leading tone isn't that important at the start tho.. more as in Tonic-mediant-dominant?
haha just tell them to write a chart and tape it on their walls ;D
the way i learned most of the tonal degrees' names was just repetition :O
ps: check out my second chip :P
_______________________
I'm an instru-mental guitarist
In many people's cases, they make music (good music) & they don't really have the actual understanding behind the theory involved; all they say that they have is a "good ear for music."
A lot of people inadvertently apply proper music theory without even knowing it. This said, those that are willing to learn it should learn it.
_______________________
Technology: the one thing that's hated & cursed at by all engineers, technologists, scientists & technicians!
I had a pretty good grounding in theory from when I first started years ago, yet my tunes still sucked. I think theory or not, the key to writing good compositions is to write many (initially bad) compositions.
This is in no way an attack on music theory though; I think it's great and I encourage people to learn it in order to further their understanding of music, it's just not some magical guide to instantly writing great music (not that anyone specifically insinuated it was).
That said, don't be a slave to theory. The best composers have bent the rules in order to express what they wanted to(i.e. Beethoven, Debussy, too many to name), regardless of what the theory said. It's more of a reverse-engineering of techniques from successful compositions than rules handed on from on high. Incredibly useful, but in no way law.
That's so true; some people (including myself at times) get too uptight about theory that they also forget about other aspects (like the instruments they use & even their will.lack thereof).
The theory is more like the physics behind music than the ground rules for creating it. There's sound & there's music; what makes music different from sheer noise? The way it works as opposed to noise.
There are some who have a good handle on theory but can't really put it into practice that well; often, its other factors (like knowledge of their instruments) that are the cause. The real concern that this thread's trying to address, however, is the fact that there are people out there who just create noise &, at the same time, lack the will to try & improve themselves.
There are no "rules" that people have to follow for things that aren't tangible (like sound, light, etc.). But there are laws of physics behind their existence & inner-workings; we all see this at work when people post songs up here.
For example, the greats on this forum (Rushjet1, Mex, Dave, TSSF, nicetas_c, etc.) all create true music because their arrangements adhere to the physics of music theory. Compare that to other members who just post their files & want everyone to give them positive reviews; their songs tend to go against the physics of music (& we hear how disastrous it is). The sad part is when you encounter someone who doesn't have the will to improve.
_______________________
Technology: the one thing that's hated & cursed at by all engineers, technologists, scientists & technicians!
I understand what you mean. Though I wouldn't go as far as calling it physics; Physics are iron-clad laws that cannot be broken. Music theory has been quite malleable throughout history and the most important thing is how the piece sounds to the listener.
Hell, Major 7th chords used to be considered extremely dissonant and needing of quick resolution back in the day, yet Dave and many jazz artists will use many Maj7th chords without resolving. It completely works though due to the current taste. "Borrowed chords" from the parallel minor key were also quite rare in early classical music but you hear them all the time now.
Try analyzing traditional Indian music with Western music theory and you'll quickly see how lacking it is (in terms of notating timbre, microtones, and in general music without much distinct harmonic movement); It's great at analyzing most Western pieces (and even then it can falter at times), but it's not the end-all be-all of music.
There are many things that go into making great music; Grasp of harmony (theory is very useful here), dynamics and mixing, arrangement, among many other things.
I share your sentiments on the disastrous composers though .
Then again, I'm drawn to chiptunes because it's the only current genre where there are still "composers". Those who are simply "songwriters" I tend to like less. And the latter seem to only use the NES sound for nostalgic purposes rather than the it's need to adapt to limitations and just plain neat quirks of the 2A03.
I'm just aiming to have a theory course that's geared towards the chiptuner rather than a classical musician.
Which brings up another concern. Should we teach staff notation and stuff? I think it's unnecessary from a famitracker perspective but it seems really hard to convey ideas such as chord inversions without a staff to help. We wouldn't want people unknowingly ending in a I 6/4 chord :o
@Xyz_39808: I think the "simply 'songwriters'" jab is unwarranted :p . There have been great composers who wrote only songs, and many revered classical composers incorporated folk song inspirations of the "mere" songwriters of the time.
If composer simply means without vocals, then there's still plenty of instrumental composers active at this very moment--chip composers being a very marginal subgroup in this respect.
As far as teaching notation I think that might be too tangential for a chiptune-oriented music theory tutorial. You could easily teach inversions by teaching root notes. I don't see the difficulty in inversions without staves. Other concepts might not be so easy though.
<blaspheme>
Take the beatles off that list and we'll talk
</blaspheme>
This topic has strayed enough, but you don't want to start that argument with me . I can give you a thousand examples of innovative chord progressions, bold studio experimentation, incredibly well thought out arrangements and just plain great songs.
Shoot me a PM if you want to further this discussion .
) 
.
. I can give you a thousand examples of innovative chord progressions, bold studio experimentation, incredibly well thought out arrangements and just plain great songs.