TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Music theory for nerds

766 点作者 hardmath123超过 8 年前

45 条评论

skrebbel超过 8 年前
I&#x27;d like to elaborate a bit, in the same &quot;for nerds&quot; manner, on where Eevee seems to get lost a bit with scales and notation. He (she? not sure) calls the A minor and C major scales the same, because they contain the same notes. That&#x27;s not an odd thought, but it&#x27;s like calling sine and cosine the same because both functions contain the same set of values, in the same order.<p>The difference is phase. Basically, scales aren&#x27;t just an ordered set of notes, they also have a <i>starting point</i>. This note, the note the scale is named after, is often the last note of a tune played in that scale, and often the first too (especially for more poppy tunes). So if you play Für Elise in C major, like Eevee suggests, the entire melody will be pitched 3 semitones <i>higher</i> than playing Für Elise in A major. And it&#x27;ll sound awkward because you&#x27;re supposed to play it on a minor scale.<p>Once you understand this, the whole notation thing makes a lot more sense as well.
评论 #12532805 未加载
评论 #12532966 未加载
评论 #12530842 未加载
评论 #12530631 未加载
评论 #12530917 未加载
评论 #12531689 未加载
theseoafs超过 8 年前
&gt; It completely obscures the relationship between the pitches, though.<p>It doesn&#x27;t actually obscure the relationship between the notes -- it makes them clearer. For example, I see the notes C, E, and G on some sheet music, maybe with some accidentals on some of those notes. I know that I&#x27;m therefore supposed to play a C triad. Now, there are multiple kinds of triads, but once I know I&#x27;m supposed to play a triad, it&#x27;s easy to use context to pick out which one I need (major, minor, diminished, augmented -- usually one of the first two). If I were supposed to play a C# major triad, though, and the written notes were (C#-F-G#) as opposed to what they should be (C#-E#-G#) then that&#x27;s confusing because it looks like I should be playing an arpeggiated sus4 of some kind. So the written nature of scales on the staff engenders an understanding of the relationship between the notes. Basically we write things the way we do so that the people reading the music can more efficiently pattern-match.<p>&gt; C major is identical to A minor, and I don’t understand why we need both.<p>They&#x27;re not identical. C major and A minor have the same <i>notes</i> in their respective scales. But we say that a piece is in the <i>key</i> of C major when it resolves to the a C major chord at the end, and we say a piece is in the key of A minor when it resolves to an A minor chord at the end -- an important concept for reasoning about how a piece is supposed to be performed.<p>&gt; C minor: C D D# F G G# A# C<p>Eb, Ab, and Bb, not D#, G#, and A#.<p>&gt; This has got to be some of the worst jargon and notation for anything, ever.<p>It&#x27;s really not. Keep practicing. It makes sense, I promise.<p>I hear a lot of people -- usually people who have not been studying music for very long -- insist that the system would be more logical if there were no accidentals and there were 12 notes with distinct names and the staff had a bunch more lines on it. I&#x27;ve never bought it. The notation of music isn&#x27;t arbitrary, it&#x27;s informed by experience and it <i>works</i>.
评论 #12528946 未加载
评论 #12529168 未加载
评论 #12530395 未加载
评论 #12529776 未加载
karlb超过 8 年前
Many musicians much better than me are surprised at how I can play a song just by hearing it on the radio. My breakthrough came from understanding music was realizing that the real “meaning” of a note lies in its position relative to the tonic note (e,g, I-II-II, etc, also written do-re-mi). Suddenly, almost all of the clutter was removed, and the problem became manageable.<p>Let&#x27;s consider the three-note tune “do, re, mi”. If that tune were played in the key of C, it would become C-D-E. If it were played in G, it would become G-A-B. But in either case, it&#x27;s the same tune but with each frequency increased by the same percentage.<p>Trying to understand music by understanding the letters is like trying to read in a world where every article has been enciphered into a different “key”: e.g., the word &quot;cab&quot; in “the key of A” (the alphabet we normally use) would be written as &quot;dbc&quot; if the article were written in “the key of B”. In the latter case, you could discern meaning only once you realised that the letter “d” represented the third letter of the alphabet. There&#x27;s nothing meaningful about a “d” but there is something meaningful about a “4th letter of the alphabet”.<p>Once you start to “decipher” all music into I, II, III, IV, V, etc., the complexity becomes manageable. You can start to learn to recognize the sound of a III note, or of a VI minor chord. After all, there are only eight notes in the major scale.
评论 #12530619 未加载
评论 #12531292 未加载
评论 #12578715 未加载
评论 #12530470 未加载
评论 #12531003 未加载
评论 #12544382 未加载
评论 #12545411 未加载
analog31超过 8 年前
<i>This has got to be some of the worst jargon and notation for anything, ever.</i><p>Indeed. I&#x27;m a musician, and something non-musicians often ask (especially techies, it seems) is why we use such an archaic notation system.<p>The reason is simply that a certain number of musicians have developed the skill of <i>sight reading</i> which is the ability to perform a composition directly from a written sheet, with little or no rehearsal. Those players, myself included, can&#x27;t quite explain how we do it, and aren&#x27;t going to learn a new notation system.
评论 #12529318 未加载
评论 #12530253 未加载
评论 #12528729 未加载
评论 #12528505 未加载
评论 #12531554 未加载
评论 #12528627 未加载
评论 #12532078 未加载
评论 #12530450 未加载
评论 #12528578 未加载
评论 #12528484 未加载
brunorsini超过 8 年前
In case anyone is searching for a really smart, modern method for learning music theory, this is it: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.hooktheory.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.hooktheory.com</a><p>The author devised his own system for visually representing notes, it makes it much easier to understand things like scale degrees and relative notation (and thus the theory around famous harmonies, melodies, etc).<p>I think music tools are in desperate need for improvement... Starting with notation, which is still a bit akin to forcing programmers to go straight to Assembly. Little is gained from it as most people just completely give up and then go on to live the rest of their musical lives &quot;in the dark&quot;, without knowing how to read and write at all. This can actually be good for some but I&#x27;m sure it hinders the creativity of a lot more.<p>I think we also need way better digital instruments... That make it easier to stay on scale (or to modulate, etc -- whatever the mood is), for instance, allowing people to just play away which is what actually matters.<p>I&#x27;ve spent countless hours of my life learning scales on several different instruments and think a lot of that was wasteful. More often than not I&#x27;m just trying to stay in a given key anyway, nothing fancy...<p>Instruments really need better interfaces :)
评论 #12530096 未加载
评论 #12529737 未加载
评论 #12529840 未加载
评论 #12530540 未加载
ektimo超过 8 年前
I&#x27;ve skimmed a lot of articles on music &quot;theory&quot; but none of them provide anything like what I&#x27;m looking for. A music theory should explain:<p>1. Why do we like pieces when played forward but not backward or inverted?<p>2. Why do certain sounds evoke certain emotions?<p>3. How could you write a program to pick out music that people find especially good (versus music that has surface similarities)?<p>In other words, why does a particular sequence of sounds A, B, C lead to a mental state M that has particular internal qualities?
评论 #12528812 未加载
评论 #12528690 未加载
评论 #12528814 未加载
评论 #12529059 未加载
评论 #12528918 未加载
评论 #12529250 未加载
评论 #12528818 未加载
评论 #12529105 未加载
评论 #12529260 未加载
评论 #12529206 未加载
评论 #12530963 未加载
评论 #12528984 未加载
评论 #12529153 未加载
评论 #12528790 未加载
leafo超过 8 年前
If anyone is interested in learning to read music, I&#x27;ve been slowly building a tool to practice: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;sightreading.training&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;sightreading.training&#x2F;</a><p>source is here (built in react, es6): <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;leafo&#x2F;mursicjs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;leafo&#x2F;mursicjs</a><p>It&#x27;s still lacking a lot (like rhythm), but the different generators definitely give my brain a workout. It works best if you hook up a midi keyboard.
评论 #12529050 未加载
rspeer超过 8 年前
If you want a series of books that constitute &quot;music theory for nerds&quot; -- building up music theory from a solid foundation of acoustics, and math -- try &quot;Musimathics&quot; by Gareth Loy. It is a great read.<p>It takes very little for granted. Now, sometimes you have to say &quot;this is just the way it turned out&quot; to explain Western music, but the best way to do so is to show some other ways it could have turned out, and show their role in non-Western music. Musimathics does that often.
zeta0134超过 8 年前
On the science side of things, Vi Hart put together just an <i>excellent</i> video that goes over harmonics, the overtone series, and why 440 Hz and 880 Hz sound so &quot;indescribably similar&quot; to this blog author.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=i_0DXxNeaQ0" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=i_0DXxNeaQ0</a>
watermoose超过 8 年前
This is great, but I would recommend Robert Greenberg&#x27;s &quot;How to Listen to and Understand Great Music&quot;. He goes through the history of western music in a way that makes it clear why Amin != Cmaj, and other questions that the OP has. Yes, sheet music is crap, and he explains how it evolved to be the way it is, after which you&#x27;ll be much more forgiving. He&#x27;s a great speaker who obviously knows the material inside and out.
lohankin超过 8 年前
The explanation of the origin of major scale in the article is pure voodoo. Minor third is not a simple fraction - is that the reason to exclude it from the scale? How do you explain minor scale then? Maybe it should be excluded, too?<p>Here&#x27;re my thoughts on the subject.<p>For some reason no one can explain, Western music settled on a system of 12 tones with equal temperament, This system emerged as a result of long evolution of Western music, and experimentally proven to be very rich in possibilities.<p>Scales used in Western music (of which jazz is a part of) are built on two simple principles: 1) interval between adjacent notes of the scale is either tone or semitone 2) there&#x27;s no two semitones in a row.<p>It&#x27;s easy to check that all scales that satisfy these 2 rules are:<p>major scale and its modes (7-note scales; 7 modes)<p>melodic minor scale and its modes (7-note scales; 7 modes)<p>diminished scale and its modes (8-note scales; 2 modes)<p>whole-tone scale (6-note scale, single mode).<p>(Whole tone scale is not used very often, except by T.Monk)<p>But even after we &quot;explain&quot; scales, we need to figure out how to use them, what their role is, what the properties of each mode are. There&#x27;s no hard science behind this, the properties just &quot;emerge&quot;, and you have to experience them - theorizing is not of much help, math formulas don&#x27;t explain anything, just lead to confusion.<p>In short: you have to play AND think; thinking alone won&#x27;t help. It&#x27;s an experimental subject.<p>Edit: forgot to say: scale is a very useful notion, but in some contexts, it&#x27;s more convenient to think in terms of triads and interpolation. I know this all sounds hand-wavy, and it is! Unfortunately, without piano, it&#x27;s impossible to to illustrate what it all means. The subject doesn&#x27;t easily lend itself to verbalization.
评论 #12528901 未加载
评论 #12528883 未加载
评论 #12538946 未加载
andrepd超过 8 年前
&quot;C major is identical to A minor, and I don’t understand why we need both.&quot;<p>Cringe. If I understand nothing of some subject, I would do well to just shut my mouth about it.
评论 #12530399 未加载
quadrangle超过 8 年前
The author and anyone else who understands correctly that traditional music notation is shitty in lots of ways and is trying to understand how music really works should go get the book &quot;Music and Memory: An Introduction&quot; by Bob Snyder. It uses no music notation and explains music in terms of psychological principles of perception of time. It&#x27;s not a complete theory of everything, but it shows the way you <i>should</i> be understanding the nature of music.<p>Beyond that, check out Sweet Anticipation by David Huron, and Tuning Timber Spectrum Scale by William Sethares (and his other Rhythms and Transforms, see <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;sethares.engr.wisc.edu&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;sethares.engr.wisc.edu&#x2F;</a> for web versions of first chapter of each). These sorts of resources are where real understanding of music comes from. Not from the &quot;theory&quot; stuff us music professionals had to deal with that fails to explain anything well.
bbtn超过 8 年前
Well, the first figure: frequency is NOT the period, and amplitude is not that. I guess there are lots of errors in the text if the first figure is completely wrong.
jacobolus超过 8 年前
This source is a bit wordy. Let’s summarize:<p>The core idea of music made with harmonic sounds is that “notes” with frequencies at small-integer ratios will “harmonize”. Harmonic sounds means something like a vibrating string where the vibrations are integer multiples of some fundamental frequency, because other non-integer-multiple vibrations are damped out by the fixture of the string at two points. Different (non-harmonic) types of sounds often sound better with a different sort of scale, for details see this book <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;sethares.engr.wisc.edu&#x2F;ttss.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;sethares.engr.wisc.edu&#x2F;ttss.html</a><p>* * *<p>The “octave”, 2:1, is the simplest whole-number ratio, and makes many of the vibrations in two notes in such frequency ratio align with each-other, to the point that two harmonic sounds exactly an octave apart almost sound like the same sound.<p>Other simple ratios like 3:1, 4:3, 5:4, etc. also “harmonize”, with (not quite as) many aligned overtones.<p>The core idea of the 12-note musical scale (pretty much regardless of specific tuning) is the approximation:<p>3^12 = 531441 ≈ 524288 = 2^19<p>3&#x2F;2 ≈ 2^(7&#x2F;12) [this is accurate to about 0.1%]<p>Or another way to say this: 7&#x2F;12 of “doubling” on a log scale is very nearly “three-to-two”. Musicians call this ratio a “perfect fifth”.<p>In the case of equal temperament, an octave is split into 12 precisely equal steps (on a log scale), each one the 12th root of 2.<p>There’s one other nice approximation to take advantage of:<p>5^3 = 125 ≈ 128 = 2^7<p>5&#x2F;4 ≈ 2^(4&#x2F;12) [this approximation is only accurate to about 1%]<p>Musicians call this ratio a “major third”.<p>* * *<p>Even outside music, these approximations can be useful for doing approximate computations.<p>If only our society switched from decimal to “duodecimal” numerals, it would be very natural to use logarithms base two, notated with “duodecimal” fractions.<p>If you have a number expressed in log base two, and you use duodecimal notation, approximately multiplying or dividing by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, ... is very easy using addition&#x2F;subtraction of easy-to-remember multiples of 2^(1&#x2F;12).<p>Unfortunately our society instead has slide rules and measurement scales (decibels, etc.) which are all built around logarithms base ten, and decimal notation.
MrManatee超过 8 年前
The article says that the &quot;human ear loves ratios&quot;, but doesn&#x27;t dig deeper into why. Here&#x27;s my two cents.<p>First of all, let&#x27;s focus on harmony (notes played at the same time) as opposed to melody (notes played one after another). What sounds good in a melody is quite culture-dependent, but there are reasons why harmony is more universal.<p>Second, let&#x27;s focus on sounds that are produced by something long and narrow. In a guitar, violin, or piano it&#x27;s a string, and in a flute it&#x27;s a column of air. The physics of vibrations goes so that in such a case the sound is composed of harmonics: sine waves of frequencies f, 2f, 3f, 4f, ... If the shape is different (say, a circular membrane of a drum), then this may not apply.<p>Suppose we add a second sound, whose fundamental frequency is, say, 3&#x2F;2 f. This means that its harmonics are 1.5f, 3f, 4.5f, 6f, 7.5f, 9f, ... Half of these (3f, 6f, ...) coincide with the harmonics of the first sound, so the sounds &quot;reinforce&quot; each other. More generally, if the ratio of the frequencies is p&#x2F;q for some integers p and q, then there will be overlap in the harmonics. And the smaller p and q are, the more overlap there will be.
评论 #12528989 未加载
评论 #12529693 未加载
评论 #12530456 未加载
评论 #12529014 未加载
tsm超过 8 年前
It seems like his questions were serious (not rhetorical), so I&#x27;ll answer them for real. The answers pretend that the 20th century hasn&#x27;t happened yet—there&#x27;s no point explaining the interesting things people like Schoenberg did if you don&#x27;t understand the mainstream tradition in place before them.<p>1) <i>Why does notation allow for seven pitches, not 12?</i> Because music is at most built out of 7-note scales, not 12. If something&#x27;s in C major, you can expect to play a C, D, E, F, G, A, and B. If something&#x27;s in B minor, you can expect to play a B, C#, D, E, F#, G, and A. The notation makes writing this fairly compact…and if you do need a pitch outside the scale, it&#x27;s easy enough to write in the accidental #, b, or natural sign. If each semitone had a unique place in the staff (base-12 notation instead of base-7), sheet music would take up 70% more space for no good reason.<p>2) <i>What about C# and F# is supposed to tell you &#x27;D&#x27;?</i> Um…the fact that the key of D has an F# and C# in it. You literally just memorize it. It can be constructed from the circle of fifths semi-elegantly, but at the end of the day any semi-competent musician should be able to tell you without thinking that the first two sharps are F and C, and the major key with two sharps is D.<p>3) <i>Why do some have sharps and some have flats?</i> Think of sharps as protons, flats as electrons, and the key as the overall charge. D has a charge of +2 (two sharps). F has a charge of -1 (one flat). Going up the circle of fifths adds charge (a fifth above D is A, which is +3…a fifth above that is E, which is +4). Going the other way around the circle of fifths removes charge (a fifth below D is G, +1. Fifth below that is C, 0. Fifth below that is F, -1). The most elegant way of talking about D is to say it&#x27;s +2 and that that corresponds to two sharps. It&#x27;s mathematically equivalent to write it with 3 flats and 5 sharps (so you&#x27;d have, for example, B-flat, sharpened) but that&#x27;s not a useful way to model it. B-flat, sharpened, is the same as B natural, and B natural is much more fun to work with.<p>4) <i>Confusion about major and minor</i> It&#x27;s worth introducing the word <i>tonic</i>. The tonic is the &quot;home&quot; note—the note you can play that makes the music sound like it could be finished. The tonic is also the key that you&#x27;re in. So if you&#x27;re in G major, the tonic is G, and the tune will either finish on a G or sound very incomplete (some composers exploit this effect, ending on not-the-tonic to catch the listeners by surprise). E minor has the same sharps and flats as G major, but it resolves to an E instead of a G. Für Elise is written in A minor, which does indeed have the same sharps and flats as C major. But it&#x27;s &quot;in&quot; A—it resolves to A. If you rejiggered it to resolve to a C, some of the notes would sound out of tune. If you bent the notes until they sounded in tune, you&#x27;d realize that you were playing a Bb, Eb, and Ab instead of all naturals…and that means you&#x27;re playing in C minor and all you did was transpose the thing up a third. Major and minor have very different feels (this is easily noticeable in the Für Elise video), and most people can listen to a fragment of a melody and instantly decide whether it felt major or minor. Major and minor aren&#x27;t the only scale systems, by the way. Having a tonic of C and no sharps is major. C with one sharp is lydian. C with one flat is mixolydian. C with two flats is dorian. And so on and so forth.<p>5) <i>Futzing about with hertz and intervals</i> It&#x27;s not quite fair to say that half steps &quot;should&quot; go by the 12th root of two or whatever. That results in &quot;equal temperament&quot;, which is a relatively modern phenomenon. The ratios that it&#x27;s close to are what the ear actually wants to hear—the most pleasant-sounding fifth will have the ratio 3:2, not 1.498:1. This is actually because of the interference of the waves—if you play 3hz against 2hz the waves will both be at 0 every 6 seconds and you get a very pure tone (actually 3hz is too low to hear, but the math is convenient). But if you play 1.498hz against 1hz they&#x27;ll both be at zero again who knows when, and a good ear can hear the &quot;beating&quot; as the waves almost-but-not-quite line up. The same applies to all the other intervals. You would think that we could tool our way up by fifths to get the &quot;best&quot; tuning for everything, but the math doesn&#x27;t quite work out. If you tune C to 100hz (and thus 200hz, 400hz, 800hz, etc), then the G a fifth above will be 150hz, D above that will be 225hz, A 337.5hz, E 506.25, B 759.375, F# 1139.0625, C# 1708.59375, G# 2562.890625, D# 3844.3359375, A# 5766.50390625, E# 8649.755859375, and B# (which is supposed to be the same as C) will be 12974.6337890625. But if we continue stacking octaves on top of the base C, we go 100-200-400-800-1600-3200-6400-12800-25600. Crap! 12800hz is almost-but-not-quite the 12974.6337890625hz we got from stacking fifths. The difference between the two is called &quot;the comma&quot;, and figuring out what to do with it has plagued musicians for 500 years. Each tuning that deals with the comma is called a &quot;temperament&quot;. The most common one NOW is &quot;equal temperament&quot;, which is what was discussed above. In terms of the comma, it just distributes the comma equally across all 12 intervals, so that everything is equally out of tune. But that&#x27;s not the only answer. &quot;Quarter-comma meantone&quot;, for example, flattens the fifth (and messes with a few other intervals), but has a perfect major third—and sounds very different! And now, hold that thought…<p>6) <i>Why A-B-C#-D instead of A-B-Db-D?</i> Apart from the &quot;every seven-note scale should have one instance of each note&quot; maxim, this becomes a very practical question when dealing with temperament. C# <i>is not</i> Db…it&#x27;s just that the modern piano likes to equate them. Let&#x27;s say we&#x27;re in quarter-comma meantone in A. So A (440hz) is in tune because we&#x27;re in A, and C# (550hz) is in tune because the point of quarter comma is to make the major third in tune. But E (657.932hz) is a little bit flat (should be 660hz). Okay. And it also turns out that G# is 822.448hz. So you&#x27;ve tuned your keyboard thusly, and things are sounding pretty good in A major. Now you turn the page and—surprise!—the next piece is in Db minor. With the tuning on your keyboard, a Db minor chord (Db + Fb + Ab) would be 550hz (C# ~= Db) + 657.932hz (E ~= Fb) + 822.448hz (G# ~= Ab). The &quot;ideal&quot; values, based on A-440, would be 550hz, 660hz, and 825hz. Take it on faith, this doesn&#x27;t sound good. And with a different temperament, it could&#x27;ve been worse—in this one at least you got the Db right! So why does it work like this? Inherent in unequal temperament is the notion of &quot;good intervals&quot; (A-C# as a major third is good here) and &quot;bad intervals&quot; (Db-Fb as a minor third is a little more icky). Violin (and similar) players work around this by fudging notes on the fly to be properly in tune (since it&#x27;s an analogy instrument you can play whatever hertz you want). Through the 18th century, a C# would be played a little flatter than a Db, because that makes the harmonies as a whole turn out better (keep in mind that harmony is built on the desired interval: C#-Fb is a fucked-up fourth and isn&#x27;t really supposed to sound good, Db-Fb is a minor third and should sound fine). Later on people started playing C sharps <i>higher</i> than D flats because it makes the melody line sound more compelling, harmony be damned (so-called &quot;expressive intonation&quot;). But at no point in time before the flowering of equal temperament was it ever acceptable to consider C# and Db as the same thing. Some early keyboards (much loved by Haydn and others) had much more than 12 keys per octave—they&#x27;d have the seven naturals, seven sharps, seven flats, and then specialist stuff like &quot;C# when part of an A major chord&quot;, &quot;C# when part of an F# chord&quot;, etcetera.<p>Hopefully this was a good balance of depth and brevity…let me know if anything&#x27;s unclear or there are more questions.
评论 #12529535 未加载
评论 #12531379 未加载
gtani超过 8 年前
Interested to see where this goes. The 5 blogs&#x2F;books cited at the end look especially interesting.<p>I never thought about music notation until i learned guitar. Previous to that i was &quot;gifted&quot; years of lessons in piano, woodwinds and percussion, and reading treble clef was easy. I never tried to read sheet music in guitar books because i never had to, i just read tabs and played. Besides some classical books and jazz books by Berklee profs and others (Leavitt, Martino, Goodrick), there&#x27;s very few guitar books that don&#x27;t have tabs.<p>So you could argue that&#x27;s a notation. You could also say that FL piano rolls and renoise timelines (what OP is trialling) are notations, as are lead sheets and chords charts in Nashville format (the Roman numerals like ii-V-I you see all over the place). They&#x27;re sufficient for people to play music, they happen to be dynamically typed and GC&#x27;d vs static typed and manually alloc&#x27;d
markbnj超过 8 年前
I love pieces like this that explore the underpinnings of why we experience music the way we do. I&#x27;m a self-taught guitar player and its only now, in my 50&#x27;s with the kids more or less grown and a lot more time, that I have started to dig in and understand what I&#x27;ve been playing for two decades. Good stuff. Thanks for the post.
raverbashing超过 8 年前
Wow, that&#x27;s a not good article. More like a rambling than anything else.<p>&gt; C major is identical to A minor, and I don’t understand why we need both.<p>That&#x27;s like saying house numbers are not important in finding an address...<p>I&#x27;ll just leave this here: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;openmusictheory.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;openmusictheory.com&#x2F;</a>
intrasight超过 8 年前
I&#x27;ve restarted my music brain after 30+ years. Two resources I found valuable are:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;andrewduncan.net&#x2F;cmt&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;andrewduncan.net&#x2F;cmt&#x2F;</a><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;oyc.yale.edu&#x2F;music&#x2F;musi-112" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;oyc.yale.edu&#x2F;music&#x2F;musi-112</a>
dbrgn超过 8 年前
Here&#x27;s an e-book that has a similar approach to explaining music: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;pedrokroger.net&#x2F;mfgan&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;pedrokroger.net&#x2F;mfgan&#x2F;</a> I read it some time ago and liked it. No affiliation with the author :)
jb1991超过 8 年前
&gt; C major is identical to A minor, and I don’t understand why we need both.<p>Well, an orange and a carrot are the same color, but does that mean we don&#x27;t need both? These two keys have the same signature, and that&#x27;s it. To say they are identical is false.<p>&gt; I don’t know anything about music.<p>You got that right.<p>&gt; I suppose it’s possible to change the sound of an entire piece of music just by changing the key signature, but does anyone actually do that?<p>Only about every major composer who has ever lived. Look through any Beethoven sonata and see all the key signature changes throughout.<p>Your article didn&#x27;t even hit one of the most important parts of music, modulation, which if you understood it would make many of your other confusions go away.
评论 #12529654 未加载
robbrown451超过 8 年前
One thing that is particularly arbitrary is that C is named &quot;C&quot; rather than &quot;A&quot;, which would make far more sense (given that it is the root note of the only major scale that has no sharps or flats).
评论 #12529437 未加载
评论 #12528685 未加载
arnarbi超过 8 年前
Why is this at the top of HN? While the author is right that western music notation has shortcomings, almost <i>none</i> of the (admittedly poorly understood) reasons they list are a factor in that.<p>&gt; [Key signatures] completely obscure the relationship between the pitches, though.<p>Nope, they exactly allow the notes to show <i>scale degree</i> relationships. Without key signatures, music in any major scale other than C would be very confusing as the regular scale notes would be marked with accidentals.<p>&gt; I don’t think I entirely understand this, because it still seems so convoluted to me. You have to mentally translate that C to a C, and then translate the C to however that particular note is actually played on your instrument.What does this accomplish?<p>Same. Because at some point a player stops playing by translating the exact pitch to a fingering (for example), they start playing on a scale. They practice the scale by itself, and other pointless &quot;music&quot; in that key and it&#x27;s the fingerings of the scale that they learn. I.o.w. this system allows them to think at one higher level of abstraction.<p>&gt; I’m a bit out in the weeds from here on. C major is identical to A minor, and I don’t understand why we need both.<p>This whole section reads &quot;I don&#x27;t understand this so the world must be stupid to have come up with it.&quot; Rest assured that C-major and A-minor are <i>not</i> the same. Yes they have the same pitches, but a different starting point (root). A note&#x27;s relationship to the root of they key of the piece is much more important than the exact pitch. Fur Elise in C-major would sound just like it sounds in A-major. Not A-minor.<p>&gt; I only looked into this because I want to compose some music, and I feel completely blocked when I just don’t understand a subject at all.<p>Here&#x27;s the bright point: You don&#x27;t need to understand notation to compose music. Just understand scales and chords (and their progressions), and use whatever notation makes sense for you.
评论 #12530023 未加载
评论 #12529748 未加载
评论 #12529809 未加载
评论 #12530371 未加载
评论 #12530464 未加载
评论 #12530037 未加载
评论 #12530111 未加载
评论 #12530412 未加载
评论 #12530396 未加载
评论 #12530366 未加载
dietrichepp超过 8 年前
&gt; Also, this notation has a <i>slight</i> problem. That problem is that sheet music is terrible.<p>&gt; This has got to be some of the worst jargon and notation for anything, ever.<p>I hear it bandied around in these articles that music notation is awful. Can someone explain to me why? I&#x27;m not much of a musician, but I can work my way through sheet music if necessary, or write it when I want to. I don&#x27;t remember what it was like to learn to read and write music so I&#x27;m not going to understand why it&#x27;s so bad just by thinking about it.<p>First of all, the lines and spaces make a ton of sense to me. When you&#x27;re playing, reading, or writing a piece, you spend most of your time in a key with a diatonic scale. Maybe you&#x27;re thinking about the chords: I, vi, ii, V7. The lines and spaces are great for giving you that kind of information. I guess this &quot;completely obscures the relationship between the pitches&quot;. I guess that&#x27;s the case if you forget what key you&#x27;re playing in. The alternative would be to make the staff fully chromatic, but that sounds like it has a bunch of disadvantages for most music.<p>The chromatic staff (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;musicnotation.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;musicnotation.org&#x2F;</a>) looks terrible to me, since it spreads out the notes farther. I&#x27;ve already memorized all of the diatonic scales, and now the diatonic scales are jumping around, and the staff covers a shorter interval so you get more of those 8va or 15ma.<p>Hummingbird (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.hummingbirdnotation.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.hummingbirdnotation.com&#x2F;</a>) seems like classical notation, just with more redundancy and the symbols changed around a little bit. Maybe it&#x27;s better but it&#x27;s a minor improvement at best.<p>Clairnote (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;clairnote.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;clairnote.org&#x2F;</a>) looks the worst of them all, with half-steps being half-way between lines and spaces. It looks like a recipe for making mistakes and misreading music.<p>I&#x27;m not about to say that it&#x27;s easy to read music notation, just that the notation seems to have a reasonable amount of logic to it. The idea that somehow it&#x27;s the <i>notation</i> that&#x27;s terrible and music itself would be easier to understand or play if we just had better notation--I don&#x27;t buy it. Maybe someone could convince me.<p>(Addendum: If you think the chromatic scale is the &quot;right&quot; scale for notating most music, as in &quot;Chromatic staff&quot; or &quot;Clairnote&quot;, as an exercise... why do you think that the chromatic scale is correct? Is it because it represents both sets of keys on the piano or the frets on a guitar? Is it because of the mathematical relationship between the notes? My counterargument, against the chromatic scale, is presented by Bobby McFerrin: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ne6tB2KiZuk" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ne6tB2KiZuk</a>)
评论 #12529402 未加载
评论 #12528644 未加载
评论 #12529655 未加载
saynsedit超过 8 年前
As far as the math and wave theory components of music theory go... OP covered everything except a discussion of harmonics.<p>For example, third harmonic (3f in OP&#x27;s terms) of a note is the perfect fifth of that same note. You can find similar relationships with higher harmonics.<p>This is why chords sound nice, playing the perfect fifth reinforces the 3rd harmonic, the major third reinforces the 5th harmonic, etc.
ngneer超过 8 年前
The interested reader is referred to &quot;Mathematics and Music&quot; by David Wright, published by the American Mathematical Society. The realization that the circle of fifths is really there because 5 and 7 (aka -5) are co-prime to 12 was worth the entire thing! Together with 1 and 11 (aka -1) they generate the group Z_{n} for n = 12...
评论 #12528956 未加载
matchagaucho超过 8 年前
No two Musicians take the same path to learning music.<p>I enjoyed this perspective. Particularly the focus on sine wave theory and frequencies (which also serves Audio Engineering).<p>Quite a departure from the traditional rhythm, melody, harmony, and form framework. But it works :)
ajuc超过 8 年前
My main problem with music notation is the difference between C-C# and E-F interval.<p>That is - there&#x27;s no difference, but notations pretends there is one because that&#x27;s how we put the keys closer to each other or some other historical reason.
评论 #12531335 未加载
marmaduke超过 8 年前
This is only one aspect of music: there&#x27;s timbre, dynamics, rhythm, groove, etc.
mmcconnell1618超过 8 年前
Here&#x27;s a great video explaining the origins of equal temperament: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dailymotion.com&#x2F;video&#x2F;x2ismsw" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dailymotion.com&#x2F;video&#x2F;x2ismsw</a>
calebm超过 8 年前
Looks like almost exactly the same experience I had: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;calebmadrigal.com&#x2F;music-theory-notes&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;calebmadrigal.com&#x2F;music-theory-notes&#x2F;</a>
anirudt超过 8 年前
I preferred the following. Throwback to another ShowHN page.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=4295714" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=4295714</a>
Ericson2314超过 8 年前
Octave is not arbitrary, inner ear hairs should resonate more to octaves above&#x2F;below (forget which) their maximally resonate frequency right?
chrisarensky超过 8 年前
A clear map of tonality is used in Mapping Tonal Harmony Pro. If you want to view the entire harmonic landscape is the best concept out there
SubiculumCode超过 8 年前
the article is interesting but its style doesn&#x27;t mesh with title...i.e. Music Theory for Nerd, but then explains what a sin wave is, and apologizes in advance for the &#x27;scariness&#x27; of log scales. Nerds know and are not afraid of sin waves and log scales...its as if the author doesn&#x27;t know his audience.
tehwalrus超过 8 年前
&gt; I suppose it’s possible to change the sound of an entire piece of music just by changing the key signature, but does anyone actually do that?<p>Much more interestingly, this touches on the reason why different pieces were given keys at all by their composers (think &quot;foo in B flat minor by Chopin&quot;).<p>Musical instruments have to be tuned to a particular key. This is because of the frequency ratios: the circle of fifths is a lie, (3&#x2F;2)^N != 2^M <i>for any N and M</i>, you <i>can&#x27;t</i> be an in-tune fourth in one key and third in another, the frequency values are slightly off.<p>Thus, some instruments (e.g. Piano) are tuned to be in C, and the other keys <i>sound different</i> played on that instrument, because the ratios are slightly different. Other instruments are in B flat (e.g. Trumpet) and the <i>combination of them with C-tuned instruments</i> sounds interesting. Indeed, stringed instruments are tuned to N different keys where N = number of strings!<p>The mathematics of music is <i>so cool</i>, I found the dismissive tone in the article to be quite unnecessary and irritating.<p>EDIT: thanks to replies informing me that I&#x27;m wrong about instrument tuning. This means I&#x27;ve been tuning my guitars wrong all these years!<p>REEDIT: but perhaps I&#x27;m right about old-school music with a key in the name? Since instruments would have been tuned with a tuning fork and then harmonics pre-20th century according to one reply.
评论 #12530706 未加载
评论 #12530457 未加载
评论 #12531452 未加载
评论 #12531114 未加载
acjohnson55超过 8 年前
This is an interesting article, which touches on a lot of interesting musical topics. However, it&#x27;s wrong on so many levels that I would never recommend it to someone who wants to understand music theory. I&#x27;ll try to summarize.<p>I spent a long time researching where Western music &quot;comes from&quot;. One important thing to understand is that the key feature of Western music is harmony. This is not the case for most other musical traditions. Harmony comes from a layering of independent melodic lines (called voices), such that they evolve in ways that create and resolve tensions. This is called counterpoint.<p>The ways in which these tensions resolve are called cadences, and classical music was all them. Musical form arises around how a piece of music is organized to have an arc (and arcs of arcs) that leads to a cadence. It&#x27;s kind of like how there are only a few basic narrative structures in storytelling, yet infinite variations in types of stories.<p>The tension between the sounds in concurrent melodic voices emerges from the structure of the sounds. Harmonic sounds, like ones produced from wind and string instruments, sound good (consonant) when their fundamental frequencies are simple ratios. This is largely because of how the human auditory system works.<p>Our scales and chords come from picking collections of notes that approximate simple ratios. We deal with approximate ratios using nth-roots for two reasons. First, simple ratios don&#x27;t compose well -- stack them (i.e. multiply them) and you get ratios that aren&#x27;t so simple. nth-roots do stack nicely. Second, it lets us merge nearby flat and sharp notes. This wouldn&#x27;t be possible if we used real ratios. That merger, known as enharmonicity, lets us do all sorts of cool compositional tricks that are generally considered more worthwhile than the slight improvement in sound quality we&#x27;d experience by using the real ratios. There are various ways to pick just which notes merge, but by far the most popular approach is to use 12 notes.<p>So, this is where we got our notes and scale from. This happened around the year 1800, give or take a couple decades.<p>The history of Western music since that point in time largely revolves around coming up with new ways to play with those 12 notes, in many ways erasing the musical features that caused the 12 notes to emerge in the first place. This is why the system of note names, with the flats and sharps, feels rather arbitrary today.<p>Unfortunately, there are not a lot of great resource that tell this full story. The two books I found most enlightening in piecing together the &quot;real story&quot; are:<p>- Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Tuning-Timbre-Spectrum-William-Sethares&#x2F;dp&#x2F;1852337974" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Tuning-Timbre-Spectrum-William-Sethar...</a> - A Geometry of Music: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Geometry-Music-Counterpoint-Extended-Practice&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0195336674" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Geometry-Music-Counterpoint-Extended-...</a>
评论 #12529284 未加载
princeb超过 8 年前
if you were hoping for a nerdy treatise on musical rhythm, harmony, form, cadences, sequences and motifs, and evolution from baroque to classical to romantic to modern... well this is not it.<p>edit: just a comment about the temperament- before the octave was equally tempered intervals were rational fractions of the root. after the equal temperament was developed instruments could go across different keys without sounding too dissonant. the well tempered clavier was a series of preludes and fugues that JSB wrote for the equally tempered scale that goes across all the keys on the same instrument (the prelude in c major which is the very first piece in the collection is the famous one in Forrest Gump). but sometimes you want to return to the pure temperament - like if a passage focuses on a particular key for a while - and in the brass and wind instruments it is easy to squeeze the embouchure a little bit to slightly tweak the tuning of a particular note.
评论 #12528630 未加载
评论 #12528503 未加载
andrepd超过 8 年前
TLDR: a person who knows nothing about music or music theory gripes about music and music theory. Admittedly knows nothing, right off the bat and several times throughout the text. How can you declare something to be &quot;terrible&quot;, &quot;the worst notation for anything ever&quot;, and so forth if you admittedly know nothing of the subject? I know nothing about databases, would reading the Wikipedia page on NoSQL entitle me to declare it &quot;absolute garbage&quot;? o.O
评论 #12528596 未加载
评论 #12528602 未加载
评论 #12531071 未加载
评论 #12528631 未加载
torrent-of-ions超过 8 年前
He says the intervals are arbitrary, but they are not, or at least not as arbitrary as that. An octave is 2x the pitch, a fifth is <i>exactly</i> 3&#x2F;2x the pitch, a major third is <i>exactly</i> 5&#x2F;4x the pitch etc.<p>This is fine for instruments which can play an arbitrary pitch like a violin or trombone. But for fretted instruments like guitar, or ones which use a different oscillator per note like piano, xylophone or harmonica, one has to make a decision. Either you tune it to play perfect intervals and can therefore play in only one key, or you tune it to a compromise which can play in any key and sound OK, but no key &quot;perfectly&quot;. Equal temperament is one such compromise and is described in the article.<p>For instruments which play often play long chords like strings, the difference between a perfect interval (as an orchestra would play) and an equal temperament imperfect interval (as a general purpose synthesiser will play) is stunning. Some synthesisers like those from Access have modes to automatically correct the tuning of the third, fifth and maybe seventh harmonics to make them perfect.
verroq超过 8 年前
&gt;I suppose it’s possible to change the sound of an entire piece of music just by changing the key signature, but does anyone actually do that?<p>&gt;How would that work for music that also uses notes outside the scale? These seem more like questions of composition, which I definitely don’t know anything about.<p>From wikipedia:<p>Although transpositions are usually written out, musicians are occasionally asked to transpose music &quot;at sight&quot;, that is, to read the music in one key while playing in another. Musicians who play transposing instruments sometimes have to do this (for example when encountering an unusual transposition, such as clarinet in C), as well as singers&#x27; accompanists, since singers sometimes request a different key than the one printed in the music to better fit their vocal range (although many, but not all, songs are printed in editions for high, medium, and low voice).<p>There are three basic techniques for teaching sight transposition: interval, clef, and numbers ...<p>[*] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Transposition_(music)#Sight_transposition" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Transposition_(music)#Sight_tr...</a>
评论 #12528620 未加载
Cozumel超过 8 年前
What a ridiculously uneducated article! The very first sentence starts &#x27;I don’t know anything about music.&#x27; and IT SHOWS!!<p>Music notation has evolved over several hundred years, it&#x27;s not arbitrary or random. The author should take some music classes before trying to write about it.
paracarro超过 8 年前
&gt; body {width:100%; max-width:1120px;...<p>Is this good?