Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Looking for best beginner book to learn music geared towards classical and film music

ed buller said:
that works but what about octave positions ?
Click to expand...
All works, so a Maj9, for instance would be <0,4,7,11,14> in root position, at least that's my understanding of the notation format so far. Which makes it fully remappable to any root note. So it's a bit like figured bass, but with zero remembering arcane information, as the whole chord and voicing is described explicitly.

But, it's not very useful or quick to read as a way of notating music, more as a way of describing chords that don't have any conventional naming available, <0,8,11> being a classic one (you've taken the Mark Richards octatonic course, if I remember right?)
 
Paul@Sydney said:
(you've taken the Mark Richards octatonic course, if I remember right?)
Click to expand...
Yes. I know Pitch Set Theory. But nothing in those numbers designates Octave position.
Paul@Sydney said:
But, it's not very useful or quick to read as a way of notating music, more as a way of describing chords that don't have any conventional naming available, <0,8,11> being a classic one
Click to expand...
Yes it's by far best suited for otherwise unexplainable sonorites like this one! A Classic JW to be sure

Best

ed
 
General_Disarray said:
Well, I finally got the Alfred's one today. Didn't get a chance to start the lessons, but I went through the pages and I'm really excited about getting started. It also came with two CDs for ear training, something I'm really looking forward to, meaning, being able to recognize each note being played, even if at first it's something simple like long sustain notes in a violin or cello.

The thing that confuses the living hell out of me (not about this book, but music in general. I think I might've posted about it here, not sure), is the absurd American Notation System or whatever it's called, which grabbed the alphabet we all learned since we were little kids, chewed it and spat out a new one from like a bizarro universe. It seems created by a madman.

If they wanted the first note to be the one that sounds like C, they should've called it A. Or started each octave at the one that sounds like A. Same thing to me, I don't care, as long as my MIDI keyboard and the note editor in DAWs have A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, F1 and G1 in that order.

Not C1, D1, E1, F1, G1, A1, B1, then C2, D2, E2, F2, G2, A2 and B2 and so on. Some people explained it to me, and it still doesn't make any sense. They recommended me to learn to read music, which is why I'm excited about finally learning to do that.

But even if I read and write music on the typical music sheet, well, DAWs still use that notation system, and it's much easier than all the music symbols, but the order is just confusing. Many times I was trying to figure out a note progression from a simple solo violin with long sustains, so I write them down on a notepad, then try to play that, and I keep getting confused when playing them because you can't ask someone who lived for over 5 decades with an alphabet that goes A, B, C, D, E, F, G and 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc to suddenly change it to C, D, E, F, G, A, B.

And don't tell me the usual "It's always been that way", because there were lots of countries driving on the left side of the road and at different times in the 20th century they realized it was absurd because they didn't have to fight opponents with a large sword on their right arm, and switched to right side driving.

Just because something has been done the wrong way for ages doesn't mean it can't be changed to the right way.
Click to expand...
The thing is, a long time ago, when the system emerged, A was kind of more the starting point than C. The hexachord A-B-C-D-E-F was arguably more center of the dartboard than C-D-E-F-G-A. At that time there was not as much emphasis on the idea of a scale being completed with the extension to the octave. It has really been music that has changed around the system making C Major develop into one that we think of as the "initial" key (by the time the scientific numbering was applied.) And we don't even agree on that system

In the DAW, you will also get more comfortable with the piano roll editor, rather than C1, C2, etc., which lays out the notes from bottom to top. Referring to specific pitches by number is not a mainstay of a lot of theory teaching, in my experience. More often we are just pointing to notes on the grand staff.

I'm just glad that Boethius' idea to have a two octave system that went all the way to "O" didn't catch on permanently...
 
ed buller said:
um....with the greatest respect if your first response to studying music is to start a revolution to change note names perhaps it's not for you ?
Click to expand...
Hahahahah!! No worries Ed, I have strong opinions but I'm not about to start a revolution. It's just something annoying that will get better with time, as it does for everybody.

That being said... ¡¡¡Viva la revolución!!!

:rofl:
 
I don’t know all that much more about this stuff than you do. But, fwiw, I find it helpful to get away from the idea that C major is some kind of base or starting point, from which other keys depart, and instead to focus on the way all major scales are constructed — tone, tone, semitone and so on. That way, you can regard it as serendipitous that starting on C just happens to give you only the white notes!
 
@General_Disarray I can’t wait until you find out that C3=C4 or C5 sometimes when using MIDI :)
Which goes to the two big players in early MIDI (Yamaha and Roland) not agreeing, and then some others saying middle C note 60 in MIDI is 5.
And then of course there are transposing instruments.
 
rAC said:
I can’t wait until you find out that C3=C4 or C5 sometimes when using MIDI :)
Which goes to the two big players in early MIDI (Yamaha and Roland) not agreeing, and then some others saying middle C note 60 in MIDI is 5.
Click to expand...
I knew about C3 and C4, which I still don't understand, but I had never heard about C5, which is even more ridiculous.

Isn't the whole thing down to frequency? I mean, C3 can never be the same as C4 or C5, they're different frequencies.
 
General_Disarray said:
I knew about C3 and C4, which I still don't understand, but I had never heard about C5, which is even more ridiculous.

Isn't the whole thing down to frequency? I mean, C3 can never be the same as C4 or C5, they're different frequencies.
Click to expand...
Frequencies are absolutes, imperically measured and described unambiguously. Sadly, note naming conventions are not universal, and there are competing standards. Most annoying, particularly when using instruments from different developers that use different standards for what middle C is, and don't provide a method to change which standard is being used. (thankfully most developers do provide such a method, but not all).
 
Wait until you learn about enharmonic equivalents: C#/Db are the same notes. Cx (a "C double sharp") is also a D.

It'll all make sense eventually.
 
And there is no such thing as a C flat!......unless it's when there is. Because then it can't be a B sharp!...............that would be silly!

Best

e
 
C5 is MIDI note 60 in that system. So depending on the system “Concert A” = 440Hz could be A3, A4 or A5. But then you have some orchestras that tune to different A’s (437 Hz, 444 HZ are two that spring to mind) and sometimes the gaps between the notes are different eg older music wasn’t always in what we call equal temperament. Are you confused about it all yet? Don’t worry too much about it all yet just start with learning your scales, the circle of fifths (BTW do try playing a B major scale as you’ll find your fingers like it) and reading treble and Bass Clefs.
 
Last edited:
When you're ready:
Chord inversions. Not just making lowest note the highest, and high to lowest, but the other kind: upsidedown invert on an axis. Checking out each axis for the best chord connections. For example:
B m7#5, E m add4, Eb m7#5, Ab m add4,
F m7#5, Gb m add4, G m7#5, Bb m add4


Hey I just realized this is only a 'where to begin' thread. My bad. Should I delete? Move it somewhere?

Anyway, it is interesting to see that some of the great composer's melody lines are flipped upsidedown versions of other lines.
 
Last edited:
If you want to practice mixing audio tracks so that they sound as much like an orchestra as possible, you are welcome to use my practice material. See at https://www.beat-kaufmann.com/files/

There are pieces where the instruments are recorded totally dry and no positions on the virtual stage are given yet. There you have to do everything in the mix.
But there are also pieces where the instruments already have a stage position. Then it's just a matter of making everything a bit crisper, highlighting instruments (playing conductor), etc.

Have fun
Beat
 
A couple of other resources - on Harmony - look at 'Harmonic Experience' by W.A. Matthieu. He will meet you more than half way in explaining why things are called what they are called. The practicals offered are really helpful, and relate 1:1 with the frequency spectrum we meet in the DAW. It's not obviously a book on Orchestration but it will keep you out of jail pretty much always.

On orchestral scores - 'Anatomy of the Orchestra' by Norman Del Mar. That's good company, not necessarily a course of study, but introduces literature and traditions, as well as the interpretive problems of conductors and performers, as your best friends.

Echoing Ed Buller's advice - pick one course and stay with that. Supplements are incredibly valuable, but once you decide to dig a well, the water will be located straight under your feet; the sure thing is to stay there and work. How to dig, and what to dig with...just dig until you don't have to dig any more.
 
Inherently said:
Echoing Ed Buller's advice - pick one course and stay with that. Supplements are incredibly valuable, but once you decide to dig a well, the water will be located straight under your feet; the sure thing is to stay there and work. How to dig, and what to dig with...just dig until you don't have to dig any more.
Click to expand...
I have learned from painful experience that this is good advice. But it does make it even more important for a beginner to choose the right place to dig. What criteria should one apply? Just use the one book one happens to have? Or one that happens to be recommended by a stranger on an internet forum? “Get a teacher and ask their advice” is great advice if the beginner knows how to find a good teacher; but (again I speak from painful experience, albeit with learning instruments rather than theory) there are a lot of poor teachers out there who will just recommend whatever book they happen to be familiar with.

Still, having just admitted that there is no reason why anyone should give any weight to my recommendations, I will make two suggestions anyway -

(1) Greg A Steinke, Harmonic Materials in Tonal Music (2 vols) - A Programed Course is ideal for learning without a teacher: you are constantly tested on what you have learned, so it’s easy to tell when you have failed to grasp something. Plenty of books include exercises, but many of them don’t provide any way of knowing whether your answers are right. Quite often I think I have understood but it turns out that I haven’t. Recent editions are very expensive, but you can pick up older editions for not a lot, and I don’t believe common practice harmony has changed all that much in the last 20 years or so.

(2) Nicholas Cook, Analysis through Composition - Principles of the Classical Style (1996) is aimed at students who are not quite beginners, but doesn’t assume very much prior knowledge. The idea is to give you a better understanding of how music works (“analysis”) by getting you to try out some compositional ideas in the style of J C Bach, Haydn and Mozart. I find it rather satisfying to be doing something that’s a little bit creative while I learn theory, even if it’s only arranging someone else’s work for different instruments. I’m hoping that it won’t be too difficult to move into more modern styles later, and I think Cook is right to focus on one. The book is long out of print, but you can find used copies at a reasonable price.

I realise that the OP has already made a choice, and I’m sure it’s fine. I only mention these books for the benefit of others who may still be reading this thread.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all again for your replies and great advice. I realize there are mountains of knowledge to learn, but I would like to start with the stuff that interests me the most so I can make the process more enticing. I realize that the treble and bass clefs and learning to read music is very important.

But to me the things that I'm more eager to learn are these:

1) I don't know if these even has a name, or is it just part of music theory, but what makes a set of keys sound good as either a scale or a chord, and how can I learn what notes and chord progressions are supposed to sound good? Meaning, even in the most original music, there seems to be some kind of guideline that makes chord or note progressions sound good. Does that have a specific name that I can lookup and study?

Don't get me wrong, I want to do the whole thing. I want to read the whole Alfred's book (I already know that the treble clef starts above middle C and goes from E to F, and the bass clef is for notes below middle C and goes from G to A. I sharpened a pencil and did the exercises, and loved it, I can't wait to learn more.

But many times I have Cubase loaded with Cinestrings, or the CS-80, or some brass, whatever. And I just put my left hand on the MIDI piano and play something. I realize it sounds really good, like those notes are supposed to be together in a chord, and work well as a scale too, which I think it's how it's supposed to be, correct? I mean, if it sounds well as a chord, the scale from those keys will also sound good, it's kind of a rule, right?

So I play that chord, and because of decades of listening to lots of different genres, but mostly classical and film scores in the past few years, suddenly I get this chord in my head that seems to me would be the next best choice in a progression. And I know it's just a step higher, but obviously it doesn't simply work by moving each finger to the key to the right of the first one.

Basically I would like to learn what chord and notes progressions sound well, if there are specific rules, or if people just memorized all the chords and they know from memory which choices to make.

And 2) I would really like to train my ear so that at the very least, if I listen to a violin note progression, and I'm talking about very simple stuff, just long notes and legato, I can tell right away, without playing a sampled violin on my keyboard, which are those notes. I would like to listen to 20 seconds of a song and start playing those notes on the MIDI keyboard, even if the tempo is off, and the velocity is off and so on, but at least to get the notes right.

And after that, I would like to be able to recognize chords, or being able to separate note progressions in a recording that doesn't give me multitrack, like being able to separate the violin solo from the rest of the violins, the cellos, the basses (violas are much more complicated because of where they sit in the pitch scale), but at least be able to listen to a song I love and make the MIDI mockup for it.

Do you all have any specific recommendations for those things? Again, I know all the stuff in music theory is very important, and I'm determined to learn all of it. But I would, at the same time, be able to relax and record something improvised, but that I know it's going to sound good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom