There's a few approaches, and someone already linked JMM. So you're probably better off learning standard music theory if you want something with actual depth. It's not necessarily useless per se, but it's a concept that could be explained in like couple sentences. Then you take it for what it is and realize that there's nothing revolutionary behind there, it's just intervals being inverted. It's the kind of stuff that gets people excited because it sounds mysterious - it's great for youtubers to make easy content videos to get them views. The topic I’m currently looking at is negative harmony.īecause it is, for the most part, nothing else than just surface-level baloney. There's also Schenkerian analysis (where standard music theory eventually takes you) which I would argue is also rather rigorous, but it is more informal kind of analysis. This stuff helps, but it's a lot of effort for the benefit. But if you want to be a successful songwriter, your effort is better spent elsewhere probably. But if you want rigorous stuff, that's where it is. It's just that you probably aren't interested in fugues. At that level, you might directly implement a secondary dominant not because you were thinking "I need secondary dominant!" but because that happened to be the vertical result of individual lines.Īnd then the final flex of that whole path is when you can start easily writing fugues, which require this kind of finer control categorically. Then you can get into counterpoint to get even finer control over the details of figurations, where you will learn the linear basis for things such as secondary dominants. Next level would be to be able to implement figurations. Most people who make music will, at some point, have to settle into some specific level because further control of it becomes closed off.Ī simple example: some people do not have the ability to have finer control over chord progressions they will simply exist as block chords, arpeggiations or something similar - just static structures. The point of counterpoint however isn't necessarily to "understand music itself" but rather encourage specific kind of thinking about the finer details of your music, so that you have more control over it. For it to become accessible, though, you must already be in the far end of just standard counterpoint, which already takes a good chunk of effort. But if you want more formal approaches to analyzing some musical things on a far more rigorous basis, there is Taneyevs convertible counterpoint. I’m wondering if there are any deep topics in music theory that use math. But standard music theory - the stuff that 99% of us learn - does not get into math pretty much at all.īut music theory feels so surface level half the time. There is music theory that intertwines itself severely with mathematics.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |