Thanks for watching and commenting. Yes, I learned some of these concepts through the study of music theory. Others are my own ideas that generalize contemporary film music practice. As for melodies, I don't know of any comparably easy and atomistic methods for making melodies that are particularly cinematic. But I recommend that you take a look at a relevant and recent study here: www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.16.22.1/mto.16.22.1.richards.html.
I love your videos, very inspirational. I went ahead and made midi files for each chord interval. The link below is technical, but a gold mine. Thanks Do you have a 3rd video in you?
Oh my goodness, how generous of you to SHARE this journal article (I consumed it completely right away, then went looking at the Journal Of Music Theory for more great entries like this. THANKS again, Scott :-)
As someone that just started learning music theory and the piano, I'd like to say that this is mindblowing. Fits my programmer's head and my engineering tastes perfectly. I'll try to write a tool/mini-game to play around with this.
If you want to learn the actual music theory, read Richard Cohn's Audacious Euphony. This particular Batman/Inception is called the "slide" in neo-Riemannian theory. It happens in measure 8 of Chopin's op. 9 no. 1 nocturne. The arpeggiation and melody kind of obscures it but you have a Gb minor (with a dissonant 6th above) going to to F major (that 6th becomes the 7th making a dominant 7th chord). A B double flat becomes reinterpreted as an A natural in the next chord even though it's the same note. You probably need to learn all the normal beginner music theory first but from a programmer/engineering standpoint you'd probably like the Tonnentz and all of the Riemannian functions.
dont be shy about "nerd stuff" like the connection of inverted cities and the music. hans zimmer might actually have done that on purpose and even if not the find is still amazing. i can see how you try to keep it simple to not lose the audience but that stuff is genius so keep it poppin.
That circular pattern makes me think of visualising octaves as a spiral pattern. Each layer in the spiral being adjacent to it's matching note in a different octave, but it's all one continuous thing. Both circular and linear at once.
@@hiphop4eva374 I think I just thought it was a good video. I don't really remember. I'd suggest checking out Andrew Huang's music theory overview video
I have recently taken up composing on MuseScore - a LOT! Your description of film chord progression really inspired me to use these ideas. One commenters asked if normal music theory wouldn't have been better. Your answer is exactly right. By going to chromatic counts, one does not need to deal with minor 3rds and such. Besides, anyone who knows the language of music theory can translate quickly. Those who have no idea what music theory is can just have fun! Thanks again!
Pure brilliance - and a good reason why music and math are often complementary skills. Everything makes sense, if you have the right guide to explain the relationships between points or numbers. J.S. Bach and Scott Murphy, masters of the relationships that comprise music.
Sjoerd Flameling - Maybe not for music theory, but you have a way of explaining it combined with clean graphics that make it such easy to explain to other people. I wanted to explain chord scales and chord voicing to a friend who didn't know a thing about modes. I used your graphic approach to using the root note as "the root". From your video tutorials it's clear that you put a lot of work into your script, microphone, voice over, graphics, editing... a million little details that make something great. You wouldn't have a need to make a video tutorial about quantum chromodynamics or some other complex topic that could use your touch? Anyway, your theory tutorials are great. Thanks for making them.
I must say your videos really simplified music theory for me in a way that for some reason never clicked to me before and I've studied music a long time. Keep up the good work!!
Okay. I know this video has been around a while. But as a person who is dusting off his piano and meager piano/ music training for the first time in ages to try and imitate and even perhaps play around with creating my own “film music” these two videos are incredible. Thank you!
Thank you, Scott very much for this vid and the previous related one! I think you did a great job on it. I think you were well-spoken, relatable and entertaining. You’ve helped give me a different way of looking at music, understanding & relating to it and more tools to wrangle it to do what I want in making up my own stuff while learning from & building on others. 😁
This is brilliant and so easy! Anyone can have fun playing/plinking on the piano and keyboard now. Why don't they teach this is elementary school? It could really help kids discover the joy of music.
Hey man I know theory and I think these videos are great! Everyone learns differently and if these videos open up the doors of music to people then I'm all for it. Great job Scott!
I personally like the idea of drawing more analogs. A lot of people think in math terms so it might make some of the music theory gel up once they do move on.
This is a really great video but I just wanted to say that clocks work the same in basically every place. Months however work different depending on which calendar you use.
Thanks for this. I do some composing, and I've had some music theory, but this was really helpful. Could you do a vid about how the timbre of instruments can effect how things sound and feel? That's a big part of how film music sounds like it does.
Excellente idée, de repérer ces progressions d'accord et ce que cela nous inspire. Vidéo géniale, merci beaucoup ! Vous en avez d'autres comme celle-là ?
I don't know if this is complicating or simplifying voice leading. For those who can't read sheet music it's probably simplifying but I feel like using sheet music would be far more simple for explaining this
Good issues to raise! First, I would say that this approach actually complicates voice leading: that is, the way a note in one chord connects with, or "leads" to, a note in an adjacent chord, such that the two notes are in the same "part" or "voice." If I wanted to make the voice leading simpler, I could have used an alternative labeling system, but then the label itself would likely be more complicated. Second, yes, using traditional music notation would have made this easier, but I designed this approach to include those unfamiliar with traditional music notation among those who might benefit from it.
Sheet music? Nah, that's like a Chinese saying the lesson should be in Mandarim because ideograms are easier to understand than letters. As chaotic as it is, I think the piano layout is the clearest way to teach the whys on 12-TET music theory, even if it doesn't automatically translate that easily to other instruments like flutes for guitars.
Wow, you are really angry. But that is your responsibility. Art and music are so intertwined, and carry this stigma, that you must be become initiated to even practice it. I mention art, because music is not the only institution that is utilizing the work of less technically precise, in favor of more creativity. Go and have a look at concept art for some of the blockbuster movies--the majority of them now were NOT 100% painted. There is something called, "Photobashing" that is used everywhere now. Just like DAWs, Photoshop has added tools that can make things unbelievably easy. So much so, that you can take some high resolution images from google, and make that art you will see in the next coffee table book. But there is a stipulation..the artist still needs to be an artist. These people still have to have an eye; in music, an ear, and talent to even be able to make it work. Granted, the better trained artist will make a more TECHNICALLY PRECISE piece of art, but that's not always called for.
Ah, yes, the common ploy when you have no rebuttal. Thanks anyway. Enjoy all the wasted years, money, and education. After looking at YOUR channel, you seem like nothing more than a disgruntled composer who never actually got anything out of all that training. A composer who has talent (or works hard) is making a good living and has no time to troll. While you are mad, and tearing others down, you are under the impression that you need to write a concerto, instead of just writing a score. This is nothing different than writing code. Companies don't want overthought, convoluted code, they clean, and elegant.
Just watched a couple of the vids Scott and they are great to get people fooling around with extensions. Then creating melodies, but learning voice leading is the only way to properly create harmony that allows a soaring theme that both pleases in the original setting, but can then develop for the type of piece required, film, ballet, absolute, concerto, interlude, etc.. A great video series would be to take Sondheim and analyze how the progressions and rhythms work to create the melody. Yes, he does it the other way now and then, but it;s the only way Lloyd Webber knows..... Also, the Wrath of Khan score is a great way to show the melody using the extensions and then moving step-wise through the modulations with an only slightly altered series.
thank you so much for sharing. you should do many of such videos! It helps so many people. I could make my first full Melody and therefore an entire 4 minute Composition because of knowing this and a few more!
As someone with a good understanding of music, but who hasn't taken theory and has vision issues that prevent me from reliably reading sheet music (without being an inch away from said sheet music), this sort of thing is really helpful. It could be explained in easier ways, yes, but I do get the concept and how the chords relate to each other. Explains a lot of what I've been doing by ear and enables that to be more consistent. Thanks for the videos!
You really liked including the Inception jokes with the pictures flipping over didn't you haha Great video btw, I'm gonna be composing music for a short film I'm making using these steps
while I love your insights into film music across these videos and it's given me a lot to work with (for which I praise and thank you greatly, senpai) I just want to share this one bit of feedback: this particular game of mathematics seems like an extremely convoluted way of teaching what would be a lot easier to describe with just some basic musical theory concepts. I get that this is aimed at people who probably don't want to use theory but the system looks like it would take so much time to work out for more complex pieces of music, that a part of me wonders, what's the point when I could learn the same things through a more ubiquitous language of theory. At least that would be a more transferable language when it comes to other musical projects. I just wonder, would it not be better to just explain the theory concepts as and when is needed, and just express it in a non-intimidating, accessible way? the mathematics lover in me is delighted at what you do here. the teacher in me sees it as a fish instead of a fishing rod. But anyways I love your work all the same, thank you for making this and sharing :)
CAUTION: Long comment, and potentially dubious analogy, below! If I were to share, for example, the harmonic progression I call “M8M” with my university music students, using what is a more ubiquitous language of theory, I would instead describe it as a juxtaposition of I and bVI (flat-VI). This use of Roman numerals to label chords is a basic and widespread convention, and one I would rely upon to communicate this concept to my students. However, my “MnM” approach is actually no more mathematical than the Roman-numeral approach, although its Arabic numerals may make it appear so. In each case, one is measuring intervals both to build the two chords and to calculate the distance between the two chords. Whereas my approach uses as its primary “musical ruler” all twelve notes of the octave -- the “chromatic scale” -- the Roman-numeral approach uses as its primary musical ruler a certain seven notes of the octave -- the “major scale,” or, more generally, the “diatonic scale.” One must know this scale for something like bVI to make sense, but one doesn’t need to know it for something like M8M to make sense. To adapt Sean Bent’s metaphor, making music using the “M8M” label is a bit like preparing the fish you pick up in the frozen-food section, which is all cleaned and seasoned, with cooking instructions on the box: no special anatomical knowledge or culinary skills required. Making music using the “I-bVI-I” label is more like being solely responsible for the fish from fishing rod to dining table: you need to know how to gut, fillet, flavor, and cook it. The Roman-numeral approach is a highly versatile and robust system of measurement. For example, by putting bVI, VI, and vi in the same basic category of chords (they are all essentially “six” chords), we can show that, in a lot of diatonic music, all three of these chords behave in similar ways (that is, they tend to come before “four” or “two” chords). My “MnM” labeling system does not inherently treat these three chords as categorically similar -- the Arabic numeral might be 8 or 9 (!) -- and thus fails to model this typical behavior. But, these videos are not concerned with such musical behaviors, as important and common as they are in Western music. Rather, they focus on a set of peculiar harmonic progressions that are customarily called “chromatic,” where the distinction between, say, M8M and M9M is crucial, but they are usually described with diatonic labels nonetheless. To a true newcomer to music, learning these progressions in particular via the conventional Roman-numeral route can, to paraphrase Yogi Berra, turn things around 360 degrees: -- First, one must learn the major scale -- whole step, whole step, half step, whole step, whole step, whole step, half step - whose diatonic steps are built upon chromatic measurements: a half step equals one step in the chromatic scale, and a whole step comprises two steps in the chromatic scale. -- Second, to compute of the “six” part of “flat-six,” one combines the first five (one less than six) diatonic steps in the major scale: whole step + whole step + half step + whole step + whole step. -- Third, to compute the “flat” part of “flat-six,” one subtracts a half step from this combination, giving us whole step + whole step + half step + whole step + whole step - half step. -- Fourth, I translate these diatonic spans back into chromatic sizes: whole step + whole step + half step + whole step + whole step - half step = 2 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 2 - 1 = 8. Now, for those practiced musicians already familiar with the major scale, Roman numerals, and flats and sharps, these steps are figured out pretty quickly. But, for newcomers, I imagine that simply being given the number 8, without the diatonic runaround, would be helpful. You might think that this expediency is just wrong; analogously, some think the same about frozen prepared fish in a box. And that's fine if you do. However, consider for a moment how much these peculiar progressions actually require diatonic culinary skills in order to be well understood, concocted, and savored. Maybe they are more like apples: less prep required. Of course, that doesn’t mean you can’t bake a pie with them.
Scott Murphy - very good. I do believe some will find an approach in this that works for them. It's great to have different perspectives for different people to drift to. At the end of the day it's all about making music more accessible. Well done. Your analogy seems fair to me so you'll find no argument from me :D One last thought from me though: it's interesting that this is a video designed to guide people without the use of musical "theory". But one could argue there's plenty of musical theory in this. Only it's not in the conventional language of Western musical theory. It's more like your own language, maybe even your own "theory of music" though I'd be careful with such a label. If that's the case it would seem the use of some kind of theory of music is inevitable when communicating a musical idea. Even if you want to reduce it to "these fingers play these notes together and that makes an A major chord" - my own feeling is this would be part of a grander whole, a musical theory which describes how different sounds are made via combinations of finger placements. Would you agree that no teaching of music is truly void of a theory on the nature of music or a theory on the nature of a music making object? I think most people will understand that when you say "without musical theory" or something similar, it means without the conventional language they might tire of hearing. So the question is really just an interesting diversion for me. :p
Scott Murphy - very good. I do believe some will find an approach in this that works for them. It's great to have different perspectives for different people to drift to. At the end of the day it's all about making music more accessible. Well done. Your analogy seems fair to me so you'll find no argument from me :D One last thought from me though: it's interesting that this is a video designed to guide people without the use of musical "theory". But one could argue there's plenty of musical theory in this. Only it's not in the conventional language of Western musical theory. It's more like your own language, maybe even your own "theory of music" though I'd be careful with such a label. If that's the case it would seem the use of some kind of theory of music is inevitable when communicating a musical idea. Even if you want to reduce it to "these fingers play these notes together and that makes an A major chord" - my own feeling is this would be part of a grander whole, a musical theory which describes how different sounds are made via combinations of finger placements. Would you agree that no teaching of music is truly void of a theory on the nature of music or a theory on the nature of a music making object? I think most people will understand that when you say "without musical theory" or something similar, it means without the conventional language they might tire of hearing. So the question is really just an interesting diversion for me. :p
Of course this is music theory without the conventional language. Oftentimes the form is more important than the content, and the form of musical conventions is often intimidating or simply stuffy. Some people don't want to be a professor of composition, they just want to know quick step-by-step guides to get a result. Would you recommend somebody spend 5 years studying electrical engineering if they just want to replace the light bulbs in their home?
I switched to headphones to hear the music a little better and was a little put off by the amount of mouth sounds. You might be able to minimize them by backing away from the mic and speaking a little more loudly to compensate. I have a feeling you've set up the gain based on trying to minimize background hum... a pre-amp and cardiod mic can help in that regard if you're not already set up that way.
Wow super cool - explaining it that way is revolutionary. @9:15 there's a small glitch in the animation. On the background keyboard at the bottom the highest black Bb-key is missing. This fact is 'covered' as long the green Bb highlight overlay-key 'sits' there. When transition starts/ is finished it's revealed. Please fix care about in case you re-render the video.
Since you are using an aritmetical aproach to music theory, wich I think its the most comprensive way to introduce newcomers to composition, i sugest you to check out Julian Carrillo's numeric notation for music, that would make even richer this kind of videos and more easy to understand melody for the non-musician comunity.
Your notation highlights how piano-centric Western theory is. I teach group guitar at a middle school, and on fretted instruments, it's always obvious anytime we do anything that we are dealing with 12 tones in an octave. Even calling it an octave is intuitively weird since the 8 notes (actually 7) have to do with the white piano keys, which have to do with Western tonality, which is all counter-intuitive to the guitar fretboard, which gives us 12 tones of no particular prominence. (Ok, E might be prominent in standard tuning, but it's not like it's all the white keys, and E is only prominent if the guitar is tuned to make it so.) Moving up two of these tones is called the 2nd, four is the 3rd (which is a second above the root), and five is a 4th? I can't even properly call them tones because they're called semitones in Western theory, but if they are "semi-," what are they a division of? Whole tones? Why do whole tones have a position of prominence when they simply mean an interval of two of the fundamental tones? (A whole tone scale certainly doesn't enjoy a place of prominence in Western music.) I realize that the 12-tone chromatic scale is itself a feature of Western music (as opposed to maqams, for example), but the entire Western vocabulary of melody and harmony is defined by how something deviates from the white keys on the piano, which treat the major scale as fundamental rather than the chromatic scale. Middle C is the prominent key. All the white keys make up the C-major scale, as well as all the modes off the C major scale. If you want to play in another key, you have to make notation at the beginning of every staff explaining how your key differs (in sharps or flats) from the white keys on the piano. The key signature does not specify the key; it specifies the notes in the key that are different from the white keys, and the musical notes that follow are charted as if they were the white keys anyway. We only have seven named notes: A-G. What sense does it make to give F# a borrowed name appended with a sharp sign? It looks no more or less important than any other note on a fretted instrument, but it's note one of the white keys. As a rock bassist, I play F# all the time. It's the first note in Radar Love. It's where I sit during the verses. It's part of the D major triad. I can't play a walking bass line in E (the most popular blues key) without F#. How do you explain that to a kid without getting lost in a theory that doesn't make sense on their instrument? (BTW, while I'm working with my students, the band/orchestra teacher is also in the room, and he will likely have to deal with the consequences of how I teach some of these concepts. So, no pressure! :P ) In the US, k-12 schools don't teach music with any uniformity, if at all. The first exposure kids get to theory is often when they learn an instrument. If that instrument is a guitar, Western theory makes very little sense. It's odd to me that Western theory would seem so alien on such a Western instrument. If not Western theory, then at least Western nomenclature and notation.
Beautifully done!😁👍👍 you're so inspirational to listen to, especially with your cute humor. 😜 thank you for posting this (and the first part) I always enjoyed the flowing arpeggios; they were always part of the warm-up, right after the gammas and staccato chords every time before the piano lesson. If that makes any sense to anyone...lol 🙌 🎹 👐 I think your video would inspire not only people which are musically inclined and/or like to count, but the ones that have never laid a finger on the keyboard in their lives, because they would see how easily it could be done, so perhaps they will try playing piano for the first time. You're Awesome! Mad props! Bravissimo! 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 W💖RK L💗VE
THAT WAS FREAKING IMPRESSIVE, i was like omg ive heard this second sound before...and then you do the Eiffel switch thing and im like omg inception!!!!!....now i understand why ive always felt 'Man of steel - flight' and 'Man of steel if you love these people' sound inverted even tho almost no ones notices!!???
Great Scott! (Sounds like a line from an old Superman comic) That's about 4 years of music school I never got to have rolled into two fabulous videos. Question: what software are you using to move all those graphics around like that. I'm starting to publish online and I need guidance, if you will. Thanks again Scott, you rock! Madison
This is awesome! Do you know of any articles or other materials that build on this idea? I've often thought it is similar to neo-riemannian theory, but everything I've read on neo-riemannian theory seems unnecessarily complicated and impractical.
Murphy's system is adapted from NRT. For instance, the M11m is essentially David Lewin's Slide operation (or as Russian theorists called it: the common third relation).
anyone else notice how the black and white corresponded with the months with 31 days @ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-W1DK4m2tuiw.html?
Man I cannot thank you enough for these videos. My mind is blown. I've been trying to teach myself music theory, and you just very simply explained so many concepts I've been struggling with. Thanks so much and keep up the great work!
Ancient Babylonian roots of both calendars (based on the Zodiac, which in turn is based on geometry) and music (which is also based on mathematics of ratios and geometry). If you want one more cool fact regarding that: Take a weight (e.g. a rock) and attach it to a string of exactly 1 meter long. When you let it swing freely, it will take precisely 1 second of time for each swing (left to right, or right to left). There's also an interesting connection between kilometres and miles, which turns out to be the golden ratio.
Start on F chromatically, F=Jan, F#=Feb etc and the above is true. It also work on your knuckles: all are 31 days, and between your knuckles is 30 (or less for Feb) days.
If you start on A chromatically, and count both a white key and a black key for February (since it has neither 30 nor 31 days in it) it works. Yes this means A counts as December/January. But it works. If you start at the left counting years, middle C is in an octave with leap year.
Very nice professor Murphy. However, you are implying their is an earlier video that you had made and this is adding more steps to that first video. If I am understanding this right. Can you mention the name of it? I can't seem to find it.Thanks!
