It's a fun webpage about a programmer dipping their toes in the very most basic elements of music and documenting some of their current understanding.Imagine I wrote an article called "Programming for musicians" that was mostly about how to turn your computer on and install homebrew[1] and finished by showing you step by step how to cut and paste "hello world" in javascript from stack overflow. You might rightly say that while "programming-adjacent" the article didn't really address programming.
Here[2] Is the syllabus for ABRSM Grades 1-5 music theory. So this is super-basic music theory of the level that you couldn't really expect to pass high school music without knowing. I've picked associated board because this is the most generic music theory syllabus possible, and grade 5 is very basic. If you were actually studying music you'd go way way beyond this.
To a first approximation none of this is in the article. It also doesn't have any more advanced topics (functional harmony, orchestration, voice leading, transposition, key/scale relationships, advanced rhythmic concepts etc). That's why I say the article isn't really music theory.
And then for completeness, when I say that what is music theory is wildly misleading I'm talking about things like "chords are notes stacked in thirds". There's so much wrong about about this it's hard to even start, but for starters it's an if and only if when it really shouldn't be. Notes stacked in thirds are chords, but there are a whole heck of a lot of chords that aren't stacked in thirds. It's like if I said "even numbers are 4 and 6". It's like sure, but there's more to it than that.
[1] without mentioning that this was only needed if you were using a mac
The author admits that this article applies to only a specific flavor of music theory, and says that it only covers a small part of it. The article even mentions at the end it does not cover some of the topics you think are missing.
The article is not a comprehensive syllabus of all elementary music theory, and it does not claim to be. I believe you are being too harsh, as this approach to understanding music feels much more intuitive to some (like the author, and myself), compared to traditional music education.
I would not call it harsh. The author don't even bother to assemble sentences themselves. And a title "Music Theory for Programmers" imply it is comprehensive even at an elementary scale.
The title does not imply it's comprehensive. If anything, a title like that suggests that it's only scratching the surface. If I read an article like "Haskell for C# Developers" I would not expect to be an expert in Haskell at the end. I would expect to have enough intuition to begin actually learning the language properly
PhD Candidate in music and computer science and gigging jazz musicain here. It is not too harsh. Articles like this confuse people who interested in learning a topic more than they help.
Yet another case of programmers thinking "I'm a programmer so I should blog about this thing I barely know anything about as if I'm an expert, what could possibly be the downside?"
There is "western music theory" ala Schenker, voice leading, serialism etc (to mention a couple of names that some people might have heard of) but that describes things to do once you've got a scale and chord system.
This is "12T music theory", describing how you might get to a scale and chord system.
I don't see how it is confusing. You can spend a lot of time doing "western music theory" without ever understanding most of what is in this article, that is certainly true. But the fact this this outlines a bunch of stuff that undergirds what a composing (or improvising) musician might consider "music theory" doesn't invalidate it, or make it confusing, IMO.
"Music theory" has a near universally accepted meaning. This article is not about that, it's about what we all call in music academia acoustics and digital synthesis (which of course I know you know as I know your work). The derivation of scales from acoustic principles is not in theory books; it's in acoustics books. I've taken numerous theory courses and also taken university acoustics courses and digital synthesis courses, so I can certainly comment on what was taught where! If people go here and think they are learning music theory and then want to go on, they will be frustrated by not finding what they want, they will have issues communicating with others in the field, and they will lose credibility by not knowing the standard nomenclature. That kind of redefinition of standard terms is not good pedagogy.
Look, it's like me writing an introduction to "colour theory" and then writing about something else that eventually leads to how we see colour.
I'm not debating that the article has useful content – it does – but it's title and framing is misleading, which is a disservice to the new student. I happen to personally believe everyone getting into music theory would be well served by knowing more acoustics and that this is useful material. But muddying the waters by using terms in weird ways is off.
And when you write about a field and use the wrong terms, you lose credibility. Sorry, I don't trust authors who can't be arsed to use the standard nomenclature for a topic, it really doesn't make them sound trustworthy.
Are Peano's axioms number theory? No one really uses them directly (other than induction) when working on practical number theory problems, but they are considered part of it.
Scales and chords build the fundamental basic blocks for Western music (I would introduce equal temperament third but that's only a matter of ordering). They are taken for granted in musical practice, I agree, but only because musical practice concerns itself about how/what to play and why. If somebody comes from the point of view that clefs and stems (which are undoubtedly musical tools) are gatekeeping and all you need is a piano roll, this article explains from first principles enough musical building blocks to tell them why they're wrong.
Sure, but none of that changes the fact that is someone reads that article and says "wow I like music theory!" and orders the best theory books or signs up for a course or lessons, they are going to be PISSED. They will get some books that don't cover what they think music theory is at all and that touch on basically nothing in this article.
On the other hand, if the author had said something like "Intro to the acoustics behind musical scales", then they might go on to order great books like Kyle Gann's or Gareth Loy's and be off to the races.
Redefining normal terms just makes people sound like they have no clue, and that is, 100%, a serious disservice to the reader/student.
Or maybe not... surely if you are shown figured bass you will be pissed, but on the other hand understanding triads and sevenths provides some intuition about inversions, voice leading, rootless voicings, upper structures, diatonic movement of voices. Certainly not enough to orchestrate a piece, but enough to listen to educational YouTube videos, follow lead sheets, think about what you're hearing.
Harmonics and temperament aren't really relevant to all this, though at some point you have to explain why certain intervals are naturally consonant but "boring", and others can be made to make sense but mostly within a more complex voicing (which reconnects to topics like inversions and voice leading).
(For disclosure I studied piano until ~20, both classical and jazz, and I would call my knowledge of jazz theory "decent" for someone with zero professional or academic experience. Obviously not comparable to yours and not even in English, so perhaps what I wrote above will sound really stupid).
> The derivation of scales from acoustic principles is not in theory books; it's in acoustics books.
And this is correct because ... ?
There are whole subsectors of "music theory" that cover precisely this sort of thing, even though they are fairly arcane. I'm thinking of things like pitch set theory.
My own take is that western musical pedagogy, at least historically, is one of the worst examples of pedagogy that exists, precisely because of what is taught, in what order, and why. It pretends (or used to) to have some sort of universality or inevitability, when even a scant familiarity with other musical cultures would make it clear that this is false. It is emphasizes a note-centric rather than interval-centric approach to melody (and chords) that ignores centuries of (folk) musical practice (most simply known as transposition, but the implications of it are staggering, and largely elided).
So, defending what that pedagogy calls "music theory" seems like weak sauce to me. Especially given, as many others have pointed out, western/european "music theory" is a codification of existing practice for the most, not a generative theory.
It seems you arguing how things should be, not what they are. I don't disagree that in music we have lots of inconsistent nomenclature that could have better names. But writing an intro to a topic and using non-standard nomenclature (without explaining that that's what you're doing) is still a source of confusion to learners.
Whether or not this info should be in acoustics books or theory books is not relevant to the new learner, that's where it is! I actually think a crash course in acoustics would be a good addition to a comprehensive theory book, but it doesn't change the fact that no theory course or book has this stuff (not even my pitch set texts!)
I teach music students regularly. I spend a lot of time explaining what something is called in various contexts. They need to know this to learn in a productive and not frustrating manner. They can then learn later why the terms are imperfect and used differently in different subcultures.
But no argument on that is going to convince me that it's good pedagogy to tell new readers that a post on acoustics and synthesis is on music theory. That's just counterproductive at best, or ignorant at worst.
What would you call the topic of "why are there 12 notes to the octave?" "why is the perfect fifth the most consonant chord?" "why do we use equal temperament?"
In the all the textbooks I have or have seen, those are called "acoustics" (and more specifically "tuning and temperament"). They are covered in the text book I had for acoustics, and not covered in any of the textbooks I used for theory (jazz or classical). For example, in Rossings "The Science of Sound", it's in a chapter called "Musical Scales and Temperament".
Look, I agree that they should be. I have literally had discussions with one of my PhD supervisors (who taught acoustics) about how much better some students would understand some of harmony if they started with some acoustics! But they aren't, so if one is going to redefine common uses of terms, at very least this should be explained in detail to the student prior to use.
My call on this stuff is always determined by "What will help my student learn most efficiently, without frustration or confusion". That article fails badly on that count.
While these are helpful topics to understand, they are not beginner topics. Not if you want to make music. They are fundamental questions in that they reside at the base of why things are the way they are, but they are not fundamental in the sense that you should teach them to a beginner who wants to make music.
The point is to make music. And the most practical way to do so is to teach instrument technique, intervals, scales, chords, and melody. Not low-level acoustic phenomena.
To make an (imperfect) programming analogy, you are proposing to teach low-level computation when most students would benefit from some Python, if/else statements, and functions. Not memory allocation and assembly. They're useful someday, but less useful when your first goal is to simply write a program.
Because music is pleasurable to play, to experience, and it's gratifying to be creative and to discover your creative potential.
If you have an alternative reason to learn music and to start learning through acoustic phenomena then let's hear it.
Most people don't get into molecular gastronomy if they don't intend to cook a meal. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 99% of aspiring cooks shouldn't learn cooking via that discipline without first starting with something more practical and immediate.
It’s also worth mentioning that these are very western ideas. Lots of other cultures derive alternative structures not based around 12 half steps to an octave and so on.
Oddly, or perhaps predictably, or both, most of them still converge on the same basic pitch classes.
The example I'm most familiar with is Carnatic and Hindustani music, where there are theoretically 22 tones per octave, and in fact the tones in most cases actually cover a range of frequencies rather than a single one. Nevertheless, the most common and most popular music from those traditions tends to only use about 7 tones per octave (equivalent to a western "scale"), and they still have a very central for tone ratios like 3/2.
That's sound design theory, not music theory. They're not the same thing.
Music theory is about chords, scales, rhythm, and - most importantly and elusively - how to fit them together to say something interesting.
Entry-level trad Western Theory gives you the concept of a basic grammar as a first introduction, but once you have that you can extend it fairly painlessly to jazz/funk/metal/pop/whatever.
Advanced classical grammar - baroque and modal counterpoint, extended harmony, and such - has some useful pointers for modern song-writing, but it's a specialised skill for experts. Movie and game score composers likely know it, but it's a degree-level skill.
Sound design theory is a subset of orchestration. The proof is that you can take most music and play it with simple sine wave bloops - no orchestration at all - and it remains completely recognisable.
Explaining equal temperament etc sounds clever and it's interesting if you like that kind of thing, but it's a distracting level of nerdery that doesn't help at all with basic song writing.
I agree. As a (hobbyist) musician and a (professional) programmer, I would not classify this web page as “music theory” given its widely accepted definition.
At UIUC, we had a class called Electronic Music Synthesis. It’s been over a decade since I took the class, but the first few lectures covered mostly everything in this web page. That content was never presented to us as “music theory”.
For people with the mind of a programmer, explaining the mathematical basis of equal temperament and then the major scale (the article doesn’t explain the major scale well, but simply says “it sounds better than a chromatic scale”) allows a programmer to understand not just the how but the why for the basics of western music.
For people that just want the how, one would start with “here is a pentatonic scale” followed by “here is a major chord”.
If we teach theory without first principles, all we have to do is say “C + E + G make up a major triad”; we may go as far as to explain that, in a major key, the I, IV, and V chords are major chords, the ii, iii, and vi chords are minor chords, and the vii chord is a very dissonant diminished chord.
However, first principles explain “why” a major chord sounds the way it does, and “why” a minor chord has more tension.
Let’s look at the five-limit just intervals: 2/1, 3/2, 4/3, 5/4, and 6/5. 2/1 is a perfect interval; two notes an octave apart sound nearly the same. 3/2 and 4/3 are also perfect intervals, but there’s a little more tension and beating than with 2/1. 5/4 has a little more tension than 4/3, and 6/5 has even more tension. I just explained, using first principles, the octave, perfect fifth, perfect fourth, major third, and minor third. That’s most of the scale right there.
Now, let’s make a chord. Experience has shown that three notes is more interesting to the human ear than just two notes. That in mind, we want three distinct notes where the intervals between notes have a minimum of tension. Take the root, take 5/4 of that, then take 3/2 of the root. That’s a major chord. The reason we use 5/4 instead of 4/3 is because the interval between 5/4 and 3/2 is 6/5; the interval between 4/3 and 3/2 is 9/8. Since 9/8 has more tension than 6/5, that gives us a suspended chord, and it’s better to use a major chord with less tension to make a simple chord progression.
Now that we have our first chord, we can hear that having a 1-chord song becomes repetitive very quickly to the human ear. We can make the song more dynamic and interesting by giving it three chords: I, IV, and V. Take that chord: 1, 5/4, and 3/2 (a major chord). Move all three notes up 4/3, because 4/3 is a perfect interval with a minimum of tension. That’s our IV chord (F chord in the key of C major) Next, from the root position, instead of moving up the chord 4/3, we instead move it up 3/2. That’s a V (or dominant) chord—a G chord when played in the key of C major.
Now, from first principles, namely that the intervals 3/2, 4/3, and 5/4 sound pleasant to the human ear, that 6/5 has more tension, and 9/8 has even more tension (so we avoid suspended chords for now), we have a I IV V chord progression, which is the basis for countless rock and popular songs.
If we take all of the individual notes from the I IV V chord progression, that gives us the seven notes of the major scale, after explaining that, once we cross the octave threshold, we can transpose an octave down without affecting the musicality of the notes. We might even explain chord inversions here.
So instead of just parroting “I IV V makes a nice simple chord progression”, we now know the underlying physics which make I IV V sound so nice to the human ear, and how to get the major scale from those chords. I prefer understanding both the why and the how.
(I would have used two slightly detuned sawtooth waves instead of a sine wave for most of the examples if I were to write an article like the one this discussion links to, explaining this has a more pleasant, piano or violin like sound to it. Maybe even a low pass filter to tame the harmonics. Another option is to run a single sawtooth wave through a Solina style chorus, but explaining two detuned sawtooth waves is easier than trying to explain the Solina chorus effect)
Does music come from first principles, or is it a cultural product that's a result of a feedback loop between a listener/practitioner and an ambient culture and technological landscape? Parrotting is exactly how we learn music- we hear, and we reproduce what we hear. What you call "deriving music from first principles", I call, "post-facto justification for arbitrary aesthetic tendencies".
Whether the human ear naturally prefers 5/4 (5-limit) over 81/64 (Pythagorean) for the major third, and 6/5 over 32/27 for the minor third, is still something I don’t have solid research on.
As it turns out, the modern western scale is more closely aligned with Pythagorean tuning than with five-limit tuning. In particular, the Pythagorean thirds are closer to modern 12-tone equal tempered thirds than they are to five limit thirds.
>>>Around 1300, the English theorist Walter Odington proposes that major and minor thirds (81:64, 32:27) have ratios close to 5:4 and 6:5 respectively, and that singers lean toward these simpler ratios. His observation may reflect the style of much English polyphony of the period, where thirds often have a pervasive role in the texture and may even serve as closing sonorities.<<<
>>>Beginning with Ramos de Pareja in 1482,Fn11 the simple ratios of Just intonation began to be cited by theorists and used in their divisions of the monochord. [...] an octave is 2:1, a fifth is 3:2, a fourth is 4:3, a pure major third is 5:4, a pure minor third is 6:5. These “six-limit” ratios—the senarius, or senario, as Zarlino calls them—are the basic harmonic intervals. Zarlino attributed almost mystical significance to the senario<<<
This article is paywalled, but to summarize, it makes the case that the 5:4 and 6:5 ratios are ratios musicians naturally drift towards in polyphonic contexts.
Just wanted to say, thank you for the detailed response, I suppose my comment looks a bit glib in comparison. I appreciate this perspective- I knew about some basic elements of tuning and acoustics, but it's fascinating that there's this much structure that you can study in it, I understand the interest.
It reminds me a bit of regular polygons or simple geometry like circles- and it makes sense the Greeks would be interested in both- things that are pleasant and can combine and tile well because of their symmetric and regular properties.
I think my "pushback" was more just at the phrasing of "why" something sounds "good"- I do think when we listen to music, we bring our past and our culture into it, and whether a chord sounds "sad" or "happy" depends on a lot more than just the harmonic structure- I wonder about this concept of "tension" you bring up, I can't tell if you mean something emotional or more mechanical. Is that like something you understand just by crunching the numbers on the ratios?
I am missing the part where TFA said that the goal was to help with "basic song writing".
And what is "distracting level of nerdery" to someone can be the key that helps unlock a deeper level of understanding to someone else. I thought we understood neurodivergence a little better these days.
The western theory stuff you describe has almost no relevance at all when considered non-western musical cultures. The contents of TFA, while not strictly comprehensive when considering other musical cultures, is still pretty on point. Even though Carnatic and Hindustani music theoretically uses 22 tones per octave, the most common ones are still drawn from the same set of 12 used in western music, and the most common scales are remarkably similar.
> The western theory stuff you describe has almost no relevance at all when considered non-western musical cultures.
Say it louder for those at the back. People keep forgetting that western theory was unable to explain why the blues (the American music form by excellence) worked at all. And arguably, a lot of the western music theory is more akin to a codification of existing musical practices in the western world rather than some scientific model. But a lot of music theory fans seem to dogmatically treat it as THE science of ALL music.
> That's part of it, but you can make music with none of it.
Does anybody, though? Would anybody listen to it? Every culture on Earth has music. All of them use chords, scales, and rhythm, in various ways. Definitely not all of them use the Western diatonic system, but that's beside the point.
Most music cultures work well without once thinking about frequency. The closest you get might be pitch. Starting from frequency is a very physics-oriented approach and will give you a hard time understanding why your favorite piece of music is so good.
I think what he means as music theory is the next step after what this (blatantly AI-written, but passable) article talks about. This is the part that you take for granted, but it certainly is music theory in the same way that Peano's axioms are number theory even though you don't use them explicitly.
The AI style gets boring very quickly, but I liked the explanation of what Western music notation is optimized for. For more information on this, there's a great and long video at https://youtu.be/Eq3bUFgEcb4.
(Edit: I wrote this around the same time as the reply, which more or less confirmed my hunch)
Music theory was originally a tool for music critics in the 19th century to talk about conservatory music of the time.
There's nothing rigorous, systematic or scientific in it; it's mostly a historical cultural artifact more than anything else.
For example, music "theory" is completely helpless when describing an EDM track or how to compose one. EDM is one of the most primitive music styles ever (barely even qualifies as music in my opinion) and yet music "theory" is worthless in this case.
Spoken like someone with absolutely zero grasp of music theory or modern electronic music. I almost want to congratulate you for the worst-informed comment I’ve read today.
Is music "theory" actually a theory? Can it be used to predict or construct something? Even just a two-note steady-pulse acid bass beat. I'm not asking for much.
It's not a scientific theory, but musical theory concepts are certainly used by players when playing. Would you rather it be called music ontology or something like that?
Music theory is absolutely an indispensable tool for musicians and composers. You can play music without it, but that’s just putting an unnecessary upper bound on what you can achieve.
More than anything, it’s a vocabulary to talk about the thing you’re doing with others.
Music's theory is something you really need to understand at an unconscious level. All the study of how the notes relate and frequencies, that's very interesting and it may help you understand things better, but the real question is not, can you do all the math to figure out why this note and that note work together, it's can you hear it with your ears and play the correct harmony note for whatever purpose the music leads.
I doubt there is any composer that actually is relying on music theory for their compositions. They may occasionally have something finished, but 'it doesn't sound right'. Then go back to music theory and say, oh, this chord is wrong. I can fix that chord because I know music theory and come up with something that works. But they're not doing that at first. They're composing from their unconscious mind.
> I doubt there is any composer that actually is relying on music theory for their compositions.
Would you expect an author to disregard all of the conventions we've discovered and codified through specified language because it's just "more natural" if they let it flow out of them? No, I don't think you would. You'd find it difficult to read and interact with, both as a reader and a fellow writer. Music is the same.
Music theory is just the natural language definitions of the sounds we hear. A composer is absolutely thinking in those terms and using them to construct the piece they hear in their head. It gives you a way to communicate, with words, the sounds you are hearing in your own head. It does not constrain music in any way.
You have it backward. The conventions were discovered first, music theory came after composers did things. Music's theory describes what we already know works, not how to make things work.
No composer I know thinks in the terms of music theory. They often use a chord progression that music theory describes why it works, but they're not thinking of it in terms of music theory. They're thinking in terms of chord progression, just like the composers of thousands years ago were thinking of their chord progressions the exact style changes and so a thousand years ago they went to thought in terms of modern chord progressions but they were still thinking in similar terms.
> The conventions were discovered first, music theory came after composers did things.
Broadly completely untrue.
If you're trying to say that humans were making music before we had a theory for it - absolutely. But every advanced musical tradition on the planet (including Western, but also Indian, Chinese, etc.) has developed alongside a system of analyzing that music, and for very good reason: It's a lot easier to teach music when you can actually talk about it.
I promise you, every single competent composer and musician on the planet - from every culture - has a fairly firm grasp on music theory, in whatever flavor is relevant to the form of music they practice. Every Indian musician who plays classical Indian music knows their ragas. Every Western musician can navigate the diatonic scale.
That’s like saying no programmer relies on computer science.
Sure, at some level of expertise you’re not sitting there saying “oh, I should name variables sensibly and encapsulate functionality because computer science says to”; they are doing those things because with training and experience that becomes innate and accessible in flow state.
But the fact that theory can become ingrained does not mean one isn’t using theory.
It's way more than that. They are just more fluent at creating things like melodies and harmonies that "work" without essentially starting from scratch on every composition.
I know music notation and can write things down, but I'm not a good composer. I'm at the mercy of others to write new material if that's what I'm interested in playing.
And writing it down in a way that other musicians can understand is of nontrivial value if you want people to play your stuff.
Definitely gatekeeping. I'm no wiz by any means, but I've done (and still do) a fair amount of paid work (gigs, studio recordings, teaching, etc.) and I would not describe Grade 5 ABRSM as "very basic"
Yeah, as a somewhat new MacBook air user I'm also sceptical when people claim that any windows laptop is now better or at least as good as a MacBook.
I'm still traumatized by my windows laptop randomly turning on in my backpack, heating itself up and draining the battery because of windows.
Aside from that I'm now used to MacOS for my daily needs aside from gaming so windows laptop have to do a lot of work convincing me of getting back to them.
Those Windows laptops always have a dealbreaker for me (besides Windows itself). If they have decent screens, sound, and battery life then the trackpad or keyboard will suck. If it's cheap it'll creak and groan like a Tesla interior...and have a terrible trackpad.
For me, with a similar wildcard setup, it became something I wasn't willing to spend money on. I work on the basis that accounts are compromised and if the company is large enough I'll see it in the news. Strong passwords, and a password-database is the best I can manage.
Can confirm it's free. I tried it based on the GP comment. There are various ways to prove it is your domain: token sent to one of a small number of email addresses like {admin,security,webmaster}@, DNS TXT record, place a small file in the root of the website, etc.
The only extra bits I saw for the other emails on my domain was a plus address I'd used for last.fm which had been leaked. None of the other emails (wife, kid, family, etc) appear in any breach.
I'm slowly moving away from using my own personal domain as it's becoming an ever increasing burden. I'm also concerned that my wife/kid will be left with something they may not have access to, or would stop working at some point, if I suddenly dropped dead.
I had a domain registered and I got notices for about five email addresses - but after a while I was told I'd had too many localparts appear in breaches and I had to pay to upgrade.
It might have changed again now, but that was the point I deleted my account. The pricing list seems to imply a limit on the local-parts for a domain, though ..
You can have haveibeenpwned.com check for the custom domain itself. For instance, I get notified if any email of our family domain get leaked (not just mine).
While others pointed out that Have I Been Pwned is (kind of) for this specific purpose, there is a limit of like 10 email addresses. Beyond that, you will have to have a paid subscription. You'll still get "alerts" without the subscription, but have no way of seeing which email addresses have made it into a leak somewhere. And the pricing cliff was pretty steep if I recall correctly.
It's just so crazy that we are living in times where a notepad can be too slow. Wtf has happened?? How can they mess up a fucking Notepad App?
Luckily I switched to MacOS mostly some time ago. Also has its issue but nothing compared to winslop
It sounds good but will this ever scale enough?
Plastics are just so freaking cheap that anything that wants become a serious alternative (aside from being a marketing gimmick) needs to be very cheap. I honestly have my doubts but I'm excited that people are looking for alternatives
Things that were added in the last 10 years off the top of my head:
* 10 years of updates to the iOS/Android/GoogleTV/AppleTV/Mac/Windows/etc clients (that doesn't come for free)
* OpenSubtitle search built in
* Intro detection
* Credit detection
* Watch Together
* LiveTV/DVR support
* PlexAmp
* PlexDash
And more that I'm not thinking of.
You can say "I don't care about those features", which is a tired take IMHO, but there are plenty of features they have added to keep up with the online streaming platforms.
