What are some good books on music theory, something that covers all of the essentials in a good order for beginners

>instrumentalist thinks this makes him "smart" when it comes to music, that's like saying some kid in pakistan who was forced to memorize the quran is some kind of theology expert

nigga what

It's not, but keep trying.

The Complete Musician

wow u have internalized the works of a dead white males into your very muscles, so now you are a supreme aestheticist, ok whatever you have to tell yourself to not feel like those 15 years of youth were wasted on your parents pathetic dream of raising a virtouso

Any textbook ever. Learn:
>Major/minor scales
>Chord structure
>Proper harmonic progression
Music theory 101.

the vast majority of violinists (classically trained, with degrees) are not typically interested in any deeper analysis of the works they play. They don't really know what chords are happening, what modes, cadences, etc. are happening. I suspect you have an incomplete idea of theory (eg. How many sharps are in D major)

if music theory autism and spastic shredding chops resulted in good music then dream theater wouldn't suck

that's not me; what's the big deal? It's not a waste of time. I guess any activity without a practical purpose is worthless like looking at art or browsing Veeky Forums, according to you.

All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. And you're a retard to think otherwise

Best music book I ever read but not entry level

This is more introductory level, but less interesting, but has everything you “need” to know

theory is descriptive, not prescriptive

...

Google “Skillshare 3 month free”
Sign up for 3 free months
Try and “quit” twice
They’ll offer you an extra month
4 free months
Search music theory
Watch the videos by Jason Allen

there we go, you know music theory

irrelevant, there are still diminishing returns to theory autism

>Almost all the best Baroque, Classical and Romantic music was made by a rigid and almost religious adherence to common practice theory and rules
>b-but this long hair loser gay-metal band made shit music

hm

wait but u just said theory is descriptive, is it or isn't it

it is now, it wasn’t then

and that's why theory autism is pointless

Well, no. Theory works if you want to copy a particular style, but it doesn’t lead you to new music.

Which is why its useful to a musician. If someone says “Play something which sounds like X” then knowing the theory about X makes it easy.

yes, but as i said there are diminishing returns to theory autism, i had some theory book by schoenberg or some other shithead, waste of time unless you're a music professor or some fag in a north korean orchestra

compscifag here, go through an introductory textbook on music theory. After that, these books may be of interest:
Musimathics: The Mathematical Foundations of Music (2 volumes)
A Geometry of Music: Harmony and Counterpoint in the Extended Common Practice.

There are quite a few books akin to these. You may also be interested in 'computational musicology'. These kinds of books basically look deeper into music theory, it seems odd that actual musicians don't know much about the nature of music, they're just well-practiced in some instruments.

>A Geometry of Music

pseudy

The difference is understanding music and not understanding music. Understanding music generally means you can manipulate it (compositionally) as a master, where others won't even notice, as well as making music much richer in all respects. But it's an interesting pursuit by itself, it need not provide utility.

Most of them are shit, yeah. They're meant for musicians and the like, not STEMfags. Hard to find good books on the matter.

it is interesting, but it's also a rabbit hole that you have to ax urself if it's worth going down, for some it maybe, but unless you're doing a music degree or a working musician in a shreddy genre like metal or jazz, probably not worth the opportunity cost of the other rabbit holes one could be exporing

Richard Wagner, "Das Judenthum in der Musik"
Literally all you need to know.

I don't know but I have the same pen or very similar at least. It has lasted me for 3 years since I bought it and it still writes despite not having refilled the ink for over 1 year or more

found adam neely

If your goal is to become a better musician, prioritize sight-reading and performing music. Music theory comes after you have aural skills and absolute fluency in score reading.

t. performing classical musician

>theory

Wheres all that time spent on Veeky Forums going buddy?

To write notes next to it. Imagine having to write something next to a measure to remind yourself of something i.e. The second triplet is accented on the 2" or something like that if it's not clearly notated.

Not that guy, but obviously. I've never used a pen to mark music though. Different performances and renditions offer different perspectives and interpretations. If you mark your part in pen and want to change something, you're crossing everything out in ink and making the part unnecessarily messy as opposed to just erasing and rewriting.

TL;DR pencil for music always.

I second this suggestion.

>I just want to learn it in my free time through books
>not necessarily playing instruments per say
>enough to maybe compose something I'd enjoy
I'm a math STEMfag so I find some appeal in the technical side of music
Music theory only makes up about 5% of what it means to be a composer. I promise you that if you only read theory books the only thing you will get out of it is the ability to slowly and badly analyse simple music while looking at the sheet music. Music theory by itself doesn't really achieve much. If you want to compose, even as a sort of a little hobby you will pretty much HAVE to play the piano, have developed your inner ear, and have your sight reading at a reasonable degree. The last thing is that knowing music theory means absolutely nothing by itself. Knowing about back-cycling dominants doesn't do anything. You won't be able to hear it in a composition, you probably wouldn't be able to identify it on the sheet and you certainly couldn't write it into a composition. You have to internalise that music theory by doing exercises. This is why the piano is important. By doing piano exercises you cement theoretical ideas so deeply that they become innate.
As an analogy lets look at fighting. Say you wanted to read some books on how to fight so maybe you would be able to do so. It's pretty obvious that you can't learn to fight from books. When you fight there is a logic to everything you do but you don't actually think about most if not any of it. The knowledge you have has been internalised. Simply knowing some throws and punches is useless.
If you knew how and what to practice you could get good enough on piano for the purpose of composing in about a year to a year and a half if you practiced around 20 hours a week. The ear training and sight reading (of which there are fantastic apps out there for) can be gotten up to speed in a year if you spent about an hour each on them.

If you want classical theory it's a little bit difficult to suggest anything because there are so many amazing books out there. You will need a good book on harmony. I started with Walter Piston's book on the subject though I have heard a few people say the book is dry even by textbook standards. You will want a book that covers forms. I don't mean large scale forms like the sonata by small forms such as phrases and periods. Mileage may vary with counterpoint. If you want to do it make sure to research a good one. Don't do Fux. It's outdated. The danger of counterpoint is that without a teacher or a very good text you are likely to have spent your time learning arbitrary rules which differ strongly from actual composition of any period which you are unable to apply to anything. That's pretty much all you will need for awhile. As I said knowing theory means absolutely nothing. You need to find exercises to apply these ideas so those three books will keep you busy for a long time.

It's probably better if you begin by listening to classical music, and have a historical introduction together with the most basic theory. This is the free Yale course on Listening to Music:
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNezhx8YiGIV8I22ICSuzslja

You should really try and start playing an instrument preferably piano. If you can't afford that then perhaps a cheap keyboard. A keyboard is esstional for music theory

OP download these:

drive.google.com/file/d/1_YTkg_MpWW5UzKTBF-I409VRQsH-pYLs/view?usp=sharing

drive.google.com/file/d/1AI5QaUx-5sJW0DH1ESUXLvR71UfifcHc/view?usp=sharing

drive.google.com/file/d/1d03Wa1XBl1EAxvB0wYOCSGqSnd2xMSFx/view?usp=sharing

drive.google.com/file/d/1qu9ve9F_VbX1A5GnVZTKPo9DxZKCbYEj/view?usp=sharing

xie xie

Nice thread

Good stuff, thanks for sharing user

thank you user

music is fun you soulless nig

This, that course is pretty good if you are starting out and need to understand what music theory is for
Some of it is filler on rhythm and bullshit though

anybody got a pdf? all I found so far was audiofiles

You could say this about literally anything, and since it can be said about everything anyone would ever do that requires a time investment I fail to see why music theory would be singled out. You could say that improving on your instrument gives diminishing returns, do you suggest people stop getting better after they get to a certain point?

Nigger understanding what the tenor clef is and the names of the votes are music theory. Understanding what various rests are, common and uncommon time, the difference between andante and poco a poco is all theory. You're going to tell me that people who play professional classical music which involves reading sheet music don't care about music theory?

i call this the alma stack
>praxis praxis praxis
derekremes.com/teaching/partimento/
faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/music/gjerdingen/partimenti/

pls never post again

He obviously means music theory in this context as a means of construction not as notation. And for the most part he is right. Unless you play something like a keyboard instrument or a guitar you don't need to know much music theory to be a classical musician, so many of them don't bother to get very advanced.

No puedo leer español

...

>antique tomes of bullshit
salty brainlet detected.

they sort of are, it's not like you will be able to create anything listenable after reading them
they probably bring the least potential value (monetary or artistic) when compared to the amount of mental work you have to put into it

>(((Levine)))

everytime

>"Jazz ""Theory"" "

What's the the problem with him?

libgen.io/search.php?req=tonal harmony&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def