Computer Music Textbooks

[Meteo Xavier]

I think it's been a while since there was a dedicated topic for this and it's a good time to start it anew.

I'm still on a never-ending quest to improve my general sound before I commit any more effort to Ocremixing and I never did get a chance where I could dedicate a focused amount of time to improving. I keep looking up production/composition tips and Youtube tutorials, but they really aren't helping that much. Too sporadic and a lot of amateur-level stuff trying to pretend it's professional-level solution, and no cohesion. I figure I either need to hire a private instructor or mentor for improving my DAW music skill (tough luck finding that in East Tennessee), or I need to get back into computer textbooks.

I have two already, the Dance Music Manual by Rick Snoman and the MIDI Guide To Orchestration. I haven't had time to really crack them open and digest what they have, but they look to be good tools for learning specific types of genres. I'm still on the look out for something maybe a bit more general, something that teaches more on how to get samples to sound more realistic, virtual synth techniques, how to use reverb and get your sounds sounding like they're correctly placed, how to use compression, how to use transitions and song dynamics to change up tracks, how to get songs sounding more lively, fun or emotional... a lot of those kinds of things that I'm still pretty much a beginner on.

I've found a lot of books that seem like they teach those kinds of things in objective, easy-to-understand ways, but they're over 15 years old. Certainly there are more modern books out there that teach these things for modern equipment. I know you can go to class to learn how to create competent and quality tracks from composition to production phase in DAW, so there must still be some good textbooks, step-by-step and instructional material to go with.

I say let's just open wide the field to get computer music book recommendations for all questions.

[avaris]

If you are into videos; this place kicks ass:

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCno8mYpnGhTA9COSW9sP8gQ

There are ITL's about 5-10 into every show. They cover a ton of ground.

[Meteo Xavier]

I'll have a look at those later today or tomorrow. Any textbook recommendations you might have?

[Ryan Jobson]

http://www.amazon.ca/Mixing-Secrets-Small-Studio-Senior/dp/0240815807

Take everything in moderation. Books are great. Online articles are great (sound on sound is fantastic). Forums are excellent. Video tutorials are good too.

The most important thing I think is just SPENDING MANY MANY HOURS WORKING IN YOUR DAW.

Also, read the part of this wiki page that talks about the 10,000 hour rule:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)

Edited January 15, 2014 by Ryan Jobson

[Meteo Xavier]

I know this, I've been working on this for 10 years, but I spent those 10 years doing it with whatever I could figure out and find on my own on limited means with a quasi-learning disability. As such, I'm experienced and competent at making tracks, but I'm missing so many fundamentals that I need to take what I've got and apply it to a focused and proper foundation to really do it right.

I meant to focus this particular topic into textbooks and organized written material as that's something I don't see represented and shared here very often. I wasn't really trying to do another "how do I get good at doing music?" kinda thing.

That book looks pretty good, btw. That's what I'm talking about.

[Ryan Jobson]

Oh ok I see. I probably should have taken a glance under your name and seen the other information available which would have given me a much better idea of what you're capable of

[Meteo Xavier]

It's all good man, my accolades precede my actual skill compared to many other remixers here - even those well a decade younger than me. Thats why I'm bursting to get what shit I have together and re-build my music education with something focused and proper.

[Nabeel Ansari]

Though it may seem off-topic, Recording textbooks/curriculum will by effect teach good mixing. You may want to look into Recording books that focus on signal flow and types of devices, and when different things are used in what situation. You may also want to find books that are along the effect of "survey of modern production techniques".

The rest is just actually taking what you read and putting it into effect. You may want to find a book that will contain exercises for you to develop your ear to hear minute dB and frequency differences, so that you can actually tell when you need to change things.

http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Recording-Techniques-David-Miles/dp/0240821572

http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Production-Critical-Listening-Technical-ebook/dp/B00AYIKKO4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389829911&sr=1-1&keywords=audio+listening

These are my recommendations. Ignore the fact that you will be seeing things you probably already know the first few chapters, no good book (or series) doesn't start with the basics.

... how to use transitions and song dynamics to change up tracks, how to get songs sounding more lively, fun or emotional...

Believe it or not, music production and computer music books won't teach you these things very well. Study music theory (traditional theory), specifically focus on textural types and textural reduction. Try to get into the real nitty gritty (static support, harmonic rhythmic support, parallel support, etc.).

Edited January 15, 2014 by Neblix

[Meteo Xavier]

Neblix, your post there is excellent and I want you to know that.

I have seen some books around that talk about "Music Theory for Computer Musicians" or something like that. Wouldn't that fall under those categories? It seems odd to me that something wouldn't be a basic thing to discuss in most computer music books, but I've only ever seen two and I've barely cracked them open, so I have no reason to think it's false either...

Like this one: http://www.amazon.ca/Theory-Computer-Musicians-Michael-Hewitt/dp/1598635034/ref=pd_sim_b_6/186-8169589-8862642

[Nabeel Ansari]

I have a personal bias against learning things tailored to a specific setting (calculus "for physics", music theory "for computer music"), and would recommend learning theory from a regular music theory book and then applying the general concepts to a specific setting on your own. It is far more rewarding in the learning process, but that is just a personal opinion.

Learning music theory the traditional way has its benefits. The standard pedagogy teaches things through sheet music, and while that usually deters people discovering music composition through fiddling in DAW's, it really is a better way.

Music Theory is the most intuitive when the concepts are demonstrated on the staff. The piano roll displays things in raw pitches (I can make another post detailing all the things you will miss out on by learning it this way, if you'd like); intervals are not as obvious for example, and harmonic analysis, which is really important for understanding key modulations and accidentals, the real meat of writing interesting music, becomes way harder. In my personal opinion, learning music theory as its own discipline instead of as something directly connected to what you're doing in the DAW makes learning it much easier.

If you don't already play an instrument, I would suggest attempting to learn piano. Being exposed to classical piano pieces teaches you a lot about things I said above, modulations, accidentals, strange chords. After learning about texture (my professor says is the single most important word), take the theory learned through piano, expand on the texture, with rhythm and multiple instruments.

The idea is that even with huge ensembles, all of the voices in the entire song (bass, guitar, choir, piano, strings, whatever) playing through each pronounced chord (ignoring non-harmonic tones, which are notes outside the chord, mostly present in melodies) can be reduced (textural reduction) to a block chord. If you gain a mastery of texture and reduction, you should be able to arrange a song in any style, for any ensemble, be it solo piano or symphony orchestra, or rock band, by being able to mentally reduce songs to their basic important components and then recreating them with your own texture.

If you're skeptical, then try this. All the theory I was able to learn on my own in the 4 years before I started studying it in school, I realized that everything I learned was covered in about less than half a year of traditional music theory learning (try 15-20 weeks). It's just really painfully slow without subscribing to the tried and true way to learn it which has been around for decades, centuries even.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Neblix

[Nabeel Ansari]

Of course this is just theory, only a small portion of what you wanted in your OP. For synth techniques, sample usage, etc. I would suggest consulting a person/professional. There aren't a lot of published resources on the matter. Realistic and high quality productions coming from a home studio with virtual instruments only became a thing in the last few decades.

[Meteo Xavier]

I have and use a piano after several years of lessons on it, I just don't perform on it.

I've used traditional music theory books before (I thought I still had one somewhere?) but I actually need specific context based instruction, otherwise I typically don't get it. There's a much longer answer there, but it's not necessary here. I'm curious enough to want to see why a "music theory for computer music" book exists and what could be learned for that specific context.

[Nabeel Ansari]

That specific book is a way to introduce music theory to people who want to make music on the computer. It's not really any sort of special thing, with any special knowledge to be gained.

In other words, you most likely won't learn anything from it if you already know basic chords and scales. It seeks to try and reinvent an introduction to theory, using a piano roll instead of the staff. (again, this is a very bad idea and I'll explain why if you're curious)

It probably will not address modulations and texture, which is the next step in theory after learning basic chords and keys.

It does look like there are more books from that same writer or publisher, perhaps they do end up getting more intermediate theory in a future book, but honestly, judging by your music, I really would avoid that first one.

but I actually need specific context based instruction, otherwise I typically don't get it.

This is very common. Since you don't have a teacher, you need to have a very good book. It's fine to stay away from traditional theory if this is too much of an issue.

EDIT: I read the overview of this book's topics and it indeed is just a basic survey-style introduction. It teaches you a bunch of chord types, a bunch of scales, and some basic rhythm it seems. What's missing here is the horizontal movement of music. It doesn't talk about phrasing, harmonic movement, or voice leading (a key concept in writing the most harmonious music possible). Texture is the most important tool of a composer, and texture is as much horizontal behavior of music (notes changing over time) as it is vertical behavior (chord structures, voicings, density, inversions)

I think higher level music theory demonstrated through piano roll examples would be a good idea as an extra, but I don't think the staff examples should be abandoned. It is a drag, I know, I hated sheet music and still kinda do. But concepts are easier to explain on sheet music than in the piano roll. For instance:

If I have a pitch playing on the frequency of C, and a pitch playing the frequency of D#/Eb, is this an augmented second or a minor third? Is C and F#/Gb a diminished fifth or an augmented fourth? Does your key have Cb or B? These distinctions are essentially lost in a piano roll because there is only one way to represent the pitch of D#/Eb, it is the black key between the D and E white keys. Argument has it that these distinctions are useless since they don't affect the sound, but in order to really appreciate and understand exotic chords, scales, modes, altered modes, and the like, you should be able to understand altered scale degrees, the difference between a flat and a sharp of adjacent notes, and not just think of everything like patterns of half steps and whole steps (this is a really painful way to write music, and until I learned staff key signatures this is how I used to do things). It is literally impossible to show you the better way of these things with piano roll examples, because just like with hearing, C + D# and C + Eb are perceived exactly the same way.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Neblix

[Nabeel Ansari]

I don't really have much else to offer other than explaining further why the piano roll is poor for learning theory. I can go into that if you'd like, but seeing as how staff theory is too disconnected for you to learn, it's not going to help you out much anyway, so you might as well put up with whatever resources show you things in the piano roll.

Good luck.

[Meteo Xavier]

Well, let's bring the topic back full circle on textbooks. What titles do you recommend for music theory that goes into good detail on textures and texture reduction? Preferably not a 400 page hardcore tome, but I also understand availability there might be limited if it exists at all.

[Nabeel Ansari]

Well, let's bring the topic back full circle on textbooks. What titles do you recommend for music theory that goes into good detail on textures and texture reduction? Preferably not a 400 page hardcore tome, but I also understand availability there might be limited if it exists at all.

I was about to recommend you my textbook, but the page count is a problem (416). It's a big book, and I'm not going to lie, I haven't seen a lot of different books.

Texture starts at Chapter 7, but there is content beforehand that's also helpful, such as cadences and phrasing. Fair warning, if you don't read staff a lot, this is going to hit you pretty hard. Your past piano lessons should help you. Even if you don't want to write in sheet, if you can identify notes on the staff quickly (so you can tell what arrangements of notes make what chords), you'll be fine.

Also, the content leading up to texture in this book is also all taught online on a website called musictheory.net . It is a bunch of click through lessons in theory that sure, uses the staff, but it also has a bunch of sound clip examples to clearly show you how what it is showing you connects to what you're hearing. Use this website as a companion for WHATEVER theory textbook you end up wanting (if you end up trying it). It's more interactive and has practice apps (for instance, it plays a chord, you have to tell it what kind of chord, things like that).

Also, I apologize because I realize this is NOT what you were looking for when you made the OP, but please realize, music composition and music production are two VERY different things. There are loads and loads of resources and materials studying these two things separately, because in reality, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Asking for a book to do the job of both of these disciplines is a large project, and even if one exists, you should expect a large page count.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Neblix

[Meteo Xavier]

I understand. It's not so much the size of the individual book I'd be weary about, it's the grand total of how much reading and digesting I'd have to do and keep track of is where I start getting weak. I wouldn't mind an 800 page tome if I felt it could do the job easier for me than 1200 combined pages across 4-5 other books.

So this textbook you have - does it present its music theory in a context designed to teach you how to compose? Like, could I read this and apply its exercises while I'm in FL Studio (the lack of piano roll is not a problem, I can read most staff pretty well) or is it straight-up theory that I'm supposed to figure out how to carry over to application?

I'm not sure if that question comes across as specific as I want to, so I'll put in an allegory - think of it like, if we were discussing martial arts strength building guides, I would ask if your book recommendation is designed to show me exercises I apply directly to martial arts training, or if it's just weight-lifting without any reference to how I use martial arts.

Hopefully that makes sense.

[Nabeel Ansari]

Are you asking if a theory textbook will teach you how to write a good song, or are you asking if the things you will see describedin a theory textbook will help you write a good song?

What people fail to realize is that "Music Theory" does not in specificity facilitate writing music. Rather, it presents a way to reform the way you think about music (theoretically, instead of "MAGIC!"). It is important to realize that when composers do special things, it is not from their intent to do something theoretically complex; it is from their intent to make something sound the way they want it. It may come from deliberate exploitation of theory they already know, or it may be an accident. From a Music Theory standpoint, that "accident" is analyzed and then the new knowledge gained is adopted into and becomes part of music theory. This textbook is a straight-up music theory textbook. However, after learning about phrasing, voicing, etc. I started listening to music differently. Especially in video game music, it actually gave me pretty crystal clear reasons for why "this melody sounds great!" vs. "this melody sounds... okay...". I even went on to give some tips to someone in the WiP forum who was writing a main melody, and they were much more pleased with their end result after taking my advice. Could be an isolated case, but it works for me, could work for you too.

Theory is more of an accumulation of observation and reflection on music that has already been written than it is a set of processes or routines used to write music. After becoming familiar with texture and reduction, it's up to the composer to expose himself to analyzing pieces of music that he deems useful, or in other words, does things and evokes emotions that he also wants to do and evoke in his own music. I personally like looking at specifically homophonic piano music, which consists of a main melody and harmonic/rhythmic support. This is what people like Mozart and Chopin did very well, it is also what Koji Kondo and Nobuo Uematsu did well. This is the most common type of musical texture; pretty much all modern music follows this definition but there are instances when composers call on others.

TL;DR You can sit in FL Studio and write out the examples they give you into the piano roll, and you can also sit in FL Studio and try implementing the multitudes of tricks they're going to label for you, but the only way to learn how to write good music is to analyze other music that you deem good. Learning music theory gives you a very comprehensive and reliable way to do that, but the quick answer is: only implicitly will you learn how to write music.

Honestly, I would not ever recommend learning strict composition from a book. You will undoubtedly get pigeon-holed into writing a specific way. This is why even in academics, with teachers, aspiring student composers need to research their professors before committing to a school or a teacher, because if you don't think much special of the person who is teaching you how to write music, they aren't going to enjoy what they're learning, and they're not going to end up writing things theyanted to learn how to write.

If you want to look more at "composition books" instead of music theory (theory is not for everyone, I understand), I have no recommendations and I hope someone other than me will chime in at this point. Just make sure if you get a recommendation, you research the author's music, make sure you like it and become comfortable with the fact that your music will sound like his. Also, I apologize for the length of my posts, I literally get off to ranting about theory and how useful it is.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Neblix

[timaeus222]

music composition and music production are two VERY different things. There are loads and loads of resources and materials studying these two things separately, because in reality, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Asking for a book to do the job of both of these disciplines is a large project, and even if one exists, you should expect a large page count.

Ironically, I'm working on exactly that right now. I'm not actually going to cover advanced theory, but instead, I'll simplify the theory into the resultant concept plus some very basic theory, broken down into subjects such as flow (natural/awkward feel), realism (accuracy to how a real instrument can capably play, nothing to do with articulations, keyswitches, etc.), sensibility (harmonic sense/awkwardness? logical sequence of intervals?), etc. Obviously I wouldn't then explain why it works by way of rigid music theory, but I'd generalize it and only use the most accessible concepts of music theory so that even those who don't know music theory at all can "catch up" and eventually get the hang of it based on example, practice, and muscle memory. Since I won't be explicitly using advanced music theory to explain logical arrangements, I think it'll leave more room for flexibility than if I did, and it won't encourage a "restricted" way of composing.

Speaking of examples, come to think of it, having actual chapter problems in the book wouldn't be a bad idea.

Just make sure if you get a recommendation, you research the author's music, make sure you like it and become comfortable with the fact that your music will sound like his[/hers].

I'm assuming you mean in production quality and arrangement tendencies. If it were production quality and arrangement style, then you're not really differentiating yourself from that person. (Tendency is like sensibility, flow, etc. in your notes, while style is like genre [which restricts the arrangement tendencies even more], in this context.)

Thankfully, I'll stick to writing with humble wording for the book, so that the reader will only take in that which they agree with, and whatever they agree with will usually be a concept, not a specific example. I'm sure you agree that understanding the underlying concept of something gives more flexibility and less rigidity than understanding how to carry out that specific case, because then that concept can be reapplied in other contexts.

Edited January 17, 2014 by timaeus222

[Meteo Xavier]

I literally get off to ranting about theory and how useful it is.

And this image will remain with me until one week after my dying day.

I may need to pass on that textbook for now then. If I'm going to spend $100 on a tome without a class set up for it, I should do better with something that teaches composition in practice. I doubt I'll ever be working on a project that demands high level of music theory on it anyway.

Any recommendations for good, fundamental or intermediate composition learning then?

[Nabeel Ansari]

I'm assuming you mean in production quality and arrangement tendencies. If it were production quality and arrangement style, then you're not really differentiating yourself from that person. (Tendency is like sensibility, flow, etc. in your notes, while style is like genre [which restricts the arrangement tendencies even more], in this context.)

I do not mean anything dealing with production quality. Writing music is a completely separate task from creating a production, and I would never expect to learn production from a composer; it's not, metaphorically (and I guess in most cases literally), "what I'm paying for".

Since I won't be explicitly using advanced music theory to explain logical arrangements, I think it'll leave more room for flexibility than if I did, and it won't encourage a "restricted" way of composing.

If you read my post again with great care, I already explained why this is a flawed perception of what music theory is. I guess putting it as succinctly as possible, music theory is not how to write music, it's how to analyze it. People think that its intent is to teach you how to write music (they perceive the statement "the V chord leads to the I chord" as "they're telling me to follow the V chord with the I chord and I don't want to because I am a rebel", then they quit learning it, grab their electric guitar and twang their hands on it, saying "there are no rules in music!!1!!1"

If they understood how profoundly correct that statement is, but in the wrong context, it would open their skillset very much so.

Anyways, my rambling has met its end of usefulness. I'll leave the thread now.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Neblix

[Eino Keskitalo]

they perceive the statement "the V chord leads to the I chord" as "they're telling me to follow the V chord with the I chord and I don't want to because I am a rebel", then they quit learning it, grab their electric guitar and twang their hands on it, saying "there are no rules in music!!1!!1"

..that's me 15 years ago.. how did you.. what.. !?!

If they understood how profoundly correct that statement is, but in the wrong context, it would open their skillset very much so.

Trying to make up for lost time!

--Eino

[timaeus222]

I do not mean anything dealing with production quality. Writing music is a completely separate task from creating a production, and I would never expect to learn production from a composer; it's not, metaphorically (and I guess in most cases literally), "what I'm paying for".

Right; I just meant as a side-by-side situation. You can't have a composition already finished in a studio without the production to go alongside it, but I can see how you mean that the production quality, if not taught, will be up to the reader, but the decisions may or may not be similar. i.e. If you write in the same genre/style as the author, production decisions may naturally adhere to those that are common to the genre/style.

If you read my post again with great care, I already explained why this is a flawed perception of what music theory is. I guess putting it as succinctly as possible, music theory is not how to write music, it's how to analyze it. People think that its intent is to teach you how to write music (they perceive the statement "the V chord leads to the I chord" as "they're telling me to follow the V chord with the I chord and I don't want to because I am a rebel", then they quit learning it, grab their electric guitar and twang their hands on it, saying "there are no rules in music!!1!!1"

I did, actually, and I saw how you said that. What I said was emphasizing how music theory is essentially the "method to the madness" (derived from Hamlet, by the way) and explains why something makes sense. If you learn music theory to analyze music though, no matter what level of theory, it would at least help you learn how not to write theoretically incorrect music. For example, and you would already know this, if you understand the resultant logic on how some sort of melodic line works, or something like that, you can construct a line of similar effectiveness, but doesn't necessarily have to be similar in structure. Of course, there are exceptions, like atonal music from people like Edgar Varese or Arnold Schönberg, that don't seem to follow theory, but that's not exactly common. I actually don't know as much music theory as I need to in order to explain why I do things a certain way, so that's why I said I would rather explain them in a simplified manner. Edited January 17, 2014 by timaeus222

[Radiowar]

Of course, there are exceptions, like atonal music from people like Edgar Varese or Arnold Schönberg, that don't seem to follow theory, but that's not exactly common.

sorry to nitpick - especially since i think we are in agreement about useful application of theory - but schoenberg and the particular strain of modernism he instigated is an aesthetic based almost entirely on a robust theoretical approach (which is to say that every value is accounted for). as someone who spent way too much time identifying tone row transformations, i couldnt let that statement just sit there

i think that generally it is not helpful to think of the validity of music as the extent to which it upholds theoretical models. put another way, i generally prefer to think of music theory as a set of rules similar to grammatical rules in language. it is a type of analysis, as neblix said, but more broadly it is a way of interpreting meaning, which means that it is necessarily a way of creating meaning. this is why we have the cliché that "you need to learn the rules in order to break them" - breaking the rules can render a piece of music incoherent, but breaking the rules in a particular way can also create an effect which bolsters the intended meaning. a literary parallel which comes to mind would be the works of james joyce, or e.e. cummings, for example.

to bring it back around to the op, this might be a situation where meteo xavier is asking for theory to do too much. i dont know of any textbook which would help specifically with getting "samples to sound more realistic" (assuming you mean utilizing samples idiomatically and not somehow improving or obscuring low-resolution samples), though if you are interested in learning more about classical instrumentation, for example, there are books like adler's study of orchestration which is about as detailed an overview of common practices you could find outside of learning all instruments individually. for questions of signal processing, a book like hodgson's "understanding records" provides a decent overview of music production theory related to a number of popular genres and styles.

as for questions of popular forms ("how to use transitions and dynamics to change up tracks") this is an area which is, in my opinion, simultaneously complex and simple. it can be difficult to truly codify form in pop music which is continuously evolving and changing (or otherwise resists codification), and yet it is not difficult at all to speak about form in broad terms since pop music rarely strays from generic AABA or verse-chorus structures (this is true not only of rock music, but some forms of edm as well - especially as the distinction between edm and pop continues to blur). you could approach a study of form from two points of view: a study of formal models of classical music (not because of any "intellectual superiority" of classical music, but that it is simply the repertoire for which the most developed theoretical models exist) which would improve your understanding how form can work generally to create meaning; or, for a more focused approach to specific styles, i would recommend something like the wire magazine, or tiny mix tapes, which is to say publications which explore specific styles on an individual level, though are necessarily more of a sociological approach rather than strict modelling.

[Meteo Xavier]

Ok guys, this is really much more complicated and lacking focus than I would have liked for this topic. Please argue about the hardcore academics of music theory in one of the many other topics we have here on that subject.

While there had been some good recommendations, the impression I seem to be getting at this moment is "despite the fact that I haven't seen many music textbooks, I can tell you the ones you're looking for don't seem to exist", you might understand why I find that logic confusing. I really struggle to think, in 20 years or more years of computer music, nobody's taken all the things you can find in all the how-to snippets online and organized them in a cohesive way. Particularly as I own two of them that I know do it for very specific purposes.

My own questions and questing aside, I'd like to refocus this back onto recommendations for practical written, published, guides and sources for musicians like us. I'd prefer recommendations for beginner-intermediate level stuff that covers a lot of questions remixers and those wanting to be remixers and starting-level VGM composers typically ask here, if you know of any.

I myself would probably not be above something like this: http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Music-Composition/dp/1592574033/ref=pd_sim_b_4. Has anyone read or looked at this one?