to Post Tonal Theory

• For solid post tonal and heavily set theory based stuff
  
  Introduction to Electro-Acoustic Music by Barry Schrader
  
  
• this book is old but has some cool stuff in it about earlier electronic music and it's cheap
  
  Samuel Solomon's How to Write for Percussion
  
  
• The best percussion book
  
  Rothenberg and Ulvaeus' Book of Music and Nature
  
  
• If you're in to, well music and nature this is a great anthology of writings by people like Cage, Takemitsu, Oliveros, etc. on the subject.
  
  Cope's Techniques of the Contemporary Composer is okay.
  
  
• for composery stuff
  
  My favorite orchestration book is actually the Blatter
  
  Composing Electronic Music by Curtis Roads is a very good new electronic book
  
  The Rest is Noise by Alex Ross
  
  
• Practically a must read
  
  On Sonic Art by Trevor Wishart
  
  
• is a must read also

The way I look at it is that there are a lot of musicians who don't bother learning music theory and seem to do just fine. In the same way, there's a lot of people with a pretty good grasp of music theory who don't understand the math and physics of music at all, and it doesn't stop them from making good music. Even so, understanding music theory will usually be helpful to someone who wants to be a good musician, and math and physics can be helpful to someone who wants to compose good music.

Unfortunately, the knowledge about how math and physics applies to music is kind of hard to find, beyond relatively superficial explanations of how musical intervals and chords are constructed from whole number ratios (or approximations thereof).

A pretty good introductory book is "The Science of Musical Sound by John R Pierce" [1]. A lot of the modern understanding of the connection between math and physics and music comes from the research of Herman Helmholtz. You might want to check out "On the Sensations of Tone" [2]. The writings of Harry Partch and Ben Johnston might also be interesting to you if you want to know more about just intonation in particular.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Science-Musical-Sound-Robinson-Pierce/dp/0716760053

[2] http://www.amazon.com/Sensations-Tone-Dover-Books-Music/dp/0486607534

I see a lot of answers regarding marketing classical as relaxing- and thus the promotion those pieces that fit that description (think lullabies, fugues, and love themes).

I've not seen the more scientific answer about pattern recognition and the mathematical structure of the music itself. The traditional symphony, for example, has a very specific harmonic and melodic structure that is made to repeat throughout at different musical intervals in various patterns. Your brain doesn't get bored since there isn't a ton of wrote repetition, you get the serotonin boost from recognizing those patterns, and (unless you're going for Wagner or some aggressive Operatic pieces) the physics of the reverberations of the instruments themselves match well to the physiognomy of our inner and outer ear. Basically, the vibrations of the strings can make you physically comfortable or uncomfortable depending on the tuning and note played.

If anyone is interested I cannot recommend enough, "Music, the Brain and the Ecstacy" by Robert Jourdain. https://www.amazon.com/Music-Brain-Ecstasy-Captures-Imagination/dp/038078209X

I made it to Harmony III in college before moving my major from Music to Philosophy, but welcome any questions you might have. I plan on doing a PhD and my dream research would be on how the quantum structure of our brain's SSRI re-uptake inhibitors as they are influenced by the psychedelic drug class compared to other non-chemical methods of neuromechanical stimulation (like music, meditation and prayer/fellowship). My long term dream is to help ween Americans off the psychotropics like Prozac, Zoloft, etc. that must be taken daily, don't last in the system for long and come with a battery of side effects for more substantial cultural changes that actually solve, instead of masking, the mental dissonance our lifestyles only seem to aggravate.

I think the best way to start to understand classical music is to first find something you like to listen to, plenty of suggestions listed already on this thread. Once something inspires you, I recommend reading about composers and music and why, when, and just general aspects of that music. A huge part of classical music is to know what to listen for. Aaron Copeland's, "What to Listen for in Music," is a great tool that gives a great overview and explains what to listen for when you're listening to this great music. http://www.amazon.com/What-Listen-Music-Aaron-Copland/dp/0451628802 I highly recommend simply listening to music and really trying to analyze what you are hearing.

Yes, this is a sort of "internet" classic. It's been available for several years now and is quite a good read. That one might be the draft, but it doesn't matter too much — he mostly got it right the first time. It's a great book. Still, the published version from 2007 is a little better organized and has fewer errors. You should probably get it if possible.

I also quite like Analysis, Synthesis, and Perception of Musical Sounds by James Beauchamp (even more expensive than Puckette's book!), and if you want to get, like, super nerdy about synthesis, there's always Bibao's Numerical Sound Synthesis (more expensive yet!!).

Fundamental components of music like working memory and pattern recognition are directly link with neurological development.
Here some literature better explaining it:

https://www.amazon.com/Music-Brain-Ecstasy-Captures-Imagination/dp/038078209X

https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1196/annals.1360.015

From my experience, playing an instrument was always a net positive; it allowed me to deal with stress; socialize with other friends by means of playing together or talking about music; I learned how to read and compose; and self-improvement.

I'm not a professional, no one pays me money. I love music, I love playing it alone or in a group. It's therapeutic - it allows me to enjoy life even more.

If you haven't made much music in the past, I would recommend learning how to DJ while also studying the principles of audio synthesis and music theory.

DJing is a really good way of understanding what elements of a tune make it danceable and exciting - particularly as far as rhythm and harmony are concerned. Digital music production requires a pretty solid understanding of not just computer software but also a few fundamentals, including the physics of sound, the science behind audio synthesis, and then technique things such as editing, signal flow, etc.

A few books I would recommend for getting started are The Computer Music Tutorial and Musicmathics. As far as mixing and mastering is concerned, which are other essential aspects of the production process, I would recommend checking out Robert Katz's Mastering Audio.

Psychoacoustical considerations are probably what most blatantly separate the men from the boys. My recommended starter for this is Music, Cognition, and Computerized Sound by Perry Cook, who is a professor of Computer Music at Princeton.

EDIT: Also, if you don't already, start listening to and appreciating classical music - particularly stuff made after the Renaissance - in order to get an understanding of the emotional impact things such as dynamics and voicing have on the listening experience. Electronic music heavily borrows from the classical music tradition in this context. Digital music production essentially makes you a computerized Mozart, in that you can control dozens of musical voices, but with even more micromanagement potential than the typical classical music conductor can offer. You will not have a complete understanding of these musical concepts from pop/rock music alone, or even from more 'sophisticated' musical practices such as jazz.

The "Dies Irae" refers to a chant used as part of the Requiem. You can hear it here. It's become emblematic in western culture as a signifier of death. Such as in the opening sequence of The Shining. Other user's are talking about pieces that "quote" the dies Irae.

How well-versed in theory are you? Do you understand chord progressions, four part Harmony, figured bass, etc? If not, I would recommend beginning with our sidebar suggestions.

If you have. Might I recommend these areas of further study: Schema theory, topic theory, and semiotics.

• Schema theory looks at music as a collection of "Schemas" that you string together. Schemas are basically soprano/bass progressions that are appropriate to perform various musical actions. It's likened to knowing a list of moves that, say, a figure skater is performing in front of you. While mostly enumerating what these gestures are, how to spot them in a piece of music, there's often a lot of attention paid to what Schemas do, where you would find them, what you expect to come next, and why a composer might choose one vs. another. A good place to get started here is Robert Gjerdingen's Music in the Galant Style.
  
  
• Topic Theory. This is sort of like Schema theory, but it's zooming out a bit. This tries to categorize what kind of music is suitable for what kinds of expression. So, for instance, a Shephard in an opera might be associated with flute music, a low bass pedal point and simple harmonies, and light, dance-like rhythms. This bundle of features would fall under a topic known as the "Pastoral" topic. A book by Leonard Ratner that is sadly out of print is the classic text in this regard, but I might point you to a book such as Raymond Moselle's The Musical Topic: Hunt, Military, and Pastoral.
  
  
• Finally, we have Semiotics. This field tries to codify sets of Musical symbols or signs that are used to trigger certain kind of reactions or convey some kind of meaning to an audience. Kofi Agawu's work is great in this regard. He has works on both classical and romantic music, but since the other two books I've mentioned are all eighteenth-century specific, I'll put his romantic book here: Music as Discourse: Semiotic Adventures in Romantic Music.

I feel you. Counterpoint would certainly be a good starting point, but it almost certainly isn't going to be useful to you except as a bridge upon which you might arrive at 4-voice-land.

Bach is an incredible study in counterpoint, but you'll likely not understand how to write simply by analyzing his counterpoint (unless you're peculiarly keen on intervalic analysis and pick up on nuances like a lack of parallel 5ths and 8ves, contrary, parallel, similar or oblique motion between voices, etc).

I'm not aware of any online resources with which one can learn counterpoint (someone else might be able to direct you there).

This is the book we've used in all of my theory classes, I through IV so far It's not a particularly cheep cheap (god it's late)* book, but it's been worth it for the wealth of knowledge. It does a really good job of taking theory step by step from the smallest of pieces (notes on a staff) to crazy complex serial compositions and other awful stuff like that ;)

I don't even know where to begin with you.

There's no way you've studied theory if you then go on to say that music has to be "complex" to be "good". And is that to say, then, that the higher the level of complexity, the better the music? Because there is plenty of crazy shit out there that's just nutso on technicality, but is God-awful to listen to.

I'm mostly unfamiliar with Bieber's work, so I can't comment on it. But if you've ever actually listened to a Taylor Swift song, you'd know it's not "objectively simple". What about it is so simple? The form and chord structures may be, but that's true for nearly all music (and not even just pop music!). Going beyond that, however, into instrumentation, melodic progression, and vocal harmony will typically yield far more pleasing and "complex" results.

Not only that, but repeated studies on humans and how they both interpret and retain audio information has shown that simplicity is actually pretty key. Music in and of itself is damn complex, and too much information at once throws our brains off. On top of it all, our brains will hone in on pattern recognition (both in terms of structure and harmonic build) and repetition to further the consonant experience of music.

Related reading on the topic - Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy.

I would recommend going to your theory teacher's website/class website and look at what book they want you to get. This is a big sign of the approach the university will take in teaching from Theory I and upwards. This way, you will know the "common language" professors will use at your school regarding theory. What I mean are specifics, ranging from calling something an "accented passing tone" vs. making no distinctions between a regular passing tone, to various systems of abbreviations, and to differences in how the cadential "V^6/4 - V^7 - I" is viewed. Some people interpret this as " I^6/4 - V^7 - I." Basically, do you call a cadential^6/4 chord a V or a I chord? One use is not universal. Little clarifications like these, which can only been gleaned from your actual theory book, will make you better prepared and less confused on day one than learning one book's method, only to be presented with a completely different approach.

I think, given your background in theory, you will be surprised how far ahead you are compared to many people. A lot show up to their freshman year with a low level of theory competence.

I went to a university that used the Laitz textbook, so its about all I can recommend.

I've also been exposed to the Straus book for post-tonal theory.

For Species counterpoint, you can't beat the Schacter and Salzer book: "Counterpoint in Composition,"

For Schenkerian analysis, there is the Salzer book: "Structural Hearing." That is a bit more specialized, but it may pique your curiosity.

Great theorists like Felix Salzer and Carl Schacter, students of Heinrich Schenker, along with the acclaimed Steven Laitz, are good to learn about and be knowledgeable about. Looking into them, their associates, and their teachers can lead you to other good books.

This is what I used GC Practicum in the seminary. It was a very good book. I also chanted for a long time before that and own a Liber Usualis as well as other texts.

Also, I was around priests, monks and solemn high masses all the time so I am familiar with the tones that are to be used. You can find full chanted offices on youtube. Even in the seminary we hardly ever did solemn tones unlesss it was a big feast, even in the Carmel we didn't do solemn tones that often.

The best way to show you would just be to hear someone else and get some training from a cantor. I could walk you through it over the phone or Skype since I have some formal training. I also know of others who could walk you through it, I am friends with 4 or 5 professional cantors on Facebook.

I wouldn't chant any solemn tones with your family unless everyone had it memorized. Like maaaaaybe the solemn Salve Regina, but I've heard adults struggle with that one and it's not that hard. If you have trouble with tones, monotone is the best way to go, even for the Salve Regina. But if you can sing Credo III and not miss a beat, you should be fine for the vast majority of plain chant.

Let me know if you want to talk, just pm me.

Edit: With that book I linked you to above, you should be able to play any chant on a keyboard or piano easily. It is very easy. Unfortunately I can't find any audio samples of plain chant on YouTube. I would have to sing it for you.

So many people seem to have this idea that they're just going to "learn theory." Like that's it.

Like there will be this AHA I NOW KNOW THE MUSICAL THEORY I CAN NOW WRITE THE MUSIC.

But in all seriousness. Yeah you will learn theory. If music is going to be a life long pursuit you will never STOP learning theory. Unless you're not serious about it. Then you might just learn what I IV V means write some pop songs and stop there. I digress..

First thing. Learn to read music. DO NOT READ TAB. Learn all the notes on the fret board. Not like you can count up to it and realize that something is a C. Like you KNOW IT. Point to it and you know what note it is. Start reading music here.

Another good way to learn the notes on the fretboard is to pick 4 triads of different qualities. One major, one minor, one diminished, and one augmented triad and play them in all inversions in all positions on the neck while saying the note names. And then pick 4 new triads the next day. Do not just learn the shapes. This will probably take you 2 hours on your first day if you're as thorough as you should be.

If you don't know what any of that means that's fine for now. Those are some pretty basic concepts that you'll learn pretty soon if you're serious about this.

This guy knows his shit. Learn from him. Take it slow. Don't just watch the video and go "Yeah that makes sense." You need to KNOW IT. Drill the concepts a few hours a day.

You could buy a music text book.

Or get an actual guitar teacher. I'd recommend learning jazz because unlike a lot of rock or pop players they actual know their shit about theory and their instrument. You kinda have to know your shit to play jazz. Either that or classical. But jazz theory is more in line with modern music.

Segway: Buy a Real Book

Start off in there with Autumn Leaves or something else easy.

If you're really beginner-y start here.

While that guy's course is good it really focuses on technique. You learn basically no theory from that guy. Just shapes and tabs. Doesn't even use standard notation. His jazz course is ok. It's on his side bar.

This guy's stuff is good for a beginner in jazz. But a beginner in jazz is not exactly beginner level for some other genres. I think you need a pretty solid level of understanding to understand what he's talking about.

That should get you started..

[Edit] Some people have this disconnect. They think that learning theory is somehow separate from song writing. Learning theory will open so many doors to you and show you why and how things work. So that you can actually understand what you're doing.

If I wanted to build a house I could just jump in and start building a house. I'd probably come across a lot of problems. My first house might suck and have a leaky roof or bad plumbing or something. But I could probably learn a long the way. Maybe after I build a ton of crappy houses I could figure out for myself why things work.

Or.. I could look through the writings of the millions of house builders that came before me and see what they found out works and what doesn't. Then maybe my first house will have some issues and it might not be so easy to pull off but I'd be better off learning from the people who came before me than trying to figure it out myself. By doing this I have just saved myself the time of trying to rediscover the wheel so to speak.

That's what learning theory will do for you.

Read this and this

Edit: Additionally, everyone has a natural frequency they resonate at. When you wake up in the morning, hum a note. What comes naturally is usually your natural resonance. Due to sympathetic vibrations in the harmonic series, certain harmonies and sympathetic tones can physically interact with your "personal frequency"

In other words, music fucking rules

> Hey now, you might hurt my feelings.

hehehe don't worry. I love physics, and I am jealous that you are still involved with it ;)

Music is very weird. Even newborns can sense "off" notes (they will grimace). Music is one of those things that I partly ascribe to "the consciousness mystery". For example, in my music paper, I could easily talk about the parts of the brain that recognize individual notes, or how music triggered memories, etc... but that still went nowhere towards how it feels to listen to your favorite tune, as it were.

There are a couple of books I have on this idea that I still need to read. One is Musicophilia by Oliver Sacks.

Note that the use of the word "feel" in this subreddit leads to immediate downvotes. ;) Qualitative descriptions are not useful for proving anything, of course! :)

> if dogs could comprehend what we wanted them to do, they might be able to put smells on a scale

We could also just cut to the chase and attach a highly sophisticated brain sensor to their skulls that would communicate what they're smelling based on what parts of the brain light up. Essentially using them as part of the instrument. It still wouldn't tell us what it's like to be able to smell that well, though.

Curious to hear your opinion on the qualia/zombie links.

You're going to have a hard time finding someone to explain the biology of it in laymen's terms. There's a good book called "Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy" that spends the first third explaining the biology of it.

Sound waves are produced by vibrations (guitar string, vocal chords, etc.) These vibrations start at a fundamental frequency (what you called "pitch") but they also vibrate at higher frequencies relative to the fundamental--these are called overtones. These higher frequencies aren't perceived as readily as the fundamental but they will color the tone of sound (timbre).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone

http://www.amazon.com/Music-The-Brain-And-Ecstasy/dp/038078209X

EDIT: I guess, in an overly simplistic way, you could say that the overtones do excite the nerves in the ear dedicated to those frequencies and the brain decodes them in pretty much the same way it does the fundamental. So, since the two sound sources emit different overtones the brain can tell them apart.

As a biologist and a musician, I can tell you with certainty that it's fucking magic

Music causes strange things to happen in the brain, there's a number of popular science books on the subject (e.g, Musicophilia). Neurologists don't understand it fully. Playing music is one of the most complicated cooperative behaviors we perform as a single group. We can play a fast piece with a 9/8 time signature in an large ensemble comprised of various instruments with ease (think Celtic or Indian music as well as Western Orchestral). Why music makes sense to us is an even greater mystery.
If you ask me, I think we could sing before we could speak. :-)

I took a basic music appreciation class in high school, and we used a textbook called Listen, which I really liked. It provided easy to understand information and 3 CDs with a good overview of every era of classical music. It's a good place to start.

It's not really limited in research, plenty of neurologists have done studies into the subject. There are schools where you can study music therapy which isn't a bunch of pseudoscience, it's built on solid research.

This book is a good laymen's summary but it gets a bit preachy near the end.

Another post recommended This is Your Brain on Music which is also a great book as well.

I posted this after skimming the discussion of 'Catholic metalheads' [sic] and black metal.

I hope this is an edifying read.

For those further interested in a deeper look at the morality of music, Fr Basil Cole, OP wrote this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Music-Morals-Theological-Appraisal-Psychological/dp/081890660X

A description from Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture:
>Readers who liked my analysis What about Bad Music?, or even those who disagreed with it, owe it to themselves to read the book Music & Morals by Basil Cole, OP. Fr. Cole was a jazz musician before becoming a Dominican priest, and he did an extensive study of the relationship between music and morals for his doctoral dissertation.

https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=510

And finally, at this link, you can find a very good (albeit long, about an hour) conference talk by a good and holy FSSP priest, Fr Ripperger:

http://www.sensustraditionis.org/webaudio/Tulsa/Music.mp3

Here he talks about the morality of music, as well.

I hope you find this edifying.

If you like TIYBOM, Robert Jourdain's Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy: How Music Captures Our Imagination is right up there. Awkward title to explain in public but a fantastic read. I liked it a lot more than TIYBOM but in fairness read TIYBOM second.

I take it you are in the USA?

In the uk the book Stucture af fabric is a good reference for construction methods and techiques
https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Mitchells-Structure-Fabric-Part-Pt-Building/0131970941
building construction illustrated is still valid as well.

but a word of caution.

You may not like the way you are being taught, but play their game. It is a game but there is stuff to learn, don't dissmiss it because it's not the same stuff as you want to learn, get stuck in and ace it and THEN look at another path,

don't use "I don't like the way they are doing it" to cover for "I'm not very good at the things we are being asked to do". And just ignoring the tutors way of working and what they are pushing you for will just be antagonistic and you wont learn much.

Remember that the architects' key skill and value add is not in construction detailing, we MUST know about it and you are right that great buildigs must be designed in a way that is intrinsically linked to their construction methods and materials. but it's ALSO really important, especially in your early student days, that you are able to dream big, talk about that dream, explain the vision and get people to buy into it. That's what they are teaching you, don't miss the point.

Hey There!

I took him! I had him for an online class he is pretty easy you just do a lot of discussions and then 2 concert papers and then the final is what you learned in the class . If you need the book hopefully it is the same one please let me know. This is the book I have. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0077837312/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o09_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 .

The great American composer Aaron Copland's book, What to Listen for in Music is a wonderful, and easy to read guide that enhances listening to classical music. That said, I have to get another copy; I loaned mine out years ago and didn't get it back.

>"Why should one have to learn or need guidance on how to listen to what one is hearing?" is the question that William Schuman asks in his Preface. "The answer is simple. Listening to music is a skill that is acquired through experience and learning. Knowledge enhances enjoyment."

I have to strongly reccommend Music, The Brain, And Ecstasy: How Music Captures Our Imagination by Robert Jourdain!

Best book I've read so far concerning this matter.

In general, our brains are occupied with both novelty and repetition. When we listen to music, the repetition gives us the context for understanding what we're hearing and the novelty keeps our brains actively interested.

For example, listen to the horn melody of the original Hawaii 5-0 theme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LnK8b_jk8w

The first part of both initial phrases is the same but then suddenly, it changes. That novelty after repetition is what your brain likes.

It is possible though to listen to a piece enough times that the novelty disappears completely. At this point, unless you have a different experience of the song, like nostalgia after a long absence, your brain is no longer captivated and can in fact be repulsed by the repetition alone.

Hope that makes some sense. I'd suggest reading something like Music, The Brain, and Ecstasy if you want to get into it further.

[This] (https://www.amazon.com/Sensations-Tone-Dover-Books-Music/dp/0486607534/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1505665842&sr=1-1&keywords=acoustics+helmholtz) is the classic work; but I imagine [this] (https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Musical-Acoustics-Second-Revised/dp/048626484X/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=048626484X&pd_rd_r=572ASRV7AB4RKDNCA9JK&pd_rd_w=kfjB1&pd_rd_wg=ERTx2&psc=1&refRID=572ASRV7AB4RKDNCA9JK) may be an easier read. (I presume it's the musical angle you want.)

There's also [this] (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Acoustics/Fundamentals_of_Acoustics) for free.

I have this book,Music the Brain and Ecstasy. It is pretty good but the guy is a little too biased on what is good music and what is not. I should really finish it . . . Goes in to the relationship on why the structures of our brain are wired to like the math of music so much.

This list has helped me a lot: http://preview.tinyurl.com/2vj3p49

I can personally recommend Structural Hearing by Felix Salzer, a student of Schenker. It covers basic counterpoint, functional harmony and Schenkerian analysis (in that order). It's not a book for the lighthearted, but there are treasures to be found!

http://www.amazon.com/Structural-Hearing-Tonal-Coherence-Volumes/dp/0486222756/

I started at 40. It's a journey, your journey. Enjoy the trip.

Also read Guitar Zero. This was written by an older learner who views his skill development through the lens of cognitive psychology. It is a great companion for those of us who began later in life.

The professionally trained musician in me says, "So this is what today's pop stars have been using to create songs..." But I digress. As a music teacher, that chart might be useful in aiding young tots into easily composing something "tuneful." The question is more about how one perceives music. Everyone is individual; thus, everyone has individual perceptions. Try reading Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy. It's not perfect, but it poses some really interesting questions about music.

Most college music theory texts have a companion workbook filled with quizzes and practice problems/questions. Where I went to undergrad we used Tonal Harmony and the school I'm going to now uses The Musician's Guide to Theory and Analysis. Not sure if that qualifies as being "accessible," but it's good material if you're willing to part with all those dollars. Text books sure are expensive.

Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy by Robert Jourdain -- a book that explains in mesmerizing detail why music makes us feel good

Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu, Stephen Mitchell translation -- a book that explains (among a plethora of other gems of wisdom) why letting go is the only way to gain.

At my school everybody takes classical theory for at least 2 years.

We used this book

Here's the work book

You'll probably need the answers too since you're teaching yourself

Really what I got out of it was being able to just instantly know chord spelling. I don't really have to think about a lot of things any more. It's just second nature. You don't really use classical counterpoint rules unless you plan on composing classical music. But it's a good vehicle for learning theory since it's rather specific and you have to consider a lot of things at once.

We use this book in our jazz theory class

But mainly I learned most from the lectures since our professor is really good. We also have to write a jazz tune every week and learn and improvise on it. As well as the ear training.

I wouldn't really even say that theory is "extremely challenging." You just have to spend a lot of time on it. There was a lot of assignments from the work book every week during classical theory. Probably spent like 6+ hours a week just on the homework for those classes. And that's not even including ear training. With any of this stuff you just have to be consistent, I don't think it's really that hard to understand and I started playing music much later than a lot of my peers.

But if you're trying to understand jazz before understanding really basic concepts like knowing your key signatures, how to spell basic triads, the chords in a given key, simple time vs compound time, etc, you're going to have a lot of trouble. Everything builds on to itself so you really have to understand the basics first which might be a little boring but you have to do it.

Here's another great one:
http://www.amazon.com/Music-The-Brain-And-Ecstasy/dp/038078209X

You're welcome:

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Music-Nature-Anthology-Thoughts/dp/0819569356/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=music+nature+books&qid=1573453797&sr=8-1

I hear Oliver Sacks writes about such things.

Sounds interesting -- haven't read it myself though.

Check the sidebar under theory apps and books. I haven't finished a single book yet so can't really comment on what's best, but there are some listed there. I've ordered " The Musician’s Guide to Theory & Analysis", you can find that on google books I think and browse it.

Check out the book Guitar Zero. It's by a cognitive psychologist who, at almost 40, decides he wanted to learn an instrument. It goes into his personal journey as well as a lot of info and studies about how humans learn things in general.

Was the book Music, The Brain, and Ecstasy by chance?

Haven't read it But the book Music, the brain and Ecstasy is also very good, and is written in a way that people that have no knowledge of music can understand it.

P.S. Amazon will rent you the book for the semester. $22 USD
http://www.amazon.com/Musicians-Guide-Theory-Analysis-Second/dp/0393930815/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409269943&sr=1-1&keywords=musician%27s+guide+to+theory+and+analysis

Rental links from Amazon:

$16: https://smile.amazon.com/Music-Appreciation-Brief-Standalone/dp/0077837312

$24: https://smile.amazon.com/Beginning-Intermediate-Algebra-Elayn-Martin-Gay/dp/0134193091

Hermann Helmholtz: On the Sensations of Tone is a classic.

Books that delve into the physics of acoustics require the language of diff-q and fluid dynamics, and so may not be useful to you.

Correct:

Music, The Brain, And Ecstasy: How Music Captures Our Imagination

The Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics by Arthur Benade

On The Sensations of Tone by Helmholtz

You should pick up Oliver Sacks' Musicophilia. He describes earworms and similar stories there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuWMSMvvsa0

​

Dude, your hooktheory book is a complete garbage, I'm not surprised that you learned everything wrong. I even told you the name of the youtube channel... how ignorant can a person be on reddit?

Check any real music theory books

https://www.amazon.com/Tonal-Harmony-Stefan-Kostka/dp/125944709X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1538029216&sr=1-1&keywords=tonal+harmony+kostka&dpID=41v9WBjdbJL&preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Musician-Integrated-Approach-Listening/dp/0199347093/ref=pd_sim_14_16?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0199347093&pd_rd_r=4a1cee19-c21d-11e8-bcaa-d5dbd61d2792&pd_rd_w=N7ADP&pd_rd_wg=8dbTF&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=56838e6b-66d4-41e0-a762-743f1a1a628a&pf_rd_r=3YXER0X7XFGE6FM96NJ8&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=3YXER0X7XFGE6FM96NJ8

https://www.amazon.com/Musicians-Guide-Theory-Analysis-Second/dp/0393930815/ref=pd_sim_14_32?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0393930815&pd_rd_r=4a1cee19-c21d-11e8-bcaa-d5dbd61d2792&pd_rd_w=N7ADP&pd_rd_wg=8dbTF&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=56838e6b-66d4-41e0-a762-743f1a1a628a&pf_rd_r=3YXER0X7XFGE6FM96NJ8&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=3YXER0X7XFGE6FM96NJ8

​

to see what people in England and USA use (Germany and North/East Europe use slightly different system).

​

Also, there doesn't exist such thing as progression without a tonic, that's why your progression is wrong when you try to analyse the key. One of your chords is I or i (Im in another notation system). And progressions in minor use flexible scale degrees, that's why such tables can't be made or they will have to include several different chords.