TubeNet

Hi:

I'm really weak on my music theory and am looking for a self-study book on the topic.
Ideally, it would have a quiz and answers to test myself as I went along but that is not essential.

Any ideas?

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Music Theory wouldn't be a bad choice. It explains everything clearly, and provides exercises at the end of each chapter to review the materials. About $20 at your local Barnes and Noble.

Drew

Drewtuba wrote:The Complete Idiot's Guide to Music Theory wouldn't be a bad choice. It explains everything clearly, and provides exercises at the end of each chapter to review the materials. About $20 at your local Barnes and Noble.

Drew

I second the Complete Idiot's Guide. It's a very good one.

bigpapajon wrote:How weak? (if you don't mind answering)
How strong do you wish to become?

I'm a good member of the band. I can read what's on the paper and, once I have the raw notes down, I can interpret it both as written (dynamics, etc.) and on my own. I've practiced my parts and I can show up at the right time wearing the right clothes with the right stuff. And be sober, too.

I'd like to be good enough to follow my 'supposedly backwards, non-music reading buddies' who know so much more about chords and actually how the music is put together than I do.

When someone here says "third partial" I think I know what they mean but not sure of myself.

This is a great book, but it may seem elementary to someone with basic theory knowledge. If you buy it, find a "gently used" one that was not written in; there are workbook aspects to the text.
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Materials-M ... 0130993336

I'll have a look. Thanks!

The Jackson wrote:

Drewtuba wrote:The Complete Idiot's Guide to Music Theory wouldn't be a bad choice. It explains everything clearly, and provides exercises at the end of each chapter to review the materials. About $20 at your local Barnes and Noble.

Drew

I second the Complete Idiot's Guide. It's a very good one.

Although I have a personal aversion to anything that begins "A Complete Idiot's ..." or ends "For Dummies" because I am neither an idiot nor a dummy. I feel if a person approaches a topic thinking, "I'm, a smart person. I can learn this" there is much more to be gained.

Never the less, thank you and I will have a look at it.

Jeff "A Doofus but not a Dummy" Benedict

tubahead wrote:Try this:

http://www.dolmetsch.com/theoryintro.htm" target="_blank" target="_blank

This was exactly the source I would have provided a link for. Dolmetsch is a maker of recorders and other baroque instruments. One of the family heirs is married to Dr. Brian Blood, whom I know well from one of the recorder lists. I am not in full agreement with his ideas on recorder designs, but in musicological matters we have had no disagreements.

I have not used the Dolmetsch theory pages myself. Partially because I had studied quite a bit of theory before I ever entered the web, partially because the choice of colours on that site are not friendly towards my eye problems (I have told Brian long ago).

I don’t know whether the Dolmetsch site has tests, but whenever theory texts display music samples it is a good idea to make them aurally accessible via a piano or one of the many electronic keyboard options available today.

Klaus

Buy a copy of Tonal Harmony

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0 ... ent_view0/

Bloke,
You are a voice of sanity in the musical world. Lots of people can do music theory excercises as though they were mathematical equations, but it seems that actually hearing what's going on is a mystery to so many. I think that having students jamming with Jamie Abersold cd's after school is a lot more useful than most Theory courses.

Thanks for all your posts and I hope you have a Happy New Year.

I've been hesitant to chime in on a subject that past experience has taught me can turn into a hornet's nest. But ...
For those who went through the two year college course Music Theory, that is what Music Theory is. IF it was a good course, taught by a good teacher (and mine was, taught by maestro Franco Autori (whom you can Google)), then you do learn things that cannot be learned just by listening. For example: You learn what makes for good multi-part vocal writing and why (i.e. sounds good and doesn't leave the singers asking who the hell wrote this crap). You learn why intervals like augmented seconds and tri-tones and leading tones that resolve downward usually come off as clumsy sounding (plus singers have a difficult time with the first two). And, by backing up a bit in the piece, you can rework the parts to get the same harmony while avoiding bad intervals ... as well as avoid parallel fifths and octaves.

That's just a tiny bit of what is covered in the academic course. There is a ton of technical stuff that you can't get just by listening. (Although listening was a substantial part of the course I took). It's like the difference in talking to people and doing detailed study of grammar, sentence structure, punctuation, paragraph construction, and use of literary devices. Somebody who has never done all that detailed study might happen to write a fine piece of literature. But my money will go on the person who has the talent combined with the detailed technical knowledge.

I have written one piece where I tried to restrict myself to classical "rules", stick with a theme, essentially ABA form. It was a bitch. But it's the piece in which I take some pride even though it is a long way from meeting the kind of rigor that J. S. Bach imposed on himself. I've linked to it before.
http://t-recs.net/mpegs/my_stuff/quintet1.mp3

And, having had a good teacher, I'll express some skepticism that Music Theory lends itself to self-study ... unless you are one of the few who have been kissed by the gods and are constantly accompanied by the muses.

Of course the academic study of music theory is invaluable to turning out well-crafted music that works. I was thinking, rather, at the introductory level where practical application of these principles aurally will lead to a better understanding of the music.

for general basics of theory, getting into intervals and chords but not much deeper,
this is as good as I've seen online.

An academic theory class is only as good as the instructor, but there's not much substitution for formalized instruction of some kind. Someone who really knows it has to explain it. IMO.

I think the divergence in viewpoint stems from what somebody means by "Music Theory". I differentiate between "Music Theory" and what I call musical street smarts. A college Music Theory course won't teach you the idioms of a particular style of playing. While listening won't teach you the technical aspects of writing a motet for the local English Church choir.

As an illustration: I vaguely remember a recording I heard of a well known classical violin virtuso playing jazz violin with Stephane Grappelli. I don't recall the virtuoso; it might have been the Menuhin / Grappelli stuff, but I'm not sure. Maybe it's just me, but the classical player's approximations of jazz violin playing on the recording struck me as something like a typical American on the street doing an Australian accent -- something that would likely have an Australian rolling his eyes.

It isn't my intention to demean the classical player in any way: He has his element and Grappelli has his. Classical Music Theory and musical street smarts both have their place, and Grappelli and practitioners of street smart playing have my utmost respect. I have learned (the hard way from another forum in the past) to preface any response to questions about Music Theory by asking exactly what the questioner means by "Music Theory".

Speaking of Grappelli, this recording of "Hand Picked" on the album "Highway Call" by Richard Betts and Grappelli is choice stuff
http://tinyurl.com/733lyd